The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAddendum to Citrus Heights North Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report CITY OF FONTANA CITRUS WEST PROJECT ADDENDUM TO THE CITRUS HEIGHTS NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH # 2003111125) June 2022 Prepared By: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 3880 Lemon Street, Suite 420 Riverside, CA 92501 This page intentionally left blank. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Table of Contents June 2022 Page i Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Purpose of the Addendum .......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Resource Topics ............................................................. 2 1.4 Document Review Process .......................................................................................................... 2 1.5 Determination ............................................................................................................................. 2 2.0 Project Description .............................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Description of Original Project .................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Location, Setting, and Land Use and Zoning ............................................................................... 4 2.3 Project Overview ......................................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Proposed Environmental Review/Addendum .......................................................................... 10 2.5 Approvals Requested As Part of The Project ............................................................................ 10 3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis Summary......................................................................................... 27 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis for the Citrus West Project ............................................................. 29 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Analysis ............................................................................................... 31 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................................... 31 Agriculture and Forestry REsources .................................................................................................. 36 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................................... 40 Biological Resources .......................................................................................................................... 58 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................ 76 Energy ................................................................................................................................................ 84 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................................. 91 Greenhouse gas Emissions ................................................................................................................ 98 Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................................................................... 123 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................................... 128 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................................... 135 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................................... 138 Noise................................................................................................................................................ 140 Population and Housing .................................................................................................................. 165 Public Services ................................................................................................................................. 167 Citrus West Project City of Fontana Table of Contents June 2022 Page ii Recreation ....................................................................................................................................... 171 Transportation ................................................................................................................................ 172 Tribal Cultural REsources ................................................................................................................ 179 Utilities And Service Systems .......................................................................................................... 182 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................................ 186 6.0 Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation .................................................................... 189 7.0 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 193 8.0 References ....................................................................................................................................... 195 Tables Table 1: Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts ................................................................................... 5 Table 2: Project Summary ............................................................................................................................. 7 Table 3: Parking Requirements ..................................................................................................................... 9 Table 4: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds ........................................... 42 Table 5: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations ......................................................... 43 Table 6: Construction-Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)...................................................... 48 Table 7: Long-Term Operational Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day) .................................................. 49 Table 8: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates ................................................................................................ 52 Table 9: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day) ........................... 53 Table 10: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day) ........................... 54 Table 11: Cultural Resources and Reports Located within 0.5 Miles of the Project Site ............................ 78 Table 12: Project Consistency with the Infrastructure and Green Systems Element ................................. 88 Table 13: Description of Greenhouse Gases ............................................................................................. 100 Table 14: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................... 115 Table 15: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................... 116 Table 16: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency ....................... 117 Table 17: Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures ......................................... 118 Table 18: Typical Noise Levels ................................................................................................................... 141 Table 19: Definitions of Acoustical Terms................................................................................................. 141 Table 20: Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations ......................................................................................................................................................... 145 Table 21: Existing Traffic Noise Levels ...................................................................................................... 150 Table 22: Existing Noise Measurements ................................................................................................... 150 Citrus West Project City of Fontana Table of Contents June 2022 Page iv Citrus West City of Fontana Introduction June 2022 Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Addendum to the Citrus Heights North Specific Plan (CHNSP) Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR Addendum”) was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates (Kimley-Horn) for the City of Fontana (“City”) for the Citrus West Project (“Project”), located at the southeast portion of the CHNSP at the northwest corner of the intersection of Citrus Avenue and Summit Avenue in the northern portion of the City of Fontana (“City”), within San Bernardino County (“County”). The Project is located in Planning Area 12 (PA 12) of the CHNSP. This EIR Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.); the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15000 et seq.); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementing CEQA as set forth by the City of Fontana. The City is the lead agency under the CEQA. The purpose of this EIR Addendum is to review the prior Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) for the CHNSP and evaluate the consistency of a proposed amendment to the CHNSP referred to as the Citrus West Project (Project) for the proposed change in land use and zoning designations from community commercial to residential on an approximately 9.4-acre parcel. This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164, to describe the modifications to the original CHNSP approval and evaluate whether the proposed modifications could potentially result in any new significant impacts not previously identified in the CHNSP FEIR or increase the levels of any identified significant impacts that would require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. This analysis is in accordance with CEQA, to ensure that the Project would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts set forth in the prior environmental documents. 1.1 Purpose of the Addendum Section 15164(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in §15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Pursuant to §15162(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, a subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) or Negative Declaration is only required when: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration Citrus West Project City of Fontana Introduction June 2022 Page 2 due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. 1.2 Summary of Findings Section 3.0 of this document contains the Environmental Checklist that was prepared for the Project pursuant to CEQA requirements. The Environmental Checklist indicates whether the proposed modifications to the CHNSP PA 12 would result in any new significant impacts not previously identified in the CHNSP FEIR or increase the levels of any identified significant impacts that would require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. As analyzed in Section 3.0, the Project would not result in substantial changes that warrant preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. 1.3 Environmental Checklist and Analysis Resource Topics This EIR Addendum evaluates the Project’s impacts on the following resource topics: • Aesthetics • Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Energy • Geology and Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resources Citrus West Project City of Fontana Introduction June 2022 Page 2 • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation • Tribal Cultural Resources • Utilities and Service Systems • Wildfire • Mandatory Findings of Significance 1.4 Document Review Process The City of Fontana is the Lead Agency as set forth in CEQA Guidelines §15102 and is responsible for reviewing and approving this Addendum to the CHNSP FEIR. Contact Person and Phone Number Alejandro Rico, Associate Planner 909-350-6558 City of Fontana Planning Department 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335 1.5 Determination No substantial changes are proposed in the Project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project would be undertaken that would require major revisions to the previously-approved certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no “new information of substantial importance” as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously certified EIR adequately discusses the potential impacts of the Project; however, minor changes require the preparation of an Addendum. Signature Agency Printed Name/Title Date Citrus West Project City of Fontana Project Description June 2022 Page 4 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Description of Original Project Project Background The Project site encompasses approximately 9.4 acres of the 211-acre CHNSP within Planning Area PA 12. The City of Fontana approved the CHNSP on July 27, 2004 by Ordinance No. 1457 for the master plan community in North Fontana. As approved, the specific plan would include a variety of residential housing, a neighborhood commercial center, and several recreational facilities within individual gated communities. An EIR (SCH No 2003111125) was prepared for the Project and was certified by the City Council on July 27, 2004 . Existing Land Uses and Entitlements Since the adoption in 2004, the CHNSP has been developed with both residential and the community sports center approved within the plan. In total, 22 planning areas were designated for development or open space/community sports center (PA 6A) and retention basin (PA 6B). Planning Area PA 12 was identified in the plan for a neighborhood commercial center based on the location at the corner of the development along the boundary of the specific plan. Since the adoption of the plan, the City of Fontana has developed additional commercial development along Sierra Lakes Parkway, Highland Ave, and at the Falcon Ridge Town Center. Therefore, an amendment on the 9.4-acre parcel for residential development consistent with the adjacent uses to the north, east and west is being requested. 2.2 Location, Setting, and Land Use and Zoning Project Location The Project site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Citrus Avenue and Summit Avenue in the northern portion of the City of Fontana (City), within San Bernardino County (County). The Project site is located approximately 0.9 miles north of State Route 210 (SR-210), approximately 1.28 miles east of the Interstate 15 (I-15), 5.7-miles north of the Interstate 10 (I-10), and approximately 7.2 miles west of Interstate 215 (I-215); refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Location Map. Project Setting The Project site is comprised of one parcel of approximately 9.4 acres of land and is currently vacant and undeveloped (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APN]: 1107-262-37). The site is surrounded by vacant lands and single-family residential developments to the north and west, Citrus Avenue, residential development, and vacant land to the east, and Summit Avenue, to the south; refer to Exhibit 2, Vicinity Map. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Project Description June 2022 Page 5 Environmental Setting This area appears on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Devore 7.5’ Devore Quadrangle in Section 24, Township 1 North, Range 6 West of the San Bernardino Base/Meridian. The project site is relatively flat and ranges in elevation from 1,635 to 1,656 feet above mean sea level. Surrounding Land Uses The land uses that surrounded the Project site include residential and open space and community facilities to the north and west, undeveloped and residential developments to the east, and undeveloped vacant land and water tanks to the south. The site is southeast of Interstate 15 and north of State Route 210. The San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains were distinctly visible from the site. Existing General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning District The Project site is located at the southeast corner within Planning Area 12 (PA12) in the CHNSP. The Project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Residential Planned Community (R- PC) and is designated as Community Commercial (C-1) within the specific plan. The CHNSP development standards would permit the site to be developed with a neighborhood commercial center.1 An amendment to the specific plan is required for the Project as described below. Surrounding land uses and zones are listed in Table 1, Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts. Table 1: Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts Location General Plan Land Use Designation Existing Zoning District Project Site Residential Planned Community/CHNSP (R-PC) CHNSP PA12: Neighborhood Commercial North Residential Planned Community)/CHNSP (R-PC) PA17: High-Density Residential of 12.8- 14.8 du/ac South Community Commercial (C-C) l and P-PF (Public Facilities) Community Commercial (C-1) l and P-PF (Public Facilities) East Medium Density Residential (R-M)/Medium-Density Residential (R-2), Community Commercial (C-C) Community Commercial (C-1) West Residential Planned Community/CHNSP (R-PC) PA16: High-Density Residential of 15.1- 18.1 du/ac Sources: City of Fontana, State of California General Plan Land Use Map (Updated March 2, 2021). Available at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28163/General-Plan-Land-Use-Map-3-2-2021?bidId=. Accessed on September 8, 2021. City of Fontana. (2021). Zoning District Map. Available at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/30623/Zoning-District-Map-3-2- 21?bidId=. Accessed on September 15, 2021. Note: Dwelling Unit/Acre = du/ac 1 City of Fontana. Citrus Heights North Specific Plan. August 2014. Available at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/10844/Citrus- Heights-Specific-Plan?bidId=. Accessed on September 15, 2021. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Project Description June 2022 Page 6 2.3 Project Overview The Applicant proposes a series of entitlements including a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) to modify the CHNSP to facilitate the development of 85 detached single-family “cluster” units and support facilities including open space amenities, parking, landscaping, and entry gates/walls on approximately 9.4 acres of land; refer to Exhibit 3, Project Site Plan for additional details. The SPA would establish new design and development standards for Planning Area PA 12 for development of the Project site. The Project would include a Tentative Tract Map, and a Design Review which are further described below in Section 2.4 Project Approvals. Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning District The existing General Plan land use designation of Residential Planned Community (R-PC) is consistent and therefore, a GPA is not required for the Project. Specific Plan Amendment/Planning Area PA 12 The Project includes a SPA for Planning Area PA 12 to amend the use from Citrus Heights North Specific Plan (CHNSP) PA12: Neighborhood Commercial to CHNSP PA12 Residential- Medium Density and to establish development and design standards for the Project. Project Site Plan/Development Plan The Project includes the development of 85 cluster homes that includes four floor plans. There are 58 three-bedroom units and 27 four-bedroom units. The floor plans vary in size, ranging from approximately 1,578 square feet (SF) to 1,801 SF (see Exhibit 5, Project Floor Plans and Exhibits 4a, 4b, 4c, and 4d, Elevations). All 85 units would be two-story high with either Progressive Traditional, Progressive Prairie, or Modern Farmhouse architectural styles; refer to Exhibits 4a, 4b, 4c, and 4d. The Project has been designed to meet the required minimum parking spaces of 261 spaces. The Project would exceed the requirement by providing a total of 269 parking spaces; refer to Exhibit 3. The proposed density is 9.4 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), which would be less than the maximum density requested (Residential- Medium Density 12 du/ac) as requested per the SPA and would be less than the density of PA17 (Residential-High Density 12.8-14.8 du/ac), the development to the north of the Project site, within the CHNSP. The overall gross density of the CHNSP with the Project will be 5.59 du/adjusted gross acre in lieu of 5.4 du/adjusted gross acre without the Project. Access to the site would be located on Summit Avenue; refer to Table 2, Project Summary, as it identifies the Project’s development specifications. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Project Description June 2022 Page 7 Table 2: Project Summary Project Element Proposed Project Existing Uses Vacant and undeveloped Site Area Totaling 9.4 acres Dwelling Unit Size (SF) Required: Proposed: 1,200 SF for SFD/Detached Approximately 1,578 – 1,801 SF Proposed Floor Plans Total of 4 floor plans with 2 floor plans for 58 units 3 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms and 2 floor plans for 27 units of 4 bedrooms and 3/3.5 bathrooms. Existing Zoning CHNSP PA12: Neighborhood Commercial Existing Land Use Residential Planned Community (R-PC) Proposed SPA Zoning CHNSP PA12: Residential-Medium Density 12 du/ac Proposed SPA Land Use No change, to be remained as R-PC Building Height Max Building Height Allowed: Proposed Building Height: 35 Feet Two-Story, ranging from 22 feet 11 inches to 25 feet 11 inches Lot Coverage (as a percent of adjusted gross acreage of total site) Required: Proposed: 50% 65% Minimum Lot Size Required: Proposed: 5 acres 5 acres Amenities: Recreation: Required: Four amenities for 85 units Proposed: One large open space and 2 “pocket parks” usable open spaces have been identified for a total of 20,747 SF (0.47 acres) = 5.3% of total site. Plus 17,673 SF of non-amenitized landscaping (.40 acres) for a total of 9.8% of the total site. Two large usable open spaces are as follows: • 16,727 SF (Center) • 2,802 SF plus EVA (northeast) • 1,218 SF Citrus Pocket Park Open Space Required: 35% common Proposed: 20,747 SF – 5.3% of total site area Private Open Space Required: 150 SF. Ground /100 SF upper Proposed: Total 79,025 s SF Citrus West Project City of Fontana Project Description June 2022 Page 8 Project Element Proposed Project Parking Total Required: 3 bedrooms: 2 garage spaces/unit and 0.5 open parking spaces/unit 4 bedrooms: 2 garage spaces/unit and 0.7 open parking spaces/unit Guest Parking: 0.5 spaces/unit Total Proposed: Proposed Excess Parking: 261 total required spaces 116 garage spaces and 29 open parking spaces 54 garage spaces and 19 open parking spaces 42.5 spaces required 45 spaces provided 269 total provided spaces 8 spaces Building Setbacks Building to Building: Front to Front Front to Side Front to Rear Rear to Side Rear to Rear Side to Side Building Setback from Right-of-Way Secondary or Collector (Summit Ave): Major or Primary (Citrus Ave and Interior): Private street or driveway 35 Feet min 30 Feet min 35 Feet min 15 Feet min 20 Feet min 10 Feet min 20 Feet min 25 Feet min 3 Feet min Grading Quantities Cut: Fill: Net: 23,224 cubic yards (CY) of cut 8,192 CY of fill Approximately 15,032 of off-site export Sources: Kimley-Horn. Conceptual Site Plan. December 2021. SF = Square Feet Open Space/Recreation The Project proposes to provide both public and private open space. All units would be provided private open space via private yards, patios, and balconies proposed for all floor plans. All floor plans exceed the open space requirements per the City of Fontana development standards. The Project is required to provide at least four (4) amenities for 85 units; see Exhibit 5, Conceptual Landscape Plan. The Project proposes one large usable open space, and 2 “pocket parks” usable open spaces have been identified for a total of 20,747 SF (0.47 acres) = 5.3% of the total site. In addition, the Project would also provide approximately 17,673 SF of non-amenitized landscaping (.40 acres) for a total of 9.8% of the total site. The 16,727 SF center open space would include an overhead solid roof shade structure, a multi-purpose lawn area, a BBQ area, picnic table seating, Citrus West Project City of Fontana Project Description June 2022 Page 9 and a tot lot. The pocket park, located in the northwest area of the site would consist of citrus grove planting, a vine trellis structure with chairs for group gathering. The proposed northeast area with emergency vehicle access (EVA) driveway with children’s informal concrete trike paths, and artificial turf islands with corn-hole game area and seating. Site Access Vehicular access to the site would include one decorative paved ingress/egress driveway from Summit Avenue. The main entry includes a gated entry and exit with planted dividers/median and a traffic island. Both ingress and egress entries would each be 26 feet in width. In addition, the Project also proposes a 20-foot-wide EVA along Citrus Avenue in the northeastern portion of the site. Parking The City’s required parking spaces are based on the number of bedrooms provided for each unit. The three-bedroom product type requires two (2) garage parking spaces and 0.5 open parking spaces per unit; the four-bedroom product type requires two (2) garage parking spaces and 0.7 open parking spaces per unit; additionally, guest parking is required at 0.5 spaces per unit. A total of 261 total spaces are required by the Project. The Project is proposed with a total of 269 parking spaces. Of these total spaces, 170 of them will be private garage spaces and 54 will be available in the planned two-space driveways. The common/guest parking spaces will be a total of 44 spaces. Table 3: Parking Requirements Parking Type Number of Units Code Requirement Requirement Provided Three Bedroom 58 Units 2.0/each unit 116 spaces 116 spaces Four Bedroom 27 Units 2.0/each unit 54 spaces 54 spaces Open Parking Space 58 Three Bedroom 27 Four Bedroom 0.5/each unit for three bedrooms 0.7/each unit for four bedrooms 29 spaces 18.9 spaces 35 spaces 19 spaces Guest Parking 85 Units 0.5/each unit 42.5 spaces 45 spaces provided Total 261 269 Parcel Subdivision A Tentative Tract Map application has been prepared for Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 1107-262-37, to create 85 lots for the purpose of condominiums. Construction The Project site is generally vacant and therefore construction would not include the demolition of any structures. The proposed Project is anticipated to begin January 2023, and construction is Citrus West Project City of Fontana Project Description June 2022 Page 10 anticipated to continue for approximately 12-18 months through the last phase of development. New construction would include: (1) grading/removal of concrete, (2) building construction, (3) paving, (4) architectural coating, (5) landscaping, and the applicable off-site improvements conditioned by the City; see Exhibit 6, Conceptual Grading Plan. 2.4 PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/ADDENDUM The Addendum together with all other environmental documents will be incorporated by reference and serve as the basis for the environmental review of the Citrus West Project. The Addendum will modify the FEIR for the CHNSP and serve as the City’s CEQA environmental documentation for the Project. Revisions from the prior approval of the CHNSP Planning Area PA12 land use and the Project would authorize the following: • Amend PA 12 to remove the current commercial development standards. • Create residential design standards to support 85 cluster units. 2.5 APPROVALS REQUESTED AS PART OF THE PROJECT The City of Fontana is the Lead Agency as set forth in CEQA Guidelines §15102 and is responsible for reviewing and approving this Addendum to the CHNSP FEIR. The Project requires the following approvals: 1. Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) No. 21-000007 – The Project site is presently designated as CHNSP PA12: Neighborhood Commercial. The CHNSP is a regulatory document that establishes the development standards and design guidelines for the entire Specific Plan area. The Project includes a SPA to amend Planning Area PA12 from Neighborhood Commercial to Residential -Medium Density 12 du/ac and establish development and design standards in a manner that is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. The SPA would be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. Design Review (DR) No. 21-000046 – The Design Review of the proposed site plan and architectural design for the development of 85 cluster detached single family homes and associated facilities including open space amenities, utilities, and site improvements. 3. Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 21-000009 – The Subdivision Map is a basic tool for implementation of a Specific Plan. The Project’s Tentative Tract Map (TTM) would create the individual legal lots for Project development, formalize the parcel boundaries, and provide for public rights‐of‐way for Project access. A TTM has been prepared and would be considered by the City concurrently with the review of the SPA. 4. Water Quality Management Plan 21-000124 – The Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the Project would comply with the policies presented in the City’s municipal code. The WQMP would also include best practices intended to reduce potential impacts to the City’s stormwater conveyance system due to the Project’s stormwater discharge. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Project Description June 2022 Page 11 The statutes and best practices presented in the WQMP would apply in the construction phase of the Project and throughout the duration of its operation. Additional permits may be required upon review of construction documents. Other permits required for the Project may include, but are not limited to, the following: issuance of encroachment permits for driveways and utilities; security and parking area lighting permits; building permits; grading permits; tenant improvement permits; and permits for new utility connections. Utilities • Potable and fire protection water (Fontana Water District) • Wastewater (Inland Empire Utilities Agency) • Electricity (Southern California Edison [SCE]) • Natural gas (Southern California Gas Company [SoCal Gas]) • Communication systems (AT&T and Charter/Spectrum) • Solid waste (Burrtec) The Project is required by the City of Fontana to place underground all new, upgraded or existing on-site or off-site utilities, in accordance with the Fontana MC Chapter 27 Utilities, Article III Utilities Undergrounding Requirements. All activities related to undergrounding of off-site overhead utilities will require approval from the City Engineer, be subject to undergrounding requirements in the Fontana MC Section 27-52 and be in compliance with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Rule 20. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit: A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) would be sought by the Project in order to further minimize any potential impacts to the local waterways via stormwater discharge and wastewater conveyance. NPDES permits include provisions for mitigating actions, like the creation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and best management practices that minimize impacts to public waterways. The NPDES permit would allow the Project to comply with City regulations and policies regarding wastewater/stormwater discharge. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Project Description June 2022 Page 12 This page intentionally left blank Not to scaleEXHIBIT 1: Regional Location Map Citrus West Project, City of Fontana Source: Map data. 2021 Google. US Census Bureau, 2018 FontanaFontana Los Angeles CountyLos Angeles County Riverside CountyRiverside County Orange CountyOrange County San Bernardino CountySan Bernardino County ^_ Project Site Citrus West City of Fontana Project Description June 2022 Page 14 This page intentionally left blank Not to scaleEXHIBIT 1: Regional Location Map Citrus West Project, City of Fontana Source: Map data. 2021 Google. US Census Bureau, 2018 FontanaFontana Los Angeles CountyLos Angeles County Riverside CountyRiverside County Orange CountyOrange County San Bernardino CountySan Bernardino County ^_ Project Site Citrus West City of Fontana Project Description June 2022 Page 16 This page intentionally left blank Not to scale EXHIBIT 3: Conceptual Site Plan Citrus West Project, City of Fontana Citrus West City of Fontana Project Description June 2022 Page 18 This page intentionally left blank. EXHIBIT 4a: Plan 1 ElevationsCitrus West Project, City of Fontana 0 2 4 8 Refer to landscape drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locationsC Kevin L. Crook Architect, Inc.2021 Refer to landscape drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locationsC Kevin L. Crook Architect, Inc.2021 B - PROGRESSIVE PRAIRIE Refer to landscape drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locationsC Kevin L. Crook Architect, Inc.2021 A - PROGRESSIVE TRADITIONAL C - MODERN FARMHOUSE EXHIBIT 4b: Plan 2 ElevationsCitrus West Project, City of Fontana 0 2 4 8 Refer to landscape drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locationsC Kevin L. Crook Architect, Inc.2021 Refer to landscape drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locationsC Kevin L. Crook Architect, Inc.2021 B - PROGRESSIVE PRAIRIE Refer to landscape drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locationsC Kevin L. Crook Architect, Inc.2021 A - PROGRESSIVE TRADITIONAL C - MODERN FARMHOUSE EXHIBIT 4c: Plan 3 ElevationsCitrus West Project, City of Fontana Kevin L. Crook 0 2 4 8 Refer to landscape drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locationsC Kevin L. Crook Architect, Inc.2021 B - PROGRESSIVE PRAIRIE A - PROGRESSIVE TRADITIONAL C - MODERN FARMHOUSE Refer to landscape drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locationsC Kevin L. Crook Architect, Inc.2021Refer to landscape drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locationsC Kevin L. Crook Architect, Inc.2021 EXHIBIT 4d: Plan 4 ElevationsCitrus West Project, City of Fontana 0 2 4 8 Refer to landscape drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locationsC Kevin L. Crook Architect, Inc.2021 B - PROGRESSIVE PRAIRIE A - PROGRESSIVE TRADITIONAL C - MODERN FARMHOUSE Refer to landscape drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locationsC Kevin L. Crook Architect, Inc.2021Refer to landscape drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locationsC Kevin L. Crook Architect, Inc.2021 Citrus West Project City of Fontana Project Description June 2022 Page 20 This page intentionally left blank. EXHIBIT 5: Floor PlansCitrus West Project, City of Fontana UNCONDITIONED SPACE CONDITIONED SPACE AREA TABULATIONPLAN 1 LINEN BATH 2 HALL LAU. O. BATH W.I.C.18'-10" L.F. TECH 14'-9"14'-0"xO. BEDRM. 9'-11"10'-1"xBEDRM. 2 9'-11"10'-0"xBEDRM. 3 COATS PORCH ENTRY KITCHEN PWDR. 20'-11"20'-4"xGARAGE 14'-6"7'-7"xDINING 14'-7"10'-10"xGREAT RM.20'-0"x20'-0" CLEAR Available ceilingStorageAccommodations5'x10'x2' = 100 Cu. Ft. Available ceilingStorageAccommodations5'x10'x2' = 100 Cu. Ft. 28'-6"39'-0"35'-0"19'-6"9'-0"5'-0"40'-0"1'-0"SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR 0 2 4 8 AREA TABULATION CONDITIONED SPACE UNCONDITIONED SPACE PLAN 2 LAU. HALL BATH 2 W.I.C.23'-3" L.F. LINEN LINEN 13'-0"20'-3"xO. BEDRM. BATH 9'-10"11'-9"xBEDRM. 2 9'-10"12'-11"xBEDRM. 3 KITCHENPWDR. ENTRY PORCH 20'-4"20'-2"xGARAGE 8'-0"16'-4"xDINING 11'-8"16'-4"xGREAT RM. COATS 20'-0"x2 0'- 0" C LE A R Available ceilingStorageAccommodations5'x10'x2' = 100 Cu. Ft. Available ceilingStorageAccommodations5'x10'x2' = 100 Cu. Ft. 43'-0"20'-11"30'-0"11'-5"21'-0"10'-7"7'-5"1'-8"SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR 0 2 4 8 AREA TABULATION UNCONDITIONED SPACE CONDITIONED SPACE PLAN 3 W.I.C. BATH LAU. BATH 2 16'-7" L.F. LINEN 14'-2"12'-4"xO. BEDRM. OPEN TOBELOW 10'-6"10'-2"xBEDRM. 2 11'-1"10'-2"xBEDRM. 3 HALL BATH 3 KITCHEN ENTRYLINEN PORCH 20'-3"20'-8"xGARAGE 13'-2"11'-2"xDINING 11'-7"15'-5"xGREAT RM.10'-5"10'-2"xBEDRM. 4 COATS 20'-0"x20'-0" CLEAR Available ceilingStorageAccommodations5'x10'x2' = 100 Cu. Ft. Available ceilingStorageAccommodations5'x10'x2' = 100 Cu. Ft. 28'-10"46'-0"4'-0"19'-11"10'-1"2'-0"19'-0"25'-0"48'-0"30'-0"1'-2" SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR 0 2 4 8 AREA TABULATION UNCONDITIONED SPACE CONDITIONED SPACE PLAN 4 W.I.C. BATH LAU. BATH 2 16'-7" L.F.LINENHALL 10'-2"10'-6"xBEDRM. 2 10'-3"11'-1"xBEDRM. 3 12'-4"14'-0"xO. BEDRM. LINEN 20'-8"20'-3"xGARAGE BATH 3 KITCHEN ENTRY COATS PWDR. 10'-2"10'-5"xBEDRM. 4 11'-2"12'-6"xDINING 15'-5"12'-3"xGREAT RM.20'-0"x20' -0" CL EA R Available ceilingStorageAccommodations5'x10'x2' = 100 Cu. Ft. Available ceilingStorageAccommodations5'x10'x2' = 100 Cu. Ft. 46'-0"21'-3"8'-9"30'-8"8"1'-2"28'-10"8"1'-1112"12'-9"8'-0"23'-312" SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR 0 2 4 8 Citrus West Project City of Fontana Project Description June 2022 Page 22 This page intentionally left blank. Not to scale EXHIBIT 6: Conceptual Landscape Plan Citrus West Project, City of Fontana Citrus West Project City of Fontana Project Description June 2022 Page 24 This page intentionally left blank. EXHIBIT 7: Conceptual Grading Plan Citrus West Project, City of Fontana S CO CO CO CO COCO CO CO CO CO CO CO S S S S S S S S S S S S S 2:1 MAX 2:1 MAX 2:1 MAX 2:1 MAX2:1 MAX2:1 MAX 2:1 MAX2:1 MAX 2:1 MAX 2:1 MAX 2:1 MAX B- A - C - D - E- 234 5 8 7 6 91011 14 13 12 151617 20 19 18 39 38 37 42 41 40 45 44 43 46 47 488180797877 76 72 71 70 52 53 54 58 59 60 848382 737475 515049 575655 636261 676869 85 64 6566 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 25 23 22 21 1 LOT A (OPEN SPACE)CITRUS AVENUE(PUBLIC)SUMMIT AVENUE (PUBLIC)(DRIVEWAY E)(DRIVEWAY F)(DRIVEWAY G)(DRIVEWAY D)(DRIVEWAY H) (DRIVEWAY I) (DRIVEWAY J)(DRIVEWAY K)(DRIVEWAY L) (DRIVEWAY M)(DRIVEWAY C) (DRIVEWAY B) (DRIVEWAY A) HOTWIRE LOT B (OPEN SPACE) LOT GSTREET B(PRIVATE STREET)LOT HSTREET C(PRIVATE STREET)LOT JSTREET E(PRIVATE STREET)LOT ISTREET D (PRIVATE STREET)LOT FSTREET A(PRIVATE STREET)LOT D(OPEN SPACE)LOT E (OPEN SPACE)LOT D (OPEN SPACE) LOT C(OPEN SPACE)EVAONLYCITRUS AVENUE SUMMIT AVENUE NORTH TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 20512 CITY OF FONTANA CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN PRIVATE STREET N.T.S. PRIVATE ALLEY N.T.S. CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN CITRUS WEST TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 20512 SECTION A-A N.T.S. SECTION B-B N.T.S. SECTION C-C N.T.S. SECTION D-D N.T.S. SECTION E-E N.T.S. 15 210 NORTH PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP 1 1 LEGEND Citrus West Project City of Fontana Project Description June 2022 Page 26 This page intentionally left blank. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Impact Analysis Summary June 2022 Page 27 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY The environmental impact findings of the CHNSP EIR are summarized below. No Impact: The CHNSP FEIR in the project determined that no impact would occur with respect to the following environmental topic areas below. • Aesthetics, Light, and Glare (Scenic Vista and Damage Resource) • Hazards and Hazardous Materials (All Impacts) • Air Quality (Sensitive Receptors and Objectionable Odors) • Cultural Resources (Historical resources and Cumulative) • Geology, Soils, and Seismicity (Liquefaction, Landslides, Soil Instability, and Expansive Soil, Wastewater) • Population and Housing (Housing) • Utilities (Electricity, Natural Gas, Cable, and Telephone) The following impacts were included in the CHNSP EIR’s Initial Study (IS) prepared for the Draft EIR. • Agricultural Resources • Mineral Resources Less Than Significant Impact: The CHNSP EIR identified less than significant impacts in the following environmental topic areas: • Aesthetics, Light, and Glare (Views from I-15 during Construction and Occupancy, Light and Glare) • Air Quality (Conflict with Air Quality Plan and Violation of Air Quality Standards) • Cultural Resources (Human Remains, and General Plan consistency) • Geology, Soils, and Seismicity (Ground Rupturing, Soil Erosion, and Cumulative) • Hydrology and Water Quality (All Impacts) • Land Use and Planning (Divide a Community, Conflict with Land Use Policy, Conflict with Habitat Plan) • Noise (Long Term Operations and Long Term Cumulative) • Population and Housing (Population growth) • Public Services (Police, Emergency Access, and Water Access during Construction) Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Impact Analysis Summary June 2022 Page 28 • Traffic and Circulation (Change Air Traffic Patterns, Result in Inadequate Parking Capacity) • Utilities (Wastewater Treatment, Stormwater Drainage Facilities, Water Supply, Landfill, and Cumulative) Less Than Significant Impact with Incorporation of Mitigation: The CHNSP EIR identified impacts that could be mitigated to less than significant levels with incorporation of mitigation measures in the following environmental topic areas: • Air Quality (Cumulative Impacts-short term construction except for Nox) • Biological Resources (Cumulative Impacts) • Cultural Resources (Archaeological Resources) • Noise (Short Term Construction) • Public Services (Schools, Police, Fire Services, and Library) • Recreation (Impact to Existing Parks and Construction of New Facilities) • Traffic and Traffic (Exceed LOS, and Freeway Segments ) Significant and Unavoidable Impact: The CHNSP EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts in the following environmental topic areas: • Air Quality (Cumulative Impacts- long term operation) Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Impact Analysis June 2022 Page 29 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE CITRUS WEST PROJECT The scope of the City’s review of the Project is limited by the provisions set forth in CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. This review is limited to evaluating the environmental effects associated with the Project relative to those analyzed in the CHNSP EIR. This Addendum also reviews new information, if any, of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable due diligence at the time the CHNSP EIR was certified, as well as any substantial changes which may have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken. This evaluation includes a determination as to whether the changes identified because of the Project would result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact. Although CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 does not stipulate the format or content of an Addendum, the topical areas identified in the Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines were used as guidance for this Addendum, which also analyzes all environmental issue areas that were included in the EIR. This comparative analysis provides the City with the factual basis for determining whether any changes in the Project, any changes in circumstances, or any new information since the CHNSP EIR was certified that would require additional environmental review or preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the City has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the Project would not result in substantial changes to the environmental impacts of the CHNSP EIR, no substantial changes in circumstances have occurred which would require major revisions to the CHNSP EIR, and no new information of substantial importance which could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence when the CHNSP EIR was certified has been revealed that would result in either new significant effects or an increase in the severity of previously analyzed significant effects. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was adopted as a part of the CHNSP EIR that minimized impacts associated with CHNSP EIR development. The previously adopted CHNSP EIR mitigation measures applicable to the Project will be imposed as conditions of the Project, and the MMRP, as applicable to the Project, will be provided as a separate attachment to this Addendum EIR. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Impact Analysis June 2022 Page 30 This page intentionally left blank Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 31 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND ANALYSIS AESTHETICS Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Regional Context Fontana is located within southern San Bernardino County, major adjacent highways include Interstate 10 (I-10), Interstate 15 (I-15), and State Route 210 (SR-210). Fontana is approximately 52-square miles which includes the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). The City of Fontana is bordered by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the west, City of Rialto to the east, City of Riverside to the southeast, and the City of Jurupa Valley to the south, see Exhibit 1, Regional Map. Scenic Views Under CEQA, a scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the public.2 The City is located on the desert valley floor between the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the Jurupa Hills to the south. Panoramic scenic view corridors towards the mountains and views of the City from the mountains dominate the City’s visual landscape character. Fontana’s open space consists of a mix of parks and recreation, utility corridors, foothills, and other pockets of open space such as trails and amenities. 3 2 California Legislative Information. Streets and Highway Code Article 2.5 State Scenic Highways [260- 284]. Available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=SHC&division=1.&title=&part=&chapter=2.&article=2.5. Accessed on September 23, 2021. 3 City of Fontana. 2019. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 – Final Environmental Impact Report (August 2018). Available at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29525/Final-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update. Accessed September 23, 2021. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 32 Scenic Resources within Scenic Highways In 1963, the State Legislature created the California Scenic Highway Program through Senate Bill 1467 (Farr). The purpose of the bill was to protect and enhance scenic highway corridors from change and encourage the growth of the recreation and tourism industries for the California economy. A “scenic” highway is dependent on how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler’s enjoyment of the view. In the City of Fontana, there are no highways eligible or officially designated as state or county scenic highways.4 Thus, the provisions of the California Scenic Highway Program do not apply. Summary of Impacts Identified in the CHNSP FEIR The Certified 2004 CHNSP FEIR found that implementation of the CHNSP was found not to have a substantial adverse effect on scenic resources. There are no designated scenic highways within the City, and as such, no impact would occur to scenic highways. In addition, the CHNSP implementation would not have a significant impact on visual character or create a new source of light and glare. The CHNSP developments would be harmonious with surrounding residential developments. Although the CHNSP developments would create new sources of light on the site, these light sources would be in compliance with the lighting standards of the CHNSP, the City’s zoning ordinance, and the Community Design Guidelines of the City of Fontana General Plan. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur with regards to visual character and light and glare. Impacts of the Citrus West Project Would the Citrus West Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No New or More Severe Impact. The Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 (Fontana GP) does not officially designate any scenic vistas near the Project site, but the San Bernardino Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, and Jurupa Hills are visible from the City. The Project site is located approximately 1.7 south of the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, approximately 8 miles southwest of the San Bernardino Mountains, and approximately 7.5 miles north of the Jurupa Hills. The proposed residential buildings would be two-story in height and would not exceed the maximum allowed height of 35 feet. The existing surrounding residential developments located to the west and northeast of the site are two-story single-family homes and located to the south are Summit Avenue, vacant lands, and Fontana Water Company properties. The views of the San Gabriel Mountains, San Bernardino Mountain, or the Jurupa Hills views would not be impacted by the implementation of the Project. Due to the proposed building 4 CalTrans State Scenic Highway Map. Available at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community- livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed on September 23, 2021. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 33 heights and distance from designated scenic vistas, the Project would result in a less than significant impact on a scenic vista and no mitigation measures are required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. Based on the CalTrans State Scenic Highway Map, there is only one Officially Designated Highway, Route 38, which is approximately 37 miles east of the Project.5 In addition, according to the Fontana GP and the Cultural Resources Assessment,6 there are no historic buildings located near the Project site7. The Project site is currently vacant with sparse vegetation and a few trees and is surrounded by residential developments to the west and northeast. Therefore, no adverse impacts on scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway would be impacted as a result from the implementation of the Project. No impacts are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? No New or More Severe Impact. The Project is located in an urbanized area, surrounded by residential developments to the west and northeast. The 9.4-acre Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped and zoned as CHNSP PA12: Neighborhood Commercial. The visual character or quality of public views of the site would change from vacant land to a medium density residential development. The maximum height of the proposed buildings would not exceed the maximum allowed height of 35 feet as permitted under the residential standard. The Project would be similar in visual character, height, and architectural style as surrounding existing residential developments. The Project proposes a specific plan amendment to amend the Planning Area 12 permitted land use from PA12: Neighborhood Commercial to Residential permitted in the CHNSP. The SPA would include new development standards and regulations specific to the PA12. Although the residential Project does not meet the current commercial standards in the CHNSP and the C-1 zoning standards, upon approval of the SPA, the Project would be consistent. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable development standards within the amended CHNSP PA12, the Fontana GP, and the Fontana Municipal Code (Fontana MC). Standards include building scale, frontage and site layout, street scape, open space, parking, signage, and architecture. Adherence to the Fontana MC is addressed in the SPA. Therefore, with adherence to these standards, the Project would not impact scenic quality in the area and would 5 Ibid. 6 Cultural Resources Assessment, Citrus West Project, BCR Consulting LLC, November 29, 2021. Appendix C 7 City of Fontana. 2019. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035. Available at https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-Update- 2015---2035. Accessed September 23, 2021. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 34 not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The anticipated impacts would be less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are required. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No New or More Severe Impact. Existing sources of light and glare in the Project area are due to the proximity of Citrus Avenue and Summit Avenue intersection, which include streetlights in the area and car headlights from the street. The surrounding residential land uses to the west and northwest of the Project site also contribute to light and glare. However, very minimal disturbances are attributed to residential lighting. The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped; thus, the development of the Project would increase the amount of light and glare on the site and could potentially affect day or night views in the area. New sources of light and glare from the Project would come from windows, outdoor landscaping lighting, on-site safety lighting; as well as vehicles accessing the Project site. As stated in the CHNSP EIR, impacts regarding light and glare were anticipated to be less than significant and the commercial development at PA12 was anticipated to insulate surface parking lighting along the perimeter reducing impacts associated with light and glare. The Project would include the implementation of on-site safety and security lighting per the requirements of the Development Code. The minimum standard of one (1) foot candle is required for all entrances, exits, pedestrian paths, parking lots and activities areas, required per Fontana MC §30-697. As noted above, residential lighting is attributable to minimal disturbances as the lighting is low level pedestrian lighting, residential security lighting, and exterior building illumination. The SPA for PA12 development standards will incorporate three distinct private recreation facilities including a large central open space and 2 smaller pocket parks with distinctive planting, landscape and amenity features. Parks have been designed to be both passive with minimal seating areas, amenities and unique landscape features that embrace the agricultural history of the site and have been designed fully amenitized to function as a programed space for specific uses to complement the character of the Project. Lighting within these park spaces, along the wellness walks and within opens spaces will meet the City’s lighting requirements and have been designed to be low level pedestrian scale lighting, pole lighting or wall mounted lighting. All lighting provided to illuminate parking areas, open spaces/parks, or buildings would be positioned so as to direct light away from adjoining properties. Incorporation of such features into the Project would ensure proper design, installation, and operation of all exterior lighting, thereby reducing the potential for glare effects or light spillover onto adjacent properties. New lighting would also be reviewed by the City to ensure conformance with the current California Building Code (CBC), Title 24 (California Code of Regulations), as well as the 2019 California Green Building Standard Code (Part 11 of Title 24, California Code of Regulations) such that only the minimum amount of Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 35 lighting is used, and no light spillage occurs. For these reasons, lighting and glare impacts from the Project are would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Conclusion With regard to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to aesthetics. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the CHNSP EIR was certified is available that would create a more severe impact to the prior finding of less than significant impact. Therefore, the preparation of a SEIR is not warranted. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 36 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California agricultural land evaluation and site assessment model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California department of forestry and fire protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the forest and range assessment project and the forest legacy assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in forest protocols adopted by the California air resources board. Would the project: a) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the farmland mapping and monitoring program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned timberland production (as defined by government code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Summary of Impacts Identified in the CHNSP FEIR Revisions to the CEQA Guidelines after certification of the CHNSP EIR in 2004 created a new separate CEQA checklist topic for “Agricultural and Forestry Resources,” consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The CHNSP EIR did not specifically address agricultural and forestry resources; however, the previous use of the site for agricultural activities was discussed in Land Use and Planning. Per the CHNSP EIR, the Project site, while currently vacant and undeveloped, has a long history of agricultural use, although it has not been used for agriculture recently. At the time of approval, the Project site was not designated as Farmland as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, but rather was identified as land suitable for grazing.8 In addition, 8 California Department of Conservation. 2015. California Important Farmland: 1984-2018. Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/. Accessed May 31, 2022. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 37 the Project site was designated as Planned Residential Community (P-RC) when the CHNSP EIR was certified in 2004. Impacts of the Citrus West Project Would the Citrus West Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. At the time of approval, the Project site was not designated as Farmland as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, but rather was identified as land suitable for grazing.9 In addition, the Project site was designated as Planned Residential Community (P-RC) when the CHNSP EIR was certified in 2004. The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped with sparse vegetation and is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of statewide importance (Farmland) as shown on the map of California Important Farmland Finder (California Department of Conservation 2016). However, the map identifies the Project site as an area considered as “grazing land.” Grazing land describes land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock.10 Grazing land is not considered important farmland, as defined by the California Department of Conservation. Therefore, the Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use. No impact is anticipated to occur. Because the Project site was not designated as Farmland when the CHNSP EIR was certified in 2004, the proposed Project would not cause a new significant impact or increase the severity of any significant impact. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Project is not currently zoned for agricultural use. It is zoned for commercial uses and would be amended to residential to accommodate the proposed residential development. The Project site is in an urbanized area and is not located adjacent to existing agriculture lands or lands zoned for agriculture uses. In addition, the Project site and its surrounding uses are not under a Williamson Act contract.11 Because the Project site was not designated for agricultural use when the CHNSP EIR was certified in 2004, the proposed Project would not conflict with the 9 California Department of Conservation. 2015. California Important Farmland: 1984-2018. Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/. Accessed May 31, 2022. 10 California Department of Conservation. (2016). California Important Farmland Finder. Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed September 23, 2021. 11 California Department of Conservation. (2017). Williamson Map 2016. Available at https://planning.lacity.org/eir/HollywoodCenter/Deir/ELDP/(E)%20Initial%20Study/Initial%20Study/Attachment%20B%20References/Califor nia%20Department%20of%20Conservation%20Williamson%20Map%202016.pdf. Access on September 23, 2017. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 38 pre-existing zoning of the Project site nor would it create new impacts. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract and no impact would occur. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The Project is currently zoned for commercial uses and would be amended to residential to accommodate the proposed residential development. There is no forest land or timberland zoning on the Project site or in the surrounding area. As such, the implementation of the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g) and no impact would occur. Because the Project site contained no forest land nor was it designated for or in the proximity of timberland when the CHNSP EIR was certified, the Project would not cause a new significant impact or increase the severity of any significant impact. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The Project is currently zoned for commercial uses and would be amended to residential to accommodate the proposed residential development. There is no forest land or timberland zoning on the Project site or in the surrounding area. As such, the development of the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use and no impact would occur. In addition, the Project site was vacant and contained no forest land when the CHNSP EIR was certified. Therefore, the Project would not cause a new significant impact or increase the severity of any significant impact. 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? No New or More Severe Impact. The Project would convert the existing vacant and undeveloped land to a residential development. The Project site is surrounded by urban land uses, including residential, and is not surrounded by agriculture or forest uses. Therefore, the anticipated change in land uses of the Project site is not expected to involve conversion of farm or forest land. Therefore, impacts to agricultural land use would be less than significant and no further analysis of this issue is necessary. In addition, the Project site was vacant and not used for agricultural purposes nor was it designated as Farmland when the CHNSP EIR was certified. Therefore, the Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 39 Project would not cause a new significant impact or increase the severity of any significant impact. Conclusion With regard to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to agriculture and forestry. Therefore, the preparation of a SEIR is not warranted. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 40 AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? An Air Quality Assessment was prepared for the Project by Kimley-Horn and Associates in November 2021. This report is included as Appendix A of this EIR Addendum and the results are summarized herein. Air Quality Air Pollutants of Concern The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by state and federal laws. These regulated air pollutants are known as “criteria air pollutants” and are categorized into primary and secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxide (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb) are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, NOX, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are criteria pollutants. ROG and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. For example, the criteria pollutant ozone (O3) is formed by a chemical reaction between ROG and NOX in the presence of sunlight. O3 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary pollutants. Toxic Air Contaminants Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are airborne substances that can cause short‐term (acute) or long-term (i.e., chronic, carcinogenic, or cancer-causing) adverse human health effects (i.e., injury or illness). TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances. They may be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 41 industrial operations, and painting operations. The current California list of TACs includes more than 200 compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel‐fueled engines. CARB identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a toxic air contaminant. DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of particles and gases produced when an engine burns diesel fuel. DPM is a concern because it causes lung cancer; many compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic. DPM includes the particle-phase constituents in diesel exhaust. The chemical composition and particle sizes of DPM vary between different engine types (heavy-duty, light-duty), engine operating conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate), fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel), and the year of the engine. Some short-term (acute) effects of diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, and diesel exhaust can cause coughs, headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. DPM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Due to their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung. Ambient Air Quality CARB monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air monitoring stations across the State. These stations usually measure pollutant concentrations ten feet above ground level; therefore, air quality is often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations. Existing levels of ambient air quality, historical trends, and projections near the Project are documented by measurements made by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the air pollution regulatory agency in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) that maintains air quality monitoring stations which process ambient air quality measurements. Pollutants of concern in the SoCAB include O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The closest air monitoring station to the Project that monitors ambient concentrations of these pollutants is the Fontana-Arrow Monitoring Station (located approximately 4.03 miles to the southwest). Sensitive Receptors Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than is the general population. Sensitive receptors that are in proximity to localized sources of toxics are of particular concern. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long‐term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Sensitive land uses near the Project include existing single-family residential uses immediately to the north and east, and future residential uses (currently under construction) directly to the west. There are also single-family residences and Sierra Lakes Elementary School to the southeast of the Project site (southeast of the Citrus Avenue and Summit Avenue intersection). Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 42 Air Quality Thresholds Based upon the criteria derived from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a Project normally would have a significant effect on the environment if it would: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in nonattainment under an applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard. • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. SCAQMD Thresholds The significance criteria established by SCAQMD may be relied upon to make the above determinations. According to the SCAQMD, an air quality impact is considered significant if the Project would violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for air quality during construction and operational activities of land use development projects, as shown in Table 4, South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds. Table 4: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Maximum Pounds Per Day Construction-Related Operational-Related Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 55 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550 Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 55 Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 150 Coarse Particulates (PM10) 150 150 Fine Particulates (PM2.5) 55 55 Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, April 2019. Localized Carbon Monoxide In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, development associated with the Project would also be subject to the ambient air quality standards. These are addressed through an analysis of localized CO impacts. The significance of localized impacts depends on the levels of ambient CO near the Project and whether they are above state and federal CO standards (the more stringent California standards are 20 ppm for 1-hour and 9 ppm for 8-hour). The SoCAB has been designated as attainment under the 1-hour and 8-hour standards. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 43 Localized Significance Thresholds In addition to the CO hotspot analysis, the SCAQMD developed LSTs for emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 generated at new development sites (off-site mobile source emissions are not included in the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions that can be generated at a project without expecting to cause or substantially contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent state or federal ambient air quality standards. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the Project source receptor area (SRA), as demarcated by the SCAQMD, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LST analysis for construction is applicable for all projects that disturb five acres or less on a single day. The City of Fontana is located within SCAQMD SRA 34 (Central San Bernardino Valley). Table 5, Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations, shows the LSTs for a one-acre, two-acre, and five-acre project in SRA 34 with sensitive receptors located within 25 meters of the Project. LSTs associated with all acreage categories are provided in Table 5 for informational purposes. Table 5 shows that the LSTs increase as acreages increase. It should be noted that LSTs are screening thresholds and are therefore conservative. The construction LST acreage is determined based on daily acreage disturbed. The operational LST acreage is based on the total area of the Project site. Although the Project site is greater than five acres, the five-acre operational LSTs are conservatively used to evaluate the Project. Table 5: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations Project Size Maximum Pounds Per Day Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Coarse Particulates (PM10) Fine Particulates (PM2.5) 1 Acre 118/118 667/667 4/1 3/1 2 Acres 170/170 972/972 7/2 4/1 5 Acres 270/270 1,746/1,746 14/4 8/2 Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, July 2009. Methodology (Air Quality) The Air Quality Assessment analyzed construction and operational impacts associated with the Project. Where criteria air pollutant quantification was required, emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod is a Statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. Air quality impacts were assessed according to methodologies recommended by CARB and the SCAQMD. Construction equipment, trucks, worker vehicles, and ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors. Daily regional construction emissions are estimated by assuming construction occurs at the earliest Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 44 feasible date (i.e., a conservative estimate of construction activities) and applying off-road, fugitive dust, and on-road emissions factors in CalEEMod. Project operations would result in emissions of area sources (consumer products), energy sources (natural gas usage), and mobile sources (motor vehicles from Project generated vehicle trips). Project-generated increases in operational emissions would be predominantly associated with motor vehicle use. The increase of traffic over existing conditions as a result of the Project was obtained from the Trip Generation and VMT Screening Memorandum for the Proposed Citrus West Residential Project in the City of Fontana (Kimley-Horn, 2021) in the Appendix I of this Addendum. Other operational emissions from area, energy, and stationary sources were quantified in CalEEMod based on land use activity data. As discussed above, the SCAQMD provides significance thresholds for emissions associated with Project construction and operations. The Project’s construction and operational emissions are compared to the daily criteria pollutant emissions significance thresholds in order to determine the significance of a Project’s impact on regional air quality. The localized effects from the Project’s on-site emissions were evaluated in accordance with the SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Methodology, which uses on-site mass emissions rate look-up tables and Project-specific modeling. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. Additionally, the following SCAQMD rules will be applied during Project construction activities: Rule 402 (Nuisance) – This rule prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) – This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available control measures for all sources, and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. PM10 suppression techniques are summarized below. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 45 a) Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. b) All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized. c) All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. d) The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times. e) Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface. Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) – This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, and end users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce ROG emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories. Summary of Impacts Identified in the CHNSP FEIR The Certified 2004 CHNSP FEIR found that implementation of the entire CHNSP would have significant and unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated with regard to cumulative air quality emissions. Implementation of the CHNSP Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors. This was deemed a Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The Project site was considered to be developed as a neighborhood commercial center in Phase Four. The CHNSP FEIR estimated Phase Four’s unmitigated maximum daily construction emissions to be below the SCAQMD significance thresholds for ROGs, CO, and PM10, but above the SCAQMD threshold for NOx. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-7, the NOx emissions would be mitigated and reduced to a less than significant impact level during short-term construction. For long-term operation for the entire CHNSP area, the estimated daily operation emissions for ROGs, NOx, and CO were above the SCAQMD significance thresholds, unmitigated. The unmitigated daily operation emissions for PM10 would not exceed the threshold. Mitigation Measures AQ-9 and AQ-10 would be required to reduce pollutant emissions during operation. Although implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-9 and AQ-10 would help reduce the pollutant emission levels, the reduced levels would still remain significant. Despite the significant impacts identified in the CHNSP FEIR, the CHNSP was found to produce a less than significant impact regarding consistency with applicable air quality plans and regulations, including the Fontana GP and ZDC. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 46 Impacts of the Citrus West Project Would the Citrus West Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No New or More Severe Impact. As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The State Implementation Plan must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs. Similarly, under State law, the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment regarding the state and federal ambient air quality standards. Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date. The Project is located within the SoCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SoCAB is in nonattainment. To reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD drafted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The 2016 AQMP establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving state (California) and national air quality standards. The 2016 AQMP is a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, the CARB, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the U.S. EPA. The plan’s pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s growth projections and Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project is subject to the SCAQMD’s AQMP. Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined by the following indicators: • Consistency Criterion No. 1: The Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. • Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP, or increments based on the years of the Project build-out phase. According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of the consistency finding is to determine if a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 47 quality plans, and thus if it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are CAAQS and NAAQS. The SCAQMD developed CEQA significance thresholds to determine if individual development projects would result in ambient air quality violations. As shown in Tables 6 and 7 below, the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s construction or operational thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to an existing air quality violation. Thus, the Project would be consistent with the first criterion. Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project site is designated as Residential Planned Community (R-PC). The Project would require a Specific Plan Amendment to change the existing neighborhood commercial use to allow for residential development. Upon Project approval, the proposed residential development would be consistent with the R-PC land use designation and surrounding residential uses. As such, the Project is consistent with SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. Thus, the Project is consistent with the second criterion. The Project would be consistent with both criterion and thus impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. For this reason, implementation of the Project would not create any new or more severe impacts in this regard from the impacts previously analyzed in the CHNSP FEIR. 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? No New or More Severe Impact. Construction Emissions Construction associated with the Project would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the Project area include O3-precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOX) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-generated emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading, road paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 48 particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water. The duration of construction activities associated with the Project is estimated to last approximately 18 months. Construction-generated emissions associated with the Project were calculated using the CARB-approved CalEEMod computer program, which is designed to model emissions for land use development projects, based on typical construction requirements. See Appendix A: Air Quality Modeling Data of the Air Quality Assessment for more information regarding the construction assumptions used in this analysis. Predicted maximum daily construction-generated emissions for the Project are summarized in Table 6, Construction- Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day). Note that although the anticipated construction start date is in 2023, Table 6 presents pollutant thresholds from 2021 and 2022. Since emissions standards for construction equipment is expected to increase year-over-year, retaining a 2021 and 2022 threshold presents a more conservative analytical approach. Fugitive dust emissions may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the Project vicinity. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby. SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (prohibition of nuisances, watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), are applicable to the Project and were applied in CalEEMod to minimize fugitive dust emissions. Standard Condition (SC) AQ-1 requires the implementation of Rules 402 and 403 dust control techniques to minimize PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations. While impacts would be considered less than significant, the Project would be subject to SCAQMD Rules for reducing fugitive dust, as described in the Air Quality subsection above and identified in Standard Conditions SC AQ-1. Table 6: Construction-Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day) Construction Year Pollutant (Maximum Pounds Per Day) Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10) Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 2021 3.25 63.49 27.00 0.22 10.21 5.84 2022 33.04 52.34 39.45 0.21 9.67 4.02 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No No No Notes: SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment. Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs. As shown in Table 6 above, all criteria pollutant emissions would remain below their respective thresholds. While impacts would be considered less than significant, the Project would be subject Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 49 to SCAQMD Rules 402, 403, and 1113, described in the Regulatory Framework subsection above and required by SC AQ-1. Operational Emissions The Project’s operational emissions would be associated with area sources (e.g., landscape maintenance equipment, architectural coatings, off-road equipment, etc.), energy sources, mobile sources (i.e., motor vehicle use), and off-road equipment. Primary sources of operational criteria pollutants are from motor vehicle use and area sources. Long-term operational emissions attributable to the Project are summarized in Table 7, Long-Term Operational Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day). The operational emissions sources are described below. • Area Source Emissions. Area source emissions would be generated due to on-site equipment, architectural coating, and landscaping that were previously not present on the site. • Energy Source Emissions. Energy source emissions would be generated due to electricity and natural gas usage associated with the Project. Primary uses of electricity and natural gas by the Project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. • Mobile Source. Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern. NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3, known as photochemical smog. Additionally, wind currents readily transport PM10 and PM2.5. However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source. Project-generated vehicle emissions are based on the trip generation within the Traffic Impact Study and incorporated into CalEEMod as recommended by the SCAQMD. Based on trip rates from the Traffic Impact Study, the Project would generate 630 daily trips. Table 7: Long-Term Operational Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day) Source Pollutant (Maximum Pounds per Day) Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10) Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Area Source Emissions 2.48 1.28 7.61 <0.01 0.14 0.14 Energy Emissions 0.04 0.31 0.13 <0.01 0.03 0.03 Mobile Emissions 2.84 2.84 20.37 0.04 4.58 1.24 Total Emissions 5.36 4.43 28.11 0.05 4.75 1.41 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 50 Mitigated Operation Emissions As shown in Table 7, all criteria pollutant emissions would remain below their respective thresholds during Project operations. Although the CHNSP FEIR concluded that the overall project would result in potentially significant impacts related to emissions, the Project would neither increase the previously anticipated environmental impact levels nor generate significant impacts on its own. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact. Cumulative Short-Term Emissions The SCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards and nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 for Federal standards. Appendix D of the SCAQMD White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (2003) notes that projects that result in emissions that do not exceed the project-specific SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance should result in a less than significant impact on a cumulative basis unless there is other pertinent information to the contrary. The mass-based regional significance thresholds published by the SCAQMD are designed to ensure compliance with both NAAQS and CAAQS and are based on an inventory of projected emissions in the SCAB. Therefore, if a project is estimated to result in emissions that do not exceed the thresholds, the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on air quality in the SCAB would not be cumulatively considerable. As shown in Table 7 above, Project construction-related emissions by themselves would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, the Project would not generate a cumulatively considerable contribution to air pollutant emissions during construction. The SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the AQMP pursuant to the FCAA mandates. The analysis assumed fugitive dust controls would be utilized during construction, including frequent water applications. SCAQMD rules, mandates, and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures would also be imposed on construction projects throughout the SCAB, which would include related projects. Compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would further reduce the Project construction-related impacts. Therefore, Project-related construction emissions, combined with those from other projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate local air quality. Construction emissions associated with the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts Cumulative Long-Term Impacts The SCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions. The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, individual project emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The SCAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based on the level Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 51 above which individual project emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SCAB’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a project that exceeds the SCAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. As shown in Table 7, the Project operational emissions from mobile sources alone would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not substantially deteriorate local air quality in its operational phase. No mitigation measure would be required, and the Project would not create a new or more severe significant and unavoidable impact than previously analyzed in the CHNSP FEIR. Standard Conditions and Requirements: SC AQ-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans and Specifications require all construction contractors to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Rules 402, 403, and 113 to minimize construction emissions of dust and particulates. The measures include, but are not limited to, the following: • Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. • All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized. • All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. • The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times. • Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No New or More Severe Impact. Localized Construction Significance Analysis The nearest sensitive receptor is a single-family residence located adjacent to the south of the Project. To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for construction. LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 52 provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with Project-specific emissions. Since CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment. Table 8, Equipment-Specific Grading Rates, is used to determine the maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to LSTs and the maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to LSTs. The appropriate SRA for the localized significance thresholds is the Central San Bernardino Valley (SRA 34) since this area includes the Project. LSTs apply to CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD produced look-up tables for projects that disturb areas less than or equal to 5 acres in size. Project construction is anticipated to disturb a maximum of 4.5 acres in a single day. Table 8: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates Construction Phase Equipment Type Equipment Quantity Acres Graded per 8-Hour Day Operating Hours per Day Acres Graded per Day Site Preparation Tractors 3 0.5 8 1.5 Graders 1 0.5 8 0.5 Dozers 1 0.5 8 0.5 Scrapers 2 1 8 2 Total Acres Graded per Day 4.5 Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs. The SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “on-site” emissions outputs were considered. The nearest sensitive receptors are the single-family residences located 25 feet (7.6 meters) north and west of the Project site. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. Therefore, LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters or less were utilized in this analysis. Table 9, Localized Significance of Construction Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day), presents the results of localized emissions during construction. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 53 Table 9: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day) Construction Activity Pollutant (Maximum Pounds Per Day) Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10) Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Site Preparation (2022) 33.08 19.70 10.02 5.80 Grading (2022) 20.86 15.27 4.09 2.35 Grading (2023) 17.94 14.75 3.92 2.19 Building Construction (2023) 14.38 16.24 0.70 0.70 Paving (2023) 10.19 14.58 0.51 0.47 Architectural Coating (2023) 1.30 1.81 0.07 0.07 Maximum Daily Emissions 33.08 19.70 10.02 5.80 SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold (adjusted for 4.5 acres at 25 meters) 253 1,617 13 7 Exceed SCAQMD Threshold overall or per phase? No No No No Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A of the Air Quality Assessment for model outputs. Table 9 shows that emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of construction would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Significant impacts would not occur concerning LSTs during construction. Localized Operational Significance Analysis According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project only if it includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). Since the Project is a residential development, the operational phase LST protocol is conservatively applied to both the area source and all energy source emissions. As the nearest receptors are located approximately 25 feet (7.6 meters) from the Project site, LSTs for receptors located at 25 feet for SRA 34 were used in this analysis. Although the Project site is approximately 9.4 acres, the five- acre LST threshold was conservatively for the Project, as the LSTs increase with the size of the site. The LST analysis only includes on-site sources. For a worst-case scenario assessment, the emissions shown in Table 10, Localized Significance of Operational Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day), conservatively include all on-site Project-related stationary sources and five percent of the Project-related vehicle emissions since a portion of mobile sources would include vehicles maneuvering and idling on-site. Table 10 shows that the maximum daily emissions of these pollutants during operations would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, significant impacts would not occur concerning LSTs during operational activities. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 54 Table 10: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day) Activity Pollutant (Maximum Pounds per Day) Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10) Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Total On-Site Emissions (Area + five percent mobile emissions) 1.42 8.63 0.37 0.20 SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold (5 acres at 25 meters) 270 1,746 4 2 Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No Note: SRA Zone 34 – Central San Bernardino Valley; 5-acre area, 25 meters to receptor. Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs. Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts On December 24, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion identifying the need to provide sufficient information connecting a project’s air emissions to health impacts or explain why such information could not be ascertained (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno [Friant Ranch, L.P.] [2018] Cal.5th, Case No. S219783). The SCAQMD has set its CEQA significance thresholds based on the FCAA, which defines a major stationary source (in extreme ozone nonattainment areas such as the SCAB) as emitting 10 tons per year. The thresholds correlate with the trigger levels for the federal New Source Review (NSR) Program and SCAQMD Rule 1303 for new or modified sources. The NSR Program was created by the FCAA to ensure that stationary sources of air pollution are constructed or modified in a manner that is consistent with attainment of health-based federal ambient air quality standards.12 The federal ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. Therefore, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD’s LSTs and mass emissions thresholds would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and no criteria pollutant health impacts. NOX and ROG are precursor emissions that form O3 in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight where the pollutants undergo complex chemical reactions. It takes time and the influence of meteorological conditions for these reactions to occur, so O3 may be formed at a distance downwind from the sources. Breathing ground-level O3 can result in health effects that include reduced lung function, inflammation of airways, throat irritation, pain, burning, or discomfort in the chest when taking a deep breath, chest tightness, wheezing, or shortness of breath. In addition to these effects, evidence from observational studies strongly indicates that higher daily O3 concentrations are associated with increased asthma attacks, increased hospital admissions, increased daily mortality, and other markers of morbidity. The consistency and coherence of the 12 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) [i.e., PSD (40 CFR 52.21, 40 CFR 51.166, 40 CFR 51.165 (b)), Non-attainment NSR (40 CFR 52.24, 40 CFR 51.165, 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S) Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 55 evidence for effects upon asthmatics suggests that O3 can make asthma symptoms worse and can increase sensitivity to asthma triggers. According to the SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP, O3, NOX, and ROG have been decreasing in the SCAB since 1975 and are projected to continue to decrease in the future. Although vehicle miles traveled in the SCAB continue to increase, NOX and ROG levels are decreasing because of the mandated controls on motor vehicles and the replacement of older polluting vehicles with lower- emitting vehicles. NOX emissions from electric utilities have also decreased due to the use of cleaner fuels and renewable energy. The 2016 AQMP demonstrates how the SCAQMD’s control strategy to meet the 8-hour O3 standard in 2023 would lead to sufficient NOX emission reductions to attain the 1-hour O3 standard by 2022. In addition, since NOX emissions also lead to the formation of PM2.5, the NOX reductions needed to meet the O3 standards will likewise lead to improvement of PM2.5 levels and attainment of PM2.5 standards. The SCAQMD’s air quality modeling demonstrates that NOX reductions prove to be much more effective in reducing O3 levels and will also lead to significant improvement in PM2.5 concentrations. NOX-emitting stationary sources regulated by the SCAQMD include Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) facilities (e.g., refineries, power plants, etc.), natural gas combustion equipment (e.g., boilers, heaters, engines, burners, flares) and other combustion sources that burn wood or propane. The 2016 AQMP identifies robust NOX reductions from new regulations on RECLAIM facilities, non-refinery flares, commercial cooking, and residential and commercial appliances. Such combustion sources are already heavily regulated with the lowest NOX emissions levels achievable but there are opportunities to require and accelerate replacement with cleaner zero-emission alternatives, such as residential and commercial furnaces, pool heaters, and backup power equipment. The AQMD plans to achieve such replacements through a combination of regulations and incentives. Technology-forcing regulations can drive development and commercialization of clean technologies, with future year requirements for new or existing equipment. Incentives can then accelerate deployment and enhance public acceptability of new technologies. The 2016 AQMD also emphasizes that beginning in 2012, continued implementation of previously adopted regulations will lead to NOX emission reductions of 68 percent by 2023 and 80 percent by 2031. With the addition of 2016 AQMP proposed regulatory measures, a 30 percent reduction of NOX from stationary sources is expected in the 15-year period between 2008 and 2023. This is in addition to significant NOX reductions from stationary sources achieved in the decades prior to 2008. As previously discussed, the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds, thus, would be less than significant; see Table 9 and Table 10, respectively. The LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 56 cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard. The LSTs were developed by the SCAQMD based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health, including protecting the health of sensitive populations. However, as discussed above, neither the SCAQMD nor any other air district currently have methodologies that would provide Lead Agencies and CEQA practitioners with a consistent, reliable, and meaningful analysis to correlate specific health impacts that may result from a proposed project’s mass emissions. Information on health impacts related to exposure to ozone and particulate matter emissions published by the EPA and CARB have been summarized above and discussed in the Air Quality section. Health studies are used by these agencies to set the NAAQS and CAAQS. Ozone concentrations are dependent upon a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Because of the complexities of predicting ground-level ozone concentrations in relation to the NAAQS and CAAQS, none of the health-related information can be directly correlated to the pounds/day or tons/year of emissions estimated from a single, proposed project. Because it is impracticable to accurately isolate the exact cause of a human disease (for example, the role a particular air pollutant plays compared to the role of other allergens and genetics in cause asthma), the City has determined that existing scientific tools cannot accurately estimate health impacts of the Project’s air emissions without undue speculation. It should also be noted that this analysis identifies health concerns related to NOX emissions. This analysis is reasonable and intended to foster informed decision making. Carbon Monoxide Hotspots An analysis of CO “hot spots” is needed to determine whether the change in the level of service of an intersection resulting from the Project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS. It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections. Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined. Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) was re-designated as attainment in 2007 and is no longer addressed in the SCAQMD’s AQMP. The 2003 AQMP is the most recent version that addresses CO concentrations. As part of the SCAQMD CO Hotspot Analysis, the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 57 Avenue intersection, one of the most congested intersections in Southern California with an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day, was modeled for CO concentrations. This modeling effort identified a CO concentration high of 4.6 ppm, which is well below the 35-ppm Federal standard. The Project considered herein would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s CO Hotspot Analysis. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection even as it accommodates 100,000 vehicles daily, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any vicinity intersections resulting from 630 additional vehicle trips attributable to the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and the Project would not result in a new or more severe impact than previously analyzed in the CHNSP FEIR. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people)? No New or More Severe Impact. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources. During construction-related activities, some odors (not substantial pollutant concentrations) that may be detected are those typical of construction vehicles (e.g., diesel exhaust from grading and construction equipment). These odors are a temporary short-term impact that is typical of construction projects and would disperse rapidly. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources. Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors. The Project would not result in a new or more severe impact than previously analyzed in the CHNSP FEIR. Conclusion With regard to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes to the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts with respect to air quality. Therefore, the preparation of a SEIR is not warranted. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 58 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The following is based on information in the Fontana GP Chapter 7 – Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails and in the Habitat Assessment Report, prepared for the Project by ELMT Consulting (October 20, 2021). The report is included as Appendix B of this EIR Addendum and the results are summarized herein. Methodology A literature review and records search were conducted to determine which special-status biological resources have the potential to occur on or within the general vicinity of the Project site. In addition to the literature review, a general habitat assessment or field investigation of the Project site was conducted to document existing conditions and assess the potential for special- status biological resources to occur within the Project site. Literature Review Prior to conducting the habitat assessment, a literature review and records search was conducted for special-status biological resources potentially occurring on or within the vicinity of the Project Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 59 site. Previously recorded occurrences of special-status plant and wildlife species and their proximity to the Project site were determined through a query of the CDFW’s QuickView Tool in the Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS), CNDDB Rarefind 5, the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, Calflora Database, compendia of special-status species published by CDFW, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) species listings. All available reports, survey results, and literature detailing the biological resources previously observed on or within the vicinity of the Project site were reviewed to understand existing site conditions and note the extent of any disturbances that have occurred within the Project site that would otherwise limit the distribution of special-status biological resources. Standard field guides and texts were reviewed for specific habitat requirements of special-status and non- special-status biological resources, as well as the following resources: • Google Earth Pro historic aerial imagery (1985-2021); • United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Soil Survey ; • USFWS Critical Habitat designations for Threatened and Endangered Species; and • USFWS Endangered Species Profiles. The literature review provided a baseline from which to inventory the biological resources potentially occurring within the Project site. The CNDDB database was used, in conjunction with ArcGIS software, to locate the nearest recorded occurrences of special-status species and determine the distance from the Project site. Habitat Assessment/Field Investigation Following the literature review, biologist Jacob H. Lloyd Davies inventoried and evaluated the condition of the habitat within the Project site on August 17, 2021. Plant communities and land cover types identified on aerial photographs during the literature review were verified by walking meandering transects throughout the Project site. In addition, aerial photography was reviewed prior to the site investigation to locate potential natural corridors and linkages that may support the movement of wildlife through the area. These areas identified on aerial photography were then walked during the field investigation. All plant and wildlife species observed, as well as dominant plant species within each plant community, were recorded. Plant species observed during the field investigation were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field. Unusual and less familiar plant species were photographed during the field investigation and identified in the laboratory using taxonomical guides. Wildlife detections were made through observation of scat, trails, tracks, burrows, nests, and/or visual and aural observation. In addition, site characteristics such as soil condition, Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 60 topography, hydrology, anthropogenic disturbances, indicator species, condition of on-site plant communities and land cover types, and presence of potential jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were noted. Soil Series Assessment On-site and adjoining soils were researched prior to the field investigation using the USDA NRCS Soil Survey for San Bernardino County, Southwestern Part. In addition, a review of the local geological conditions and historical aerial photographs was conducted to assess the ecological changes that the Project site have undergone. Plant Communities Plant communities were mapped using 7.5-minute USGS topographic base maps and aerial photography. The plant communities were classified in accordance with Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf and Evens (2009), delineated on an aerial photograph, and then digitized into GIS Arcview. The Arcview application was used to compute the area of each plant community and/or land cover type in acres. Plants Common plant species observed during the field investigation were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field and recorded in a field notebook. Unusual and less familiar plants were photographed in the field and identified in the office using taxonomic guides. Taxonomic nomenclature used in this study follows the 2012 Jepson Manual (Hickman 2012). In this report, scientific names are provided immediately following common names of plant species (first reference only). Wildlife Wildlife species detected during the field investigation by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other sign were recorded during surveys in a field notebook. Field guides were used to assist with identification of wildlife species during the survey included The Sibley Field Guide to the Birds of Western North America (Sibley 2003), A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 2003), and A Field Guide to Mammals of North America (Reid 2006). Although common names of wildlife species are well standardized, scientific names are provided immediately following common names in this report (first reference only). Jurisdictional Drainages and Wetlands Aerial photography was reviewed prior to conducting a field investigation in order to locate and inspect any potential natural drainage features, ponded areas, or water bodies that may fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board), or CDFW. In general, surface drainage features indicated Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 61 as blue-line streams on USGS maps that are observed or expected to exhibit evidence of flow are considered potential riparian/riverine habitat and are also subject to state and federal regulatory jurisdiction. In addition, ELMT reviewed jurisdictional waters information through examining historical aerial photographs to gain an understanding of the impact of land-use on natural drainage patterns in the area. The USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Program “My Waters” data layers were also reviewed to determine whether any hydrologic features and wetland areas have been documented on or within the vicinity of the Project site. Existing Site Conditions The Project site occurs in an area that has undergone a conversion from natural habitats into agriculture and residential land uses in the northern portion of the City of Fontana southeast of Interstate 15 and north of State Route 210. The Project site is bordered by residential developments to the north and west; undeveloped, vacant land and a water storage tank to the south; and undeveloped, vacant land and residential development to the east. Topography and Soils The Project site is relatively flat with no areas of significant topographic relief, and ranges in elevation from 1,635 to 1,656 feet above mean sea level. Generally, the Project site slopes from northeast to southwest. Based on the NRCS USDA Web Soil Survey, the Project site is underlain entirely by Soboba gravelly loam sand (0 to 9 percent slopes). Refer to Exhibit 4, Soils in Attachment A. Soils on-site have been mechanically disturbed and heavily compacted from historic land uses (i.e., grading and weed abatement activities). Vegetation Due to historic and existing land uses, no native plant communities or natural communities of special concern were observed on or adjacent to the Project site. The Project site consists of both developed and undeveloped, vacant land that have been subject to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances. The Project site has been subject to disturbances including grading, stockpiling, and routine weed abatement activities. These disturbances have eliminated and/or greatly disturbed the natural plant communities that historically occurred within the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Refer to Attachment C, Site Photographs, for representative site photographs. No native plant communities will be impacted from implementation of the Project. The Project site supports one (1) plant community: California buckwheat scrub. In addition, the site supports two (2) land cover types that would be classified as disturbed and developed. Refer to Exhibit 5, Vegetation in Attachment A of the Habitat Assessment Report. The California buckwheat scrub plant community onsite is dominated by California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) and occurs commonly when an area is subject to significant Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 62 devegetation from anthropogenic disturbance and revegetates with other plant species that were once commonplace, but in unnatural diversity and species distribution. Additional species observed in this plant community include deerweed (Acmispon glaber), basketbush (Rhus aromatica), holly leaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), and California croton (Croton californicus); and non-native weedy/early successional species such as Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), Mediterranean mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), mouse barley (Hordeum murinum), red brome (Bromus madritensis), ripgut (Bromus diandrus), Mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus), and wild oat (Avena fatua). Disturbed areas are generally those that are minimally vegetated or support primarily weedy/early successional species adapted to routine disturbances. Surface soils within these areas have been heavily disturbed/compacted from anthropogenic disturbances. Plant species observed in disturbed portions of the Project site include deerweed, telegraph weed, California croton, Russian thistle, Mediterranean mustard, mouse barley, red brome, ripgut, Mediterranean grass, and wild oat. Developed areas generally encompass all buildings/structures or any paved or otherwise impervious surfaces. Developed portions of the site include paved and compacted gravel areas that formerly supported staging activities or materials stockpiles and paved sidewalks. These areas are generally unvegetated except for especially hardy early successional species that are adapted to growing in highly compacted soils. Wildlife Plant communities provide foraging habitat, nesting/denning site, and shelter from adverse weather or predation. This section provides a discussion of those wildlife species that were observed or are expected to occur within the Project site. The discussion is to be used a general reference and is limited by the season, time of day, and weather conditions in which the field investigation was conducted. Wildlife detections were based on calls, songs, scat, tracks, burrows, and direct observation. The Project site provide limited habitat for wildlife species except those adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbances and development. Fish No fish or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) that would provide suitable habitat for fish were observed on or within the vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, no fish are expected to occur and are presumed absent from the Project site. Amphibians No amphibians or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) that would provide suitable habitat for amphibian species were observed on or within the vicinity Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 63 of the Project site. Therefore, no amphibians are expected to occur and are presumed absent from the Project site. Reptiles The Project site provides limited foraging and cover habitat for reptile species adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbance. The only reptile species observed during the field investigation was western side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana elegans). Common reptilian species adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbances that have the potential to occur on-site include Great Basin fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis longipes) and alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata). Due to the high level of anthropogenic disturbances on-site, and surrounding development, no special-status reptilian species are expected to occur within Project site. Birds The Project site provides limited foraging and nesting habitat for bird species adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbance. Bird species detected during the field investigation included mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and rock pigeon (Columba livia). Mammals The Project site provides limited foraging and cover habitat for mammalian species adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbance. The only mammalian species observed during the field investigation were cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) and California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi). Common mammalian species adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbance include coyote (Canis latrans), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Nesting Birds No active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed during the field survey, which was conducted at the end of the bird nesting season. Although subjected to routine disturbance, the ornamental trees found on-site has the potential to provide suitable nesting habitat for year- round and seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds that could occur in the area that area adapted to urban environments. Additionally, the open, disturbed habitat on-site also provides nesting opportunities for ground-nesting species such as killdeer (Charadrius vociferus). No raptors are expected to nest on-site due to lack of suitable nesting opportunities. Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 prohibit the take, possession, or Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 64 destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. Nesting Birds Recommendations In order to protect migratory bird species, a nesting bird clearance survey should be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities that may disrupt the birds during the nesting season. If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, a pre- construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. The biologist conducting the clearance survey should document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities should stay outside of a no-disturbance buffer. The size of the no-disturbance buffer will be determined by the wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of noise and/or surrounding anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between the nest and the construction activity, type and duration of construction activity, ambient noise, species habituation, and topographical barriers. These factors will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis when developing buffer distances. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest will be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel will be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor should be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction activities within the buffer area can occur. As part of the nesting bird clearance, it is recommended that a burrowing owl pre-construction clearance survey be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities to ensure that burrowing owls remain absent from the project site. Migratory Corridors and Linkages Habitat linkages provide connections between larger habitat areas that are separated by development. Wildlife corridors are similar to linkages but provide specific opportunities for animals to disperse or migrate between areas. A corridor can be defined as a linear landscape feature of sufficient width to allow animal movement between two comparatively undisturbed habitat fragments. Adequate cover is essential for a corridor to function as a wildlife movement area. It is possible for a habitat corridor to be adequate for one species yet still inadequate for Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 65 others. Wildlife corridors are features that allow for the dispersal, seasonal migration, breeding, and foraging of a variety of wildlife species. Additionally, open space can provide a buffer against both anthropogenic disturbance and natural fluctuations in resources. According to the San Bernardino County General Plan, the Project site has not been identified as occurring within a Wildlife Corridor or Linkage. As designated by the San Bernardino County General Plan Open Space Element, major open space areas documented in the vicinity of the Project site include the Lytle Creek Wash, located approximately 2.5 miles to the northeast, which is separated from the Project by existing developments. The Project will be confined to existing areas that have been heavily disturbed and are isolated from regional wildlife corridors and linkages. In addition, there are no riparian corridors, creeks, or useful patches of steppingstone habitat (natural areas) within or connecting the site to a recognized wildlife corridor or linkage. As such, implementation of the Project is not expected to impact wildlife movement opportunities. Therefore, impacts to wildlife corridors or linkages are not expected to occur. Jurisdictional Areas There are three key agencies that regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The Corps Regulatory Branch regulates discharge of dredge or fill materials into “waters of the United States” pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Of the State agencies, the CDFW regulates alterations to streambed and bank under Fish and Wildlife Code Sections 1600 et seq., and the Regional Board regulates discharges into surface waters pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The Project site does not support any discernible drainage courses, inundated areas, wetland features, or hydric soils that would be considered jurisdictional by the Corps, Regional Board, or CDFW. query of the NWI database found on potential blueline streams, riverine, or other aquatic resources within or adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, Project activities will not result in impacts to Corps, Regional Board, or CDFW jurisdictional areas and regulatory approvals will not be required. Special-Status Biological Resources The CNDDB Rarefind 5 and the CNPS Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California were queried for reported locations of special-status plant and wildlife species as well as special-status natural plant communities in the Devore USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. The habitat assessment evaluated the conditions of the habitat(s) within the boundaries of the Project site to determine if the existing plant communities, at the time of the survey, have the potential to provide suitable habitat(s) for special-status plant and wildlife species. Only one Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 66 quadrangle was searched since the Project site is located near the middle of the quadrangle and is surrounding be existing development. The literature search identified twenty (20) special-status plant species, forty-two (42) special- status, and three (3) special-status plant communities as having potential to occur within the Devore USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. Special-status plant and wildlife species were evaluated for their potential to occur within the Project site based on habitat requirements, availability and quality of suitable habitat, and known distributions. Species determined to have the potential to occur within the general vicinity of the Project site is presented in Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources, provided in Attachment D. Special-Status Plants According to the CNDDB and CNPS, twenty (20) special-status plant species have been recorded in the Devore quadrangle (refer to Attachment D). No special-status plant species were observed on-site during the field investigation. The Project site consists developed land and vacant, undeveloped land that has been subject to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances from historic grading and stockpiling activities, on-site and surrounding development, and routine weed abatement activities, and is largely surrounded by existing development. These disturbances have eliminated the natural plant communities that once occurred on-site which has removed ability of the habitat on the Project site to provide suitable habitat for special-status plant species known to occur in the general vicinity. Based on habitat requirements for specific special-status plant species and the availability and quality of habitats needed by each species, it was determined that the Project site do not provide suitable habitat for any of the special-status plant species known to occur in the area and all are presumed to be absent. No focused surveys are recommended. Special-Status Wildlife According to the CNDDB, forty-two (42) special-status wildlife species have been reported in the Devore quadrangle (refer to Attachment D). No special-status wildlife species were observed on- site during the habitat assessment. The Project site consists of developed land and vacant, undeveloped land that has been subject to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances from historic grading and stockpiling activities, on-site and surrounding development, and routine weed abatement activities, and is largely surrounded by existing development. These disturbances have eliminated the natural plant communities that once occurred on-site which has greatly reduced potential foraging opportunities for wildlife species. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of on-site habitats, it was determined that the Project site has a high potential to provide suitable habitat for Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia); and a low potential to support burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and Costa’s hummingbird Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 67 (Calypte costae). It was further determined that the Project site does not have the potential to support any of the other special-status wildlife species known to occur in the area since the site has been heavily impacted by on-site disturbances and surrounding development. None of the aforementioned species are federally or state listed as endangered or threatened. In order to ensure impacts to the aforementioned species do not occur from implementation of the Project, a pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted prior to ground disturbance. With implementation of the pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey, impacts to the aforementioned species will be less than significant and no mitigation will be required. Based on regional significance, the potential occurrence of California gnatcatcher, burrowing owl, and San Bernardino kangaroo rat within the Project site are described in further detail below: California Gnatcatcher California gnatcatcher is a federally threatened species with restricted habitat requirements, being an obligate resident of sage scrub habitats that are dominated by California sagebrush. This species generally occurs below 750 feet elevation in coastal regions and below 1,500 feet inland. According to J. Atwood and J. Bolsinger (1992), 99% of all California gnatcatcher observations are in areas with elevations below 950 feet. There are reported occurrences of California gnatcatcher at 1,600 feet elevation (500 meters). California gnatcatcher ranges from Ventura County south to San Diego County and northern Baja California and is less common in sage scrub with a high percentage of tall shrubs. It prefers habitat with more low-growing vegetation. California gnatcatchers breed between mid-February and the end of August, with peak activity from mid-March to mid-May. Population estimates indicate that there are approximately 1,600 to 2,290 pairs of coastal California gnatcatcher remaining. Declines are attributed to loss of sage scrub habitat due to development, as well as cowbird nest parasitism. California gnatcatcher are ground and shrub-foraging insectivores. They feed on small insects and other arthropods. A California gnatcatcher’s territory is highly variable in size and seems to be correlated with distance from the coast, ranging from less than 1 ha to over 9 ha. In a 1998 study, biologist Patrick Mock concluded that California gnatcatcher in the inland region require a larger territory than those on the coast in order to meet the nutritional requirements needed for survival and breeding. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 68 The Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs)13 essential to support the biological needs of foraging, reproducing, rearing of young, intra-specific communication, dispersal, genetic exchange, or sheltering for California gnatcatcher that were surveyed for include: 1. Dynamic and Successional sage scrub Habitats and Associated Vegetation (Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Coastal Sage-Chaparral Scrub, etc.) that provide space for individual and population growth, normal behavior, breeding, reproduction, nesting, dispersal and foraging; and 2. Non-sage scrub habitats such as chaparral, grassland, and riparian areas, in proximity to sage scrub habitats have the potential to provide linkages to help with dispersal, foraging and nesting. The Project site ranges in elevation from 1,635 to 1,656 feet above mean sea level, which is outside the known elevational range of California gnatcatcher. Ninety-nine percent of all California gnatcatcher observations occur below 950 feet above msl. California gnatcatcher’s preferred habitat is coastal sage scrub dominated by California sage brush. The Project site does not support coastal sage scrub habitat. Portions of the Project site support a buckwheat scrub plant community (Eriogonum fasciculatum alliance) that is not the preferred habitat for California gnatcatcher. In addition, the site is isolated from California gnatcatcher occupied coastal sage scrub habitats and linkage areas in the region by surrounding development. Given the highly degraded condition of the site, plus the lack of any observation of California gnatcatcher in north Fontana and isolation of the site due to the recent development of surrounding properties, it is highly unlikely that the site supports this species. The site is presumed to be unoccupied and focused surveys are not recommended. Burrowing Owl The burrowing owl is currently listed as a California Species of Special Concern. It is a grassland specialist distributed throughout western North America where it occupies open areas with short vegetation and bare ground within shrub, desert, and grassland environments. Burrowing owls use a wide variety of arid and semi-arid environments with well-drained, level to gently-sloping areas characterized by sparse vegetation and bare ground (Haug and Didiuk 1993; Dechant et al. 1999). Burrowing owls are dependent upon the presence of burrowing mammals (such as ground squirrels) whose burrows are used for roosting and nesting (Haug and Didiuk 1993). The presence or absence of colonial mammal burrows is often a major factor that limits the presence or absence of burrowing owls. Where mammal burrows are scarce, burrowing owls have been found occupying man-made cavities, such as buried and non-functioning drain pipes, stand- pipes, and dry culverts. Burrowing mammals may burrow beneath rocks and debris or large, heavy objects such as abandoned cars, concrete blocks, or concrete pads. They also require open 13 Specific elements of physical and biological features that provide for a species’ life-history process and are essential to the conservation of the species. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 69 vegetation allowing line-of-sight observation of the surrounding habitat to forage as well as watch for predators. No burrowing owls or recent sign (i.e., pellets, feathers, castings, or white wash) was observed during the field investigation. The Project site is unvegetated and/or vegetated with a variety of low-growing plant species that allow for line-of-sight observation favored by burrowing owls and the site supports suitable burrows (>4 inches in diameter) capable of providing roosting and nesting opportunities. However, the site is surrounded by buildings, trees, and light poles which decrease the likelihood that burrowing owls would occur on the Project site as these features provide perching opportunities for larger raptor species (i.e., red-tailed hawk [Buteo jamaicensis]) that prey on burrowing owls. Further, the Project site is largely surrounded by existing development and is thoroughly isolated from nearby suitable habitats. Based on the results of the field investigation, it was determined that the Project site has a low potential to provide suitable habitat for burrowing owls and focused surveys are not recommended. However, a pre-construction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conditioned to be conducted prior to development to ensure burrowing owl remain absent from the Project site. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat The San Bernardino kangaroo rat, federally listed as endangered, is one of several kangaroo rat species in its range. The Dulzura (Dipodomys simulans), the Pacific kangaroo rat (Dipodomys agilis) and the Stephens kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi) occur in areas occupied by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, but these other species have a wider habitat range. San Bernardino kangaroo rat historically ranged from the San Bernardino Valley in San Bernardino County to southwest Perris, Bautista Canyon, and Murrieta Hot Springs in Riverside County, with at least 25 separate localities identified. Currently, populations of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat are limited to seven widely separated locations in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, four of which (City Creek, Etiwanda, Reche Canyon, and South Bloomington) support only small, remnant populations. The Santa Ana River, Lytle and Cajon washes, and the San Jacinto River support the largest extant concentrations of San Bernardino kangaroo rat and the largest areas of habitat for this species (approximately 3,200 acres total). The total area of occupied habitat occurs across a mosaic of approximately 13,697 acres of potential habitat; however, all but the 3,215 occupied areas are currently more mature than the open, early successional habitat types preferred by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (USFWS 2009). San Bernardino kangaroo rat is found primarily on sandy and loamy sand substrates, where they can readily excavate simple, shallow burrows. This is typically associated with Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) habitat, a relatively uncommon desert-influenced plant community in southern California that develops on alluvial fans and floodplains subjected to scouring and Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 70 deposition (USFWS 2009). Adjacent upland habitat provide refuge for San Bernardino kangaroo rat during flood events. Animals occupying this refugia habitat are able to repopulate core habitat areas within the floodplain following major flood events. Most of the drainages have been historically altered as a result of flood control efforts and the resulting increased use of river resources, including mining, off-road vehicle use, and road and housing development. This increased use of river resources has resulted in a reduction in both the amount and quality of habitat available for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The past habitat losses and potential future losses prompted the emergency listing of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat as an endangered species (USFWS, 1998a). San Bernardino kangaroo rat is known to occur within Lytle Creek. The Project site consists of vacant, heavily disturbed land with compacted soils that have been disturbed from previous land uses. Field sign for kangaroo rat, including San Bernardino kangaroo rat, is distinctive and readily noted in the field. No sign (e.g., San Bernardino kangaroo rat characteristic burrows, dusting baths, and/or tail drags) were observed on the Project site. Additionally, the Project site is separated from Lytle Creek by existing developments. The Project site no longer supports undisturbed, native habitats, in particular a Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub plant community is no longer exposed to hydrological processes needed to maintain the openness of suitable San Bernardino kangaroo rat habitat and does not contain upland areas proximal to flood plains that contain suitable refuge habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Based on these conditions, it was determined that the Project site does not provide the requisite PCEs which are needed by San Bernardino kangaroo rat to be present. Therefore, it was determined that San Bernardino kangaroo rat is presumed absent from the Project site. Special-Status Plant Communities According to the CNDDB, three (3) special-status plant communities have been reported in the Devore USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle: Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, southern riparian forest, and Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland. Based on the results of the field investigation, no special-status plant communities were observed onsite. Therefore, no special-status plant communities will be impacted by Project implementation. Critical Habitat Under the federal Endangered Species Act, “Critical Habitat” is designated at the time of listing of a species or within one year of listing. Critical Habitat refers to specific areas within the geographical range of a species at the time it is listed that include the physical or biological features that are essential to the survival and eventual recovery of that species. Maintenance of these physical and biological features requires special management considerations or protection, regardless of whether individuals or the species are present or not. All federal agencies are required to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding activities Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 71 they authorize, fund, or permit which may affect a federally listed species or its designated Critical Habitat. The purpose of the consultation is to ensure that Projects will not jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species or adversely modify or destroy its designated Critical Habitat. The designation of Critical Habitat does not affect private landowners, unless a Project they are proposing is on federal lands, uses federal funds, or requires federal authorization or permits (e.g., funding from the Federal Highways Administration or a CWA Permit from the Corps). If a there is a federal nexus, then the federal agency that is responsible for providing the funding or permit would consult with the USFWS. The Project site is located within designated Critical Habitat Unit 2, Lytle Creek/Cajon Wash. Refer to Exhibit 6, Critical Habitat in Attachment A. In 2002 the USFWS designated Critical Habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and the Project site were included within the designated area. Subsequently, in 2008 the USFWS reduced the boundaries of their previously designated Critical Habitat which removed the Project site from designation. Finally, at the beginning of 2011 the original (2002) designated Critical Habitat was reinstated by a federal district court ruling which overturned the reduced (2008) designated Critical Habitat. Since the Project does not have a federal nexus, a Section 7 consultation with the USFWS would not be required for loss or adverse modification of Critical Habitat. Habitat Assessment Report Conclusion Based on literature review and field survey, and existing site conditions discussed in this report, implementation of the Project will have no significant impacts on federally or State listed species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project site. Additionally, the Project will have no effect on designated Critical Habitat, since there is no federal nexus, or regional wildlife corridors/linkage because none exists within the area. No jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were observed on the Project site during the field investigation. No further surveys are recommended. With completion of the recommendations as discussed under Nesting Birds Section, no impacts to year-round, seasonal, or special-status avian residents or special-status species will occur from implementation of the Project. Summary of Impacts Identified in the CHNSP FEIR The Certified 2004 CHNSP FEIR found that implementation of the CHNSP would not have a significant impact on biological resources. Site-specific field studies were performed for the California gnatcatcher and the San Bernardino kangaroo rat by the CHNSP’s biologist, and the field studies determined that the CHNSP implementation would have no impact on the California gnatcatcher, the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, or their habitat. No impact would occur in this regard. At the time of the 2004 CHNSP FEIR certification, the City of Fontana had not adopted a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The 2004 CHNSP FEIR concluded that the CHNSP Project would not result in a significant impact on biological resources. However, the 2004 Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 72 CHNSP FEIR contained a future mitigation measure (BR-1) requiring that when the MSHCP is adopted and implemented in the future, the CHNSP Project would comply with the future applicable mitigation measures required by the MSHCP in northern Fontana. A Habitat Assessment for the Project site was prepared by ELMT and determined that the Project will have no significant impacts on federally or State listed species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project site. However, to ensure no impacts to wildlife during construction, implementation of mitigation measures BR-1 of the CHNSP FEIR would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Modifications to the existing mitigation measure BR-1 has been added to address the current conservation practices and protections and to clarify the intent of the mitigation measure. CHNSP FEIR Mitigation Measures for Biological Impacts BR-1 If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting bird shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities to ensure that the Project would comply with the intent of the mitigation measures required by the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan in northern Fontana. when it is approved and implemented. A burrowing owl pre- construction clearance survey shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities to ensure that burrowing owls remain absent from the project site. Impacts of the Citrus West Project Would the Citrus West Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No New or More Severe Impact. A Habitat Assessment for the Project site was prepared by ELMT Consulting to verify potential habitat for sensitive biological resources within the site and vicinity (October 2021). ELMT Consulting conducted a literature review and records search for special- status biological resources as well as a field investigation to evaluate the condition of the habitat within the Project site and surrounding areas. In addition, ELMT also conducted aerial photographs and topographic maps review of the Project site and surrounding areas. As discussed above, the Habitat Assessment Report concluded that, based on the literature review and field survey, implementation of the Project will have no significant impacts on federally or State listed species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project site.14 No jurisdictional 14 ELMT Consulting. Habitat Assessment for the Citrus West Project. October 2021. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 73 drainage and/or wetland features were observed on the Project site during the field investigation and no impacts to year-round, seasonal, or special-status avian residents or special-status species will occur.15 Therefore, no further surveys are recommended.16 Although, the Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped, the surrounding lands have been disturbed and developed with residential development to the west, north, and east. Therefore, the Project would not create an adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or USFWS. No sensitive or special status plant species are identified to occur on-site. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated to occur. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. As discussed in Threshold 4(a), the Habitat Assessment Report concluded that, based on the results of the field surveys, no jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were observed on the Project site. Further, the Project site does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Therefore, no impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural vegetation communities are anticipated. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological? No Impact. As discussed in Threshold 4(a), the Habitat Assessment Report concluded that, based on the results of the field surveys, no jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were observed on the Project site. Further, the Project site does not contain any drainage features onsite that would meet any criteria subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA) or Fish and Game Code (FGC). Therefore, no impact would occur. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No New or More Severe Impact. According to the San Bernardino County General Plan, the Project site has not been identified as occurring within a Wildlife Corridor or Linkage.17 The Habitat Assessment Report concluded that, based on the results of the field surveys, no jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were observed on the Project site. The Project is 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 ELMT Consulting. Habitat Assessment for the Citrus West Project. October 2021. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 74 primarily vacant, undeveloped land with scattered developed portions and has been subjected to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances including grading, routine weed abatement activities, vehicular traffic, and on-site and surrounding development. These disturbances have eliminated and/or greatly disturbed the natural plant communities that historically occurred within the immediate vicinity of the Project site.18 As such, no active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed during the field survey conducted during breeding season. Nesting birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) which provides protection for nesting birds that are both residents and migrants whether or not they are considered sensitive by resource agencies. The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed under 50 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). The direct or indirect injury or death of a migratory bird, due to construction activities such as nest abandonment, nestling abandonment, or forced fledging would be considered illegal under federal law. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), in coordination with the CDFW administers the MBTA. Therefore, any project that proposes to grade or conduct activities within the nesting season shall be in compliance with MBTA. Modification to the exiting mitigation measure BR-1 were added to clarify the language with current conservation practices and protections. In order to protect migratory bird species, if construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds would be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction disrupting the birds during the nesting season. No additional mitigation measure would be required, and the Project would not create a new or more severe impact than previously analyzed in the CHNSP FEIR The Project would not impact migratory wildlife and a major revision to the EIR would not be necessary. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The Fontana MC Chapter 28, Article III – Preservation of Heritage, Significant and Specimen Trees establishes regulations for the preservation and protection of heritage, significant and/or specimen trees within the City. The Project site contains ornamental trees that are not considered heritage or significant. The Project implementation would result in removal of these trees that are not protected under the Preservation of Heritage, Significant and Specimen Trees Ordinance. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. No impact would occur in this regard. 18 Ibid. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 75 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? No New or More Severe Impact. The City of Fontana is currently finalizing the North Fontana Conservation Program. The Project is within the Fontana Conservation Program mitigation fee areas; and therefore, would be subject to the mitigation fee. Implementation of previously identified mitigation measures (BR-1) would apply to reduce impacts of the Project. 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. Conclusion With regard to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes to the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts with respect to biological resources. Therefore, the preparation of a SEIR is not warranted. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 76 CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? This section discusses the historic, archaeological resources that may be impacted due to Project implementation. Cultural resources are defined as places, objects, and settlements that reflect group or individual religious, archaeological, or architectural activities. Such resources provide information on scientific progress, environmental adaptations, group ideology, or other human advancements. By statute, CEQA is primarily concerned with two classes of cultural resources: “historical resources,” which are defined in PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and “unique archaeological resources,” which are defined in PRC Section 21083.2. Tribal cultural resources are generally described as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe and are further defined in PRC Section 21074(a)(1)(A) and (B). The information and analysis in this section is based on the Cultural Resources Assessment report, prepared for the Project by BCR Consulting, LLC. (BCR) in November 2021; as well as literature review of the City of Fontana General Plan (2007) and City of Fontana General Plan Update 2015 – 2035 (2018), and existing conditions of the Project site. The BCR report is included as Appendix C in this EIR Addendum and the results are summarized herein. Historical Resources Historical resources consist of any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a)(3)). By statute, the CEQA is primarily concerned with two classes of cultural resources: “historical resources,” which are defined in PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and “unique archaeological resources,” which are defined in PRC Section 21083.2. Tribal cultural resources are generally described as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 77 and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe and are further defined in PRC Section 21074(a)(1)(A) and (B). Archaeological Resources Archaeological resources are materials from past human activities that are more than 50 years old. The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 governs the excavation of archaeological sites on federal and Indian lands in the United States, and the removal and disposition of archaeological collections from those sites. Paleontological Resources Paleontology, exclusive of the study of human fossils, is a natural science closely associated with geology and biology. In geologically diverse California, vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant fossils are usually found in sedimentary and metasedimentary deposits. CEQA provides guidance relative to significant impacts on paleontological resources, indicating that a project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it disturbs or destroys a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Section 5097.5 of the California Public Resources Code specifies that any unauthorized removal of paleontological remains is a misdemeanor. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 622.5 sets the penalties for damage or removal of paleontological resources. CEQA provides guidance relative to significant impacts on paleontological resources, indicating that a project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it disturbs or destroys a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Section 5097.5 of the California Public Resources Code specifies that any unauthorized removal of paleontological remains is a misdemeanor. Further, California Penal Code Section 622.5 sets the penalties for damage or removal of paleontological resources. CEQA documentation prepared for projects would be required to analyze paleontological resources as a condition of the CEQA process to disclose potential impacts. As of January 2018, paleontological resources are considered in the geological rather than cultural category. Therefore, paleontological resources are discussed in Geology and Soils discussion. Methodology19 Records Search Prior to fieldwork, an archaeological records search was conducted by SCCIC staff using data on file at California State University, Fullerton. This included a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric cultural resources, as well as a review of known cultural resources within 0.5miles of the Project site. In addition, a review was conducted of the National Register of Historic Places (HRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and documents and inventories 19 BCR Consulting LLC. (2021). Cultural Resources Assessment; Methodology. Accessed November 2021. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 78 from the California Office of Historic Preservation (COHP) including the lists of California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, Listing of National Register Properties, and the Inventory of Historic Structures. Field Survey An archaeological pedestrian field survey of the Project site was conducted on September 2, 2021. The survey was conducted by walking parallel transects spaced approximately 15 meters apart across 100 percent of the project site. Soil exposures, including natural and artificial clearings were carefully inspected for evidence of cultural resources. Results20 Records Search Records search results conducted by SCCIC staff using data on file at California State University, Fullerton indicate that 19 previous cultural resources studies have been conducted within a 0.5 miles radius of the Project site, resulting in the recordation of three historic-period cultural resources. Of these, two of the previous studies assessed the project site for cultural resources but did not identify any cultural resources within its boundaries. The Historic-Period Grapeland Homesteads/Water Works (designated P-36-15376) encompasses the Project site, although no components of that resource have ever been identified within the project site boundaries. Results are summarized in Table 11, Cultural Resources and Reports Located within 0.5 Miles of the Project Site, and a comprehensive records search bibliography is in Appendix A of the Cultural Resources Assessment Report, provided as Appendix C in this Addendum. Table 11: Cultural Resources and Reports Located within 0.5 Miles of the Project Site USGS 7.5 Min Quad. Cultural Resources Within 0.5 Miles of Project Site Studies Within One Mile Devore, Calif. (1980) P-36-6287: Historic-Period Foundation (1/4 Mile SE) P-36-6588: Historic-Period Foundation (Adjacent SE) P-36-15376: Historic-Period Grapeland Homesteads/Water Works (Encompasses Project Site) SB-1407, 1611, 1737, 1983, 2064, 2096, 2621*, 3049, 3527, 3957, 4020, 4021, 4022, 4209, 5088, 5089*, 6986, 7375, 7990 *Previously assessed for the Project site for cultural resources. Source: BCR Consulting, LLC. November 2021. Cultural Resources Assessment. Sacred Lands File Search BCR Consulting conducted a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search with the Native American heritage Commission (NAHC). Findings were positive during the SLF search with the NAHC. The NAHC has recommended contacting the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation for more information regarding this finding. The City initiated Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) Native American 20 BCR Consulting LLC. (2021). Cultural Resources Assessment; Results. Accessed November 2021. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 79 Consultation for the project. Since the City initiated and carried out the required Native American Consultation, the results of the consultation are not provided in the BCR report. Refer to Section 18: Tribal Cultural Resources of this EIR Addendum for consultation results and additional information regarding SB 18. Field Survey During the field survey, BCR Consulting staff carefully inspected the project site, and identified no cultural resources within its boundaries. Surface visibility was 80 percent within the project site. Sediments consisted of light grayish brown, dry clayey silt with moderate gravel that was subrounded. The property vegetation was mainly dried seasonal grasses and weeds. Significance Evaluations CEQA calls for the evaluation and recordation of historic and archaeological resources. The criteria for determining the significance of impacts to cultural resources are based on Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and Guidelines for the Nomination of Properties to the California Register. Properties eligible for listing in the California Register and subject to review under CEQA are those meeting the criteria for listing in the California Register, or designation under a local ordinance. Significance Criteria California Register of Historical Resources. The California Register criteria are based on National Register criteria. For a property to be eligible for inclusion on the California Register, one or more of the following criteria must be met: 1. It is associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the U.S.; 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or U.S. history; 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values; and/or 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resources.” (CCR 4852 [d][2]). The California Register also requires that a resource possess integrity. This is defined as the ability for the resource to convey its significance through seven aspects: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 80 Finally, CEQA requires that significant effects on unique archaeological resources be considered and addressed. CEQA defines a unique archaeological resource as any archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: 1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. 2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. 3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. BCR Report Conclusion BCR Consulting conducted a Cultural Resources Assessment of the Citrus West Project located in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The records search data and field survey did not yield any cultural resources within the project area. Conditions have failed to indicate sensitivity for buried cultural resources. Therefore, BCR Consulting recommends that no additional cultural resource work or monitoring is necessary for any earthmoving proposed within the Project site. Summary of Impacts Identified in the CHNSP FEIR The Certified 2004 CHNSP FEIR found that implementation of the CHNSP was found not to have a substantial adverse effect on historical or archeological resources. However, the CHNSP noted that the Project site has the potential to contain buried archaeological artifacts, especially those dating up to the 1890s. Although, it is unlikely and not expected that any such archaeological resources would be uncovered during grading and construction, the possibility of such an occurrence must be considered to be a potentially significant Project impact. Therefore, the CHNSP included mitigation measures CR-1 and CR-2 to reduce any potential impacts to historical and archeological resources to a less than significant level. The CHNSP mitigation measures CR-1 and CR-2 are as follows: CR-1 Archaeological Resources. The project applicant shall arrange for a qualified archeologist to attend a pre-grade meeting to inform the construction managers about procedures to protect any cultural resources or human remains that are uncovered during grading and construction. CR-2 For any cultural materials that are observed during ground disturbance, all construction activity at the location shall be immediately suspended and the area shall be clearly staked and flagged. The materials shall be evaluated for potential significance in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines by a qualified archeologist. If determined not Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 81 to be significant, construction shall be allowed to resume. If determined to be significant, a treatment plan shall be prepared and implemented as determined appropriate by the qualified archeologist and the San Bernardino County Museum. Impacts of the Citrus West Project Would the Citrus West Project: a & b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical and an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? No New or More Severe Impact. Based on the CRHR significance criteria, research has failed to associate the historic-period utility alignment with any important events or persons (Criteria 1 and 2). The site does not embody any distinctive characteristics, represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values (Criterion 3). Intensive survey has not identified any potential for the site to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation (Criterion 4). As such, the Project site does not meet any of the CRHR significance criteria and is not recommended a historical resource under CRHR. Therefore, it is not a unique archaeological resource and is also not recommended a historical resource under CEQA and does not warrant further consideration. Based on these results BCR Consulting recommends that no additional cultural resource work or monitoring is necessary for any earthmoving proposed within the Project site. However, if previously undocumented cultural (historical or archaeological) resources are identified during earthmoving activities, a qualified archaeologist should be contacted to assess the nature and significance of the find, diverting construction excavation if necessary. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe impact than previously analyzed and would adhere to any applicable mitigation measures identified in the CHNSP EIR. The following Standard Condition would be carried out during Project construction. Standard Condition SC CUL-1 Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, cease construction activities in the immediate vicinity until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural and archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources are Native American in origin, interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area Tribes) shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation takes place. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 82 Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavation to remove the resource along the subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All Tribal Cultural Resources shall be returned to the Tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to the Tribe or a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects shall be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be taken. Principal personnel shall meet the Secretary of the Interior standards for archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years’ experience as a principal investigator working with Native American archaeological sites in southern California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? No New or More Severe Impact. The Project site is not located within a known or suspected cemetery and the field survey revealed no known human remains within the Project site. Additionally, the results of the records search conducted through the Western Science Center (WSC) concluded that the Project area is mapped entirely as alluvial fan deposits dating from the Holocene period. While Holocene alluvial units are considered to be of high preservation value, material found is unlikely to be fossil material due to the relatively modern associated dates of the deposits. The WSC does not have localities within the Project area or within a one-mile radius. While the presence of any fossil material is unlikely, if excavation activity disturbs deeper sediment dating to the earliest parts of the Holocene or Late Pleistocene periods, the material would be scientifically significant. Based on the WSC results and history of the general Project area, excavation activity associated with the development of the Project area is unlikely to be paleontologically sensitive and a less than significant impact on human remains is anticipated, but caution during development should be observed. The following Standard Condition would be carried out during Project construction. Standard Condition SC CUL-2 If human remains are encountered during the undertaking, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 83 Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. Conclusion With regard to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes to the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts with respect to cultural resources. Therefore, the preparation of a SEIR is not warranted. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 84 ENERGY Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Building Energy Conservation Standards Revisions to the CEQA Guidelines after approval of the CHNSP EIR created a new separate CEQA checklist topic for “Energy,” consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. In June 1977, the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the California Energy Commission) adopted energy conservation standards for new residential and non- residential buildings, which the Commission updates every three years (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The periodic update of these standards allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. On May 9, 2018, the California Energy Commission (CEC) adopted the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which took effect on January 1, 2020. The 2019 Standards improved upon the previous 2016 Standards for new construction of and additions and alterations to residential and non-residential buildings. The 2019 Standards improved upon the previous 2016 Standards for new construction of and additions and alterations to residential and non-residential buildings. Implementation of the 2019 Title 24 standards result in residential buildings being approximately seven percent more energy efficient, and when the required rooftop solar is factored in for low-rise residential construction, residential buildings that meet 2019 Title 24 standards would use approximately 53 percent less energy than those built to meet current standards.21 Senate Bill 350 In September 2015, then California Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 350 (de Leon) into law. SB 350, also known as the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act, established clean energy, clean air, and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. This legislation established tiered increases to the Renewable Portfolio Standard: 40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. 21 California Energy Commission, 2019 Building Energy and Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions Fact Sheet, Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf, accessed October 27, 2021. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 85 Senate Bill 100 On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100 (De Leon). This legislation, referred to as “The 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2019,” increased the required Renewable Portfolio Standards. Under SB 100, the total kilowatt-hours (kWh)of energy sold by electricity retailers to their end-use customers must consist of at least 50 percent renewable resources by 2026, 60 percent renewable resources by 2030, and 100 percent renewable resources by 2045. SB 100 also establishes a State policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all State agencies by December 31, 2045. Under the bill, the State cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target. Local Policies Fontana General Plan: Infrastructure and Green Systems Element Goal 7: Fontana is an energy efficient community. Policy 7.1: Promote renewable energy and distributed energy systems in new development and retrofits of existing development to work towards the highest levels of low-carbon energy-efficiency. Action 7.A: Promote participation in renewable energy programs. Action 7.B: Regional and state programs provide a wide range of programs to assist homeowners, other property owners, and businesses access renewable energy. Action 7.C: Promote state and regional retrofit programs for property owners. At the time of writing, these programs include: • California Solar Initiative. This program provides rebates for solar installation to income-eligible owners of single-family homes and also has a program for affordable multifamily housing. Action 7.D: Encourage customer participation in renewable energy programs offered by Southern California Edison. Currently, two programs are available: • Green Tariff: Customers can sign up with the utility to receive up to 100% of their energy from renewable sources. • Enhanced Community Renewables (ECR): Under this “community solar” program, a developer of a local solar project sells shares in the solar electricity produced to customers, who sign up for at least Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 86 25% and as much as 100% of their monthly electricity demand. They pay the producer Streetside bioswales help runoff percolate into the ground, complementing traditional stormwater infrastructure while adding visual appeal. Approved and Adopted by City Council November 13, 2018 City Council Resolution 2018- 096 City Council Resolution 2018-097 Chapter 10 Infrastructure and Green Systems 10.17 directly and receive a credit on their utility bill. Action 7.E: Work with the San Bernardino Regional Energy Partnership (SBREP) to access assistance to city government in energy efficiency. Action 7.F: Encourage industrial and other suitable non-residential developers to participate in the Enhanced Community Renewables program. • This is a “distributed energy” and “community solar” system whereby the developers sell shares of electricity they do not use for their own activities to purchasers. Warehouse buildings with solar panel roofs may be very suitable for this program. Summary of Impacts Identified in the CHNSP FEIR The Certified 2004 CHNSP FEIR analyzed energy usage in Section 3.14, Utilities and Service Systems. The CHNSP FEIR concluded that SCE’s power generating capacity for the area was sufficient to accommodate future growth in the City and the CHNSP Project would have no significant environmental impact related to electricity supply and service. In addition, the CHNSP FEIR also determined that the CHNSP Project would also result in no significant environmental impact related to natural gas as SoCal Gas would extend service lines and gas supplies and service were adequate and expandable to meet any foreseeable future development. Impacts of the Citrus West Project Would the Citrus West Project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation? No New or More Severe Impact. Electricity. Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the Project area. The Project’s annual energy demand would be a total of approximately 0.35 GWh.22 According to the CEC, the total electricity usage for San Bernardino County was approximately 15,968.52 GWh in 2020.23 22 Based on the CalEEMod version 2020.4.0 output data in Appendix D. 23 California Energy Commission, San Bernardino County Electricity Consumption, 2020, available at: http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 87 The Project’s increase in electricity demand would represent an insignificant percent increase (less than one percent) compared to overall consumption in San Bernardino County. Therefore, projected electrical demand would not significantly affect SCE’s level of service. In addition, the Project design and materials would be subject to compliance with the most current Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The Project would also be required adhere to CALGreen provisions, which establish planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. Project development would not interfere with achievement of the 60 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard set forth in SB 100 for 2030 or the 100 percent standard for 2045. These goals apply to SCE and other electricity retailers. As electricity retailers reach these goals, emissions from end user electricity use would decrease from current emission estimates. Therefore, Project impacts on electric energy resources would be less than significant. Natural Gas. Southern California Gas (SoCal Gas) provides natural gas service to the Project area. The CalEEMod modeling outputs estimates that the Project’s annual natural gas demand would total approximately 1,236,870 KBtu.24 The total natural gas consumption for San Bernardino County was approximately 15,448,085,922 KBtu in 2020. According to 2020 California Gas Report, from 2020 to 2035, statewide annual gas requirements will decline from 4,194 (MMcf/d) to 3,594 (MMcf/d), while supplies remain constant.25 Therefore, the Project’s natural gas demand would represent a nominal percentage (less than one percent) of overall demand in the City and State. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact regarding natural gas. Fuel. During construction, transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, vehicle miles traveled, fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Transportation energy use during construction would be associated with the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel/gasoline. The Project would use 15,605 gallons of gasoline and 61,338 gallons of diesel fuel, which would increase the County’s fuel consumption by less than one percent. Most construction equipment during demolition and grading would be gas-powered or diesel-powered, however the later construction phases would require electricity-powered equipment. Impacts related to transportation energy use during construction would be temporary and would not require expanded energy supplies or the construction of new infrastructure; impacts would be less than significant. 24 Based on the CalEEMod version 2020.4.0 output data in Appendix D. 25 California Gas and Electric Utilities, 2020 California Gas Report, 2020-2035 Table 7, accessed October 27, 2021. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 88 During operations, fuel consumption would be associated with residential activities such as driving cars and heating and cooling homes. The Project would result in an additional 630 vehicle trips; however, vehicle fuel efficiency is expected to increase through the years. Additionally, electric and hybrid vehicles are becoming more commonplace and are likely to become a larger part of future fleet mixes, which will lower the demand for gasoline or diesel fuel. The Project is close to public transportation, further reducing the need to drive. The City and surrounding areas are highly urbanized with numerous gasoline fuel facilities and infrastructure. Consequently, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial demand for energy that would require expanded supplies or the construction of other infrastructure or expansion of existing facilities. Existing rules and regulations concerning vehicle fuel consumption efficiencies would ensure that vehicle trips generated by the proposed Project would not be considered as inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Therefore, the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Impacts would be considered less than significant, and no new or more severe impacts would occur with regard to energy consumption. As such, no mitigation is required. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact. The Infrastructure and Green Systems City Element of the Fontana GP Chapter 10 provides a framework for the City to achieve its energy goals. Goals and policies under Goal 7 addresses plans to reduce GHGs, promote energy conservation, and incorporate sustainable building practices. Table 12, Project Consistency with the Infrastructure and Green Systems Element provides an evaluation of Project consistency with applicable goals and policies. As shown in Table 12, the Project would comply with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan. Table 12: Project Consistency with the Infrastructure and Green Systems Element Fontana GP Goals and Policies Project Consistency Analysis Goal 7: Fontana is an energy-efficient community. Policy 7.1: Promote renewable energy and distributed energy systems in new development and retrofits of existing development to work towards the highest levels of low-carbon energy-efficiency. Consistent. The Project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 and CALGreen Energy Efficiency standards. In addition, the Project would obtain electricity from the electric utility, Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE obtained 36 percent of its power supply from renewable sources in 2019. Therefore, the utility would provide power when needed on-site that is composed of a greater percentage of renewable sources. In addition, the Project would be designed in compliance with the applicable solar standards from Title 24 (if applicable), and the rooftops of the proposed buildings would be able to accommodate solar energy systems in the future. Action 7.A: Promote participation in renewable energy programs. Consistent. The Project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 and CalGreen Energy Efficiency standards. In addition, future residents at the Project site would be able to participate in renewable energy programs (at their discretion). Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 89 Fontana GP Goals and Policies Project Consistency Analysis Action 7.B: Regional and state programs provide a wide range of programs to assist homeowners, other property owners, and businesses access renewable energy. Consistent. The Project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 and CalGreen Energy Efficiency standards. In addition, the Project would be designed in compliance with applicable energy efficiency policy. Incentive programs would be available to future residents of the Project. Action 7.C: Promote state and regional retrofit programs for property owners. At the time of writing, these programs include: • California Solar Initiative. This program provides rebates for solar installation to income-eligible owners of single-family homes and also has a program for affordable multifamily housing. Consistent. The Project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 and CalGreen Energy Efficiency standards. In addition, the Project would be designed in compliance with applicable energy efficiency policy. Incentive programs (such as the California Solar Initiative) would be available to future residents of the Project. Action 7.D: Encourage customer participation in renewable energy programs offered by Southern California Edison. Currently, two programs are available: • Green Tariff: Customers can sign up with the utility to receive up to 100% of their energy from renewable sources. • Enhanced Community Renewables (ECR): Under this “community solar” program, a developer of a local solar project sells shares in the solar electricity produced to customers, who sign up for at least 25% and as much as 100% of their monthly electricity demand. They pay the producer Streetside bioswales help runoff percolate into the ground, complementing traditional stormwater infrastructure while adding visual appeal. Approved and Adopted by City Council November 13, 2018 City Council Resolution 2018-096 City Council Resolution 2018-097 Chapter 10 Infrastructure and Green Systems 10.17 directly and receive a credit on their utility bill Consistent. The Project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 and CalGreen Energy Efficiency standards. In addition, the Project would be designed in compliance with applicable energy efficiency policy. Incentive programs (such as SCE’s renewable energy programs) would be available to future residents of the Project. Action 7.E: Work with the San Bernardino Regional Energy Partnership (SBREP) to access assistance to city government in energy efficiency. Not applicable. This action is specific to assistance for City government and does not apply to individual development projects. Action 7.F: Encourage industrial and other suitable non- residential developers to participate in the Enhanced Community Renewables program. • This is a “distributed energy” and “community solar” system whereby the developers sell shares of electricity they do not use for their own activities to purchasers. Warehouse buildings with solar panel roofs may be very suitable for this program. Not Applicable. The Project is neither industrial nor non- residential, therefore Action 7.F does not apply. Source: City of Fontana, Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035, Infrastructure and Green Systems Element, adopted November 13, 2018. Additionally, State and local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency include the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, the 2019 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24), and the 2019 CALGreen standards. Compliance with these standards would ensure the Project incorporates energy efficient windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other energy efficient design features to reduce energy consumption. Further, the Project would recycle and/or salvage a minimum of 65 percent of the Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 90 nonhazardous construction and demolition waste per the 2019 CalGreen standards. Adherence to the CPUC’s energy requirements as well as the 2019 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) and the 2019 CALGreen standards would ensure conformance with the State’s goal of promoting energy and lighting efficiency. In addition, Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the Fontana GP Goals; as well as State and local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency. As such no impact is anticipated to occur as a result of Project implementation and no mitigation measure is required. Conclusion With regard to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to energy. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 91 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 2) Strong seismic ground shaking? 3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 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? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The scope of this discussion and findings herein are based in part on the following studies (refer to Appendices E and F in this EIR Addendum): • Appendix E: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared by Weis Environmental (March 2021) • Appendix F: Preliminary Water Quality Concept and Supporting Calculations California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Act) purpose is to mitigate the hazards of fault rupture by prohibiting the location of structures for human occupancy across the trace of an active fault. The Act dictates that cities and counties withhold development permits for projects within an Earthquake Fault Zone within their jurisdiction until geologic investigations Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 92 demonstrate that the projects are not threatened by surface displacements from future earthquakes. However, local agencies can be more restrictive than the State. The Cucamonga and San Jacinto faults, two of the most active faults in southern California, extend across the northern portion of the City of Fontana.26 Ground Shaking Ground shaking is a general term referring to all aspects of motion of the earth’s surface resulting from an earthquake that can cause major damage in seismic events. The extent of ground shaking results from the magnitude and intensity of the earthquake, distance from the epicenter, and local geologic conditions. Magnitude is a measure of the energy released by an earthquake; it is assessed by seismographs. Intensity is a subjective measure of the perceptible effects of seismic energy at a given point and varies with distance from the epicenter and local geologic conditions. Ground shaking can primarily cause property damage and injury during earthquakes and can result in other natural phenomenon such as surface rupture, liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, differential settlement, tsunamis, building failure, and broken gas and other utility lines, leading to fire and other collateral damage Areas underlain by thick, saturated, unconsolidated soils will experience greater shaking motion than those areas underlain by firm bedrock.27 Seismicity and Seismic Hazards The City generally lies within the northern and northwestern portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of Southern California, which is characterized by northwest-southeast trending faults, folds, and mountain ranges. The faulting and seismicity of the Inland Empire generally is characterized by the San Andreas Fault zone. The zone separates two of the major tectonic plates that comprise the earth’s crust. The relative movement between the Pacific Plate and North American Plate is the driving force of fault ruptures in western California. There are numerous faults in surrounding area that are categorized as active, potentially active, and inactive. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) U.S. Quaternary Faults GIS map, the City has several Late Quaternary, Middle and Late Quaternary, and Latest Quaternary Faults throughout the City’s boundary.28 A fault is classified as active by the state if it has either moved during the Holocene epoch (during the last 11,000 years) or is included in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zone (as established by the California Geological Survey [CGS]). A fault is classified as potentially active if 26 City of Fontana. (2017). Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local- Hazard-Mitigation-Plan. Accessed on September 23, 2021. 27 Ibid. 28 United States Geological Survey. (2019). U.S. Quaternary Faults GIS Map. Available at https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf88412fcf. Accessed September 26, 2021. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 93 it has experienced movement within the Quaternary period (during the last 1.6 million years). Faults that have not moved in the last 1.6 million years generally are considered inactive. Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Liquefaction occurs when loosely packed sandy or silty materials saturated with water are shaken hard enough to lose strength and stiffness. Liquefied soils behave like a liquid and are responsible for tremendous damage in an earthquake. For example, it can cause buildings to collapse, pipes to leak, and roads to buckle.29 Liquefaction potential is the highest in area with shallow groundwater and saturated soils. Specifically, liquefaction occurs at depths less than 50 feet below ground surface (bgs), with the most susceptible conditions occurring in sandy soils with less than 15 percent silt and clay at depths shallower than 30 feet bgs. Saturated deposits that are deeper than 50 feet bgs generally are stable regardless of their grain-size distribution.30 Summary of Impacts Identified in the CHNSP FEIR The Certified 2004 CHNSP FEIR found that the implementation of the CHNSP would have a less than significant impact on geology and soils. Less than significant impacts were found for risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault and involving strong seismic ground shaking. Less than significant impacts were also found for substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The CHNSP EIR also determined that the Project would result in no impact with regard to liquefaction and landslides from seismic-related ground failure, geologic or soil instability, and expansive soil. Lastly, the CHNSP Project would be connected to a sewer system and would not include any septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems; as such no impact would occur. Impacts of the Citrus West Project Would the Citrus West Project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 29 City of Fontana. (2017). Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local- Hazard-Mitigation-Plan. Accessed on September 23, 2021.. 30 City of Fontana. (2018). General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Available at https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-Update- 2015---2035. Accessed September 26, 2021. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 94 No New or More Severe Impact. The nearest Alquist-Priolo fault zone is the Cucamonga fault zone, located approximately 1.5 miles north of the Project site.31 The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone, as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, nor is it located in the San Bernardino Geologic Hazard Zone. According to the CHNSP FEIR, the areas within the CHNSP are not crossed by a known active or potentially active fault, the potential for a ground rupture hazard is remote.32 For this reason, a less than significant impact associated with fault rupture would occur. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? No New or More Severe Impact. Due to the strong natural seismic activities of Southern California, the Project site is susceptible to seismic ground shaking. For this reason, all structures, including the proposed residential buildings, would be exposed to potential strong seismic ground shaking throughout their lifespan. As such, the design and construction of the Project would be required to be in conformance with the most recent CBC, Fontana MC, the City’s 2017 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2017 LHMP), and other applicable local or state standards. Adherence to these standards and regulations would reduce the potential substantial adverse effects, caused by strong seismic ground shaking to less than significant. iii and iv) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? And Landslides? No New or More Severe Impact. According to San Bernardino County General Plan, Geologic Hazard Overlays, the Project site is not located within or near an area that is susceptible to either landslide or liquefaction33. The nearest mapped liquefaction and landslide zones are located over two (2) miles northeast and north of the site, respectively. Therefore, a less than significant impacts would occur. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No New or More Severe Impact. Short-term Construction Impacts General construction activities would include earthwork activities to fill in the existing stormwater detention basin. Depending on the time of year when construction occurs, short- term erosion by wind and water could occur. The Project is subject to comply with Chapter 9, Article II of the Fontana MC for the purpose of controlling blowing sand and preventing soil erosion. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 31 United States Geological Survey. (2019). U.S. Quaternary Faults GIS Map. Available at https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf88412fcf. Accessed September 26, 2021. . 32 City of Fontana. Citrus Heights North Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (2004). Pages 3-51 through 3-52. 33 County of San Bernardino. 2010. Geologic Hazards Overlays. Available at http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/GeoHazMaps/FH29C.pdf. Accessed September 26, 2021. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 95 System (NPDES) permitting process for construction activities (e.g., implementation of Best Management Practices [BMPs] through preparation of a SWPPP), consistent with the San Bernardino County’s Municipal Storm Water Management Program. The Project site would implement BMP’s specifications and utilize expansive soil guidelines accordingly to minimize erosion on-site to help minimize soil erosion. Therefore, since loss of topsoil would be temporary, impacts would be less than significant. Long-term Operational Impacts The site would be paved and landscaped throughout which would be properly maintained to reduce water runoff. The Project would include catch basins that would catch any runoff. According to the Preliminary Water Quality Concept and Supporting Calculations (Appendix F), there are eleven low flow area drains and seven catch basins proposed throughout the site which would collect stormwater from two drainage areas (DMA 1, and DMA 2). DMA 1 and DMA 2 drain to a combined underground corrugated metal pipe (CMP) infiltration system that would provide storage capacity of up to 44,486 cubic feet (cf) to treat the stormwater. The maximum capacity of the proposed CMP detention system would be sufficient to capture and infiltrate the projected 44,426 cf onsite water quality volume, estimated in the Appendix F. The Project owner would maintain the drainage systems, including catch basins, pipes and Best Management Practices. The Project would have catch basins inspected and, if necessary, cleaned prior to the storm season, no later than October 15th each year or prior to the first 24-hour storm event, whichever occurs first. These duties may be contracted out to the landscape maintenance firm hired by the owner. No additional activities would cause a loss of topsoil and therefore, the potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during construction and operations would be considered less than significant with the implementation of the BMPs. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? No New or More Severe Impact. The Project would adhere to the City’s 2017 LHMP which lists the types of geologic hazards known to occur in the City regarding slope instability, leading to possible mudflow, liquefaction, and collapsible or expansive soils.34 Map 8 of the 2017 LHMP’s Appendix E shows that the Project site is not located in an area sensitive to slope/landslide instability and liquefaction.35 The Project site is relatively flat and is not located adjacent to a hillside or riverbank that is characterized by unstable conditions or liquefaction. In addition, the CHNSP FEIR indicates that the areas within the CHNSP are largely underlain by hard rock and 34 City of Fontana. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2017). Available at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local- Hazard-Mitigation-Plan. Accessed on September 26, 2021. 35 City of Fontana. Appendix E - Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Geologic Hazard Overlays – Landslide & Liquefaction Susceptibility, Map 8 (2017). Available at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29774/LHMP-Appendix-E---Hazard-Screening-Maps. Accessed September 26, 2021. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 96 locally relatively dense soils, therefore the potential for liquefaction or landslides is unlikely.36 Additionally, the Project site is mapped as having Soboba gravelly loamy sand which has a high infiltration and low runoff rate in addition to low expansion characteristics.37 Therefore, impacts associated with unstable and expansive soils would be less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No Impact. As discussed above in Threshold 7c, the Project site is mapped as having Soboba gravelly loamy sand that has low expansion characteristics with no appreciable clay content. No In addition, the CHNSP FEIR also discusses that the geotechnical studies for the CHNSP areas indicate that the expansion potential of native soils is very low-to-low.38 Therefore, no design considerations related to expansive soils are considered necessary. No impact would occur. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The Project does not include a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal system. The Project site would utilize a new drainage system described in the Preliminary WQMP and would be held together with a post-construction stormwater BMP operation that would connect to the City’s existing sanitary sewer system for wastewater disposal. Thus, no impacts associated with the use of septic tanks would occur as part of the Project’s implementation and no mitigation is required. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No New or More Severe Impact. The Cultural Resources Assessment conducted by BCR Consulting for the Project site determined the geologic units underlying this Project are mapped primarily as alluvial fan deposits dating from the Holocene period. While Holocene alluvial units are considered to be of high preservation value, material found is unlikely to be fossil material due to the relatively modern associated dates of the deposits. Additionally, it is worth noting that the Wester Science Center (WSC) does not have localities within the Project area or within a 1-mile radius. While the presence of any fossil material is unlikely, if excavation activity for the Project disturbs deeper sediment dating to the earliest parts of the Holocene or Late Pleistocene periods, the material would be scientifically significant. Excavation activity associated with the development of the project area is unlikely to be paleontologically sensitive, but caution during development should be observed. 36 City of Fontana. Citrus Heights North Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (2004). Pages 3-51 through 3-52. 37 USDA. 2020. Websoil Survey. Available at https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed September 26, 2021. 38 Ibid. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 97 Conclusion With regard to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to geology and soil. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 98 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The revised CEQA Guidelines include a new separate discussion for greenhouse gas emissions. This section uses impact thresholds in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and briefly examines potential impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions that could result from implementation of the Project. The following analysis is based on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment prepared for the Project by Kimley-Horn and Associates dated November 2021 (see Appendix G). When the City approved the CHNSP on July 27, 2004, analysis of greenhouse gas emissions was not required by CEQA. Since the CHNSP FEIR has already been approved, the determination of whether GHG emissions and climate change needs to be analyzed for modifications to the Project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §§15162 and 15163). GHG emissions and climate change are not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes “new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time” the FEIR was approved (CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(3)). Consistent with the statutory language, the courts have repeatedly held that new information that “was known” or “could have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence” at the time of the EIR certification does not trigger the supplemental EIR standard. See Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego 196 Cal. App. 4th 515, 532 (2011); A Local & Reg’l Monitor v. City of L.A., 12 Cal. App. 4th 1773, 1800–03 (1993). The issue of GHG emissions and climate change impacts is not a changed circumstance and there is no new information that was not known or could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence when the City approved the CHNSP FEIR. The issue of climate change and GHG emissions was widely known prior to the CHNSP FEIR approval. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of GHG emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. Therefore, supplemental environmental analysis of GHG impacts is not required because information about the effect of GHG emissions on climate was known long before the City certified the FEIR in 2004, such that the effect of GHG emissions on climate could have been raised in 2004 when the City considered the CHNSP FEIR. Citizens for Responsible Equitable Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 99 Environmental Development, 196 Cal. App. 4th at 530-32. As explained in GHG Emission Assessment prepared for the Project, (Appendix G), the Project will comply with applicable performance standards, and other existing regulations, to minimize its GHG emissions. Although not analyzed in the CHNSP FEIR, this section is discussed at the project level, focused on the proposed Project. Background Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space. This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. Because the earth has a much lower temperature than the sun, it emits lower-frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth. The primary GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that contribute to climate change. Examples of fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3); however, it is noted that these gases are not associated with typical land use development. Human-caused emissions of GHGs exceeding natural ambient concentrations are believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (one to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time periods to be dispersed around the globe. Although the exact lifetime of a GHG molecule is dependent on multiple variables and cannot be pinpointed, more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, or other forms of carbon sequestration. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 emissions, approximately 55 percent is sequestered through ocean and land uptakes every year, averaged over the last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions remains stored in the Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 100 atmosphere.39 Table 13, Description of Greenhouse Gases describes the primary GHGs attributed to global climate change, including their physical properties. Table 13: Description of Greenhouse Gases Greenhouse Gas Description Carbon Dioxide (CO2) CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas that is emitted naturally and through human activities. Natural sources include decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic sources are from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, and industrial facilities. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is variable because it is readily exchanged in the atmosphere. CO2 is the most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (Global Warming Potential of 1) for determining Global Warming Potentials for other GHGs. Nitrous Oxide (N2O) N2O is largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. Primary human-related sources of N2O include agricultural soil management, sewage treatment, combustion of fossil fuels, and adipic and nitric acid production. N2O is produced from biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N2O is approximately 120 years. The Global Warming Potential of N2O is 298. Methane (CH4) CH4, a highly potent GHG, primarily results from off-gassing (the release of chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions) and is largely associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Methane is the major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume. Human-related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry, rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. Natural sources of CH4 include wetlands, gas hydrates, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and wildfires. The atmospheric lifetime of CH4 is about 12 years and the Global Warming Potential is 25. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) HFCs are typically used as refrigerants for both stationary refrigeration and mobile air conditioning. The use of HFCs for cooling and foam blowing is increasing, as the continued phase out of CFCs and HCFCs gains momentum. The 100-year Global Warming Potential of HFCs range from 124 for HFC- 152 to 14,800 for HFC-23. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) PFCs have stable molecular structures and only break down by ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers above Earth’s surface. Because of this, they have long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. Global Warming Potentials range from 6,500 to 9,200. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. They are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earth’s surface). CFCs were synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer prohibited their production in 1987. Global Warming Potentials for CFCs range from 3,800 to 14,400. Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, and nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has a lifetime of 3,200 years. This gas is manmade and used for insulation in electric power transmission equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas. The Global Warming Potential of SF6 is 23,900. Hydrochlorofluorocar bons (HCFCs) HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical composition to CFCs. The main uses of HCFCs are for refrigerant products and air conditioning systems. As part of the Montreal Protocol, HCFCs are subject to a consumption cap and gradual phase out. The United States is scheduled to achieve a 100 percent reduction to the cap by 2030. The 100-year Global Warming Potentials of HCFCs range from 90 for HCFC-123 to 1,800 for HCFC-142b. 39 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 101 Greenhouse Gas Description Nitrogen Trifluoride (NF3) NF3 was added to Health and Safety Code section 38505(g)(7) as a GHG of concern. This gas is used in electronics manufacture for semiconductors and liquid crystal displays. It has a high global warming potential of 17,200. Source: Compiled from U.S. EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases, April 11, 2018 (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse- gases); U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016, 2018; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, 2007; National Research Council, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010; U.S. EPA, Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission from Natural Sources, April 2010. Regulations and Significance Criteria Federal To date, national standards have not been established for nationwide GHG reduction targets, nor have any regulations or legislation been enacted specifically to address climate change and GHG emissions reduction at the project level. Various efforts have been promulgated at the federal level to improve fuel economy and energy efficiency to address climate change and its associated effects. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (December 2007), among other key measures, requires the following, which would aid in the reduction of national GHG emissions: • Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. • Set a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by model year 2020 and direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a fuel economy program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy standard for work trucks. • Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products and procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Endangerment Finding The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to regulate GHG emissions stems from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet the definition of air pollutants under the existing Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and must be regulated if these gases could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Responding to the Court’s ruling, the EPA finalized an endangerment finding in December 2009. Based on scientific evidence it found that six GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) constitute a threat to public health and welfare. Thus, it is the Supreme Court’s Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 102 interpretation of the existing FCAA and the EPA’s assessment of the scientific evidence that form the basis for the EPA’s regulatory actions. Federal Vehicle Standards In response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling discussed above, Executive Order 13432 was issued in 2007 directing the EPA, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Energy to establish regulations that reduce GHG emissions from motor vehicles, non-road vehicles, and non-road engines by 2008. In 2009, the NHTSA issued a final rule regulating fuel efficiency and GHG emissions from cars and light-duty trucks for model year 2011, and in 2010, the EPA and NHTSA issued a final rule regulating cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2012–2016. In 2010, an Executive Memorandum was issued directing the Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, EPA, and NHTSA to establish additional standards regarding fuel efficiency and GHG reduction, clean fuels, and advanced vehicle infrastructure. In response to this directive, the EPA and NHTSA proposed stringent, coordinated federal GHG and fuel economy standards for model years 2017–2025 light-duty vehicles. The proposed standards projected to achieve 163 grams per mile of CO2 in model year 2025, on an average industry fleet-wide basis, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon if this level were achieved solely through fuel efficiency. The final rule was adopted in 2012 for model years 2017–2021, and NHTSA intends to set standards for model years 2022–2025 in a future rulemaking. On January 12, 2017, the EPA finalized its decision to maintain the current GHG emissions standards for model years 2022–2025 cars and light trucks. It should be noted that the U.S. EPA is currently proposing to freeze the vehicle fuel efficiency standards at their planned 2020 level (37 mpg), canceling any future strengthening (currently 54.5 mpg by 2026). In addition to the regulations applicable to cars and light-duty trucks described above, in 2011, the EPA and NHTSA announced fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks for model years 2014–2018. The standards for CO2 emissions and fuel consumption are tailored to three main vehicle categories: combination tractors, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles. According to the EPA, this regulatory program will reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption for the affected vehicles by six to 23 percent over the 2010 baselines. In August 2016, the EPA and NHTSA announced the adoption of the phase two program related to the fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The phase two program will apply to vehicles with model year 2018 through 2027 for certain trailers, and model years 2021 through 2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. The final standards are expected to lower CO2 emissions by approximately 1.1 billion metric tons and reduce oil consumption by up to two billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 103 In 2018, the President and the EPA stated their intent to halt various federal regulatory activities to reduce GHG emission, including the phase two program. California and other states have stated their intent to challenge federal actions that would delay or eliminate GHG reduction measures and have committed to cooperating with other countries to implement global climate change initiatives. On September 27, 2019, the EPA and the NHTSA published the “Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program.” (84 Fed. Reg. 51,310 (Sept. 27, 2019.) The Part One Rule revokes California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and set zero-emission vehicle mandates in California. On March 31, 2020, the EPA and NHTSA finalized rulemaking for SAFE Part Two sets CO2 emissions standards and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks, covering model years 2021-2026. Presidential Executive Order 13783 Presidential Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth issued on March 28, 2017, orders all federal agencies to apply cost-benefit analyses to regulations of GHG emissions and evaluations of the social cost of CO2, N2O, and CH4. State The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for the coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California. Various statewide and local initiatives to reduce California’s contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness about climate change and its potential for severe long-term adverse environmental, social, and economic effects. California is a significant emitter of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) in the world and produced 459 million gross metric tons of CO2e in 2013. In the State, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by industrial operations such as manufacturing and oil and gas extraction. The State of California legislature has enacted a series of bills that constitute the most aggressive program to reduce GHGs of any state in the nation. Some legislation, such as the landmark Assembly Bill (AB) 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was specifically enacted to address GHG emissions. Other legislation, such as Title 24 building efficiency standards and Title 20 appliance energy standards, were originally adopted for other purposes such as energy and water conservation, but also provide GHG reductions. This section describes the major provisions of the legislation. Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) Assembly Bill (AB) 32 instructs the CARB to develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 also directed CARB to set a GHG emissions limit Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 104 based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. It set a timeline for adopting a scoping plan for achieving GHG reductions in a technologically and economically feasible manner. CARB Scoping Plan CARB adopted the Scoping Plan to achieve the goals of AB 32. The Scoping Plan establishes an overall framework for the measures that would be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. CARB determined that achieving the 1990 emissions level would require a reduction of GHG emissions of approximately 29 percent below what would otherwise occur in 2020 in the absence of new laws and regulations (referred to as “business-as-usual”).40 The Scoping Plan evaluates opportunities for sector-specific reductions, integrates early actions and additional GHG reduction measures by both CARB and the State’s Climate Action Team, identifies additional measures to be pursued as regulations, and outlines the adopted role of a cap-and-trade program.41 Additional development of these measures and adoption of the appropriate regulations occurred through the end of 2013. Key elements of the Scoping Plan include: • Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs, as well as building and appliance standards. • Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent by 2020. • Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other programs to create a regional market system and caps sources contributing 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions (adopted in 2011). • Establishing targets for transportation related GHG emissions for regions throughout California and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets (several sustainable community strategies have been adopted). • Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, heavy-duty truck measures, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (amendments to the Pavley Standard adopted 2009; Advanced Clean Car standard adopted 2012), goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (adopted 2009). • Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on gasses with high global warming potential, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State of California’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation. 40 CARB defines business-as-usual (BAU) in its Scoping Plan as emissions levels that would occur if California continued to grow and add new GHG emissions but did not adopt any measures to reduce emissions. Projections for each emission-generating sector were compiled and used to estimate emissions for 2020 based on 2002–2004 emissions intensities. Under CARB’s definition of BAU, new growth is assumed to have the same carbon intensities as was typical from 2002 through 2004. 41 The Climate Action Team, led by the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is a group of State agency secretaries and heads of agencies, boards, and departments. Team members work to coordinate statewide efforts to implement global warming emissions reduction programs and the State’s Climate Adaptation Strategy. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 105 In 2012, CARB released revised estimates of the expected 2020 emissions reductions. The revised analysis relied on emissions projections updated in light of current economic forecasts that accounted for the economic downturn since 2008, reduction measures already approved and put in place relating to future fuel and energy demand, and other factors. This update reduced the projected 2020 emissions from 596 million metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e) to 545 MMTCO2e. The reduction in forecasted 2020 emissions means that the revised business-as-usual reduction necessary to achieve AB 32’s goal of reaching 1990 levels by 2020 is now 21.7 percent, down from 29 percent. CARB also provided a lower 2020 inventory forecast that incorporated State- led GHG emissions reduction measures already in place. When this lower forecast is considered, the necessary reduction from business-as-usual needed to achieve the goals of AB 32 is approximately 16 percent. CARB adopted the first major update to the Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The updated Scoping Plan summarizes the most recent science related to climate change, including anticipated impacts to California and the levels of GHG emissions reductions necessary to likely avoid risking irreparable damage. It identifies the actions California has already taken to reduce GHG emissions and focuses on areas where further reductions could be achieved to help meet the 2020 target established by AB 32. In 2016, the Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 32, which codifies a 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. With SB 32, the Legislature passed companion legislation, AB 197, which provides additional direction for developing the Scoping Plan. On December 14, 2017 CARB adopted a second update to the Scoping Plan.42 The 2017 Scoping Plan details how the State will reduce GHG emissions to meet the 2030 target set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. Other objectives listed in the 2017 Scoping plan are to provide direct GHG emissions reductions; support climate investment in disadvantaged communities; and support the Clean Power Plan and other Federal actions. Senate Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limit) Signed into law in September 2016, SB 32 codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target in Executive Order B-30-15 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). The Senate Bill ISB) 32 authorizes CARB to adopt an interim GHG emissions level target to be achieved by 2030. CARB also must adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective GHG reductions. SB 375 (The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008) Signed into law on September 30, 2008, the SB 375 provides a process to coordinate land use planning, regional transportation plans, and funding priorities to help California meet the GHG 42 California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf, accessed November 8, 2021. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 106 reduction goals established by AB 32. SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions, aligns planning for transportation and housing, and creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies. AB 1493 (Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards) Assembly Bill 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Implementation of the regulation was delayed by lawsuits filed by automakers and by the EPA’s denial of an implementation waiver. The EPA subsequently granted the requested waiver in 2009, which was upheld by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011. The regulations establish one set of emission standards for model years 2009–2016 and a second set of emissions standards for model years 2017 to 2025. By 2025, when all rules will be fully implemented, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer CO2e emissions and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions. SB 1368 (Emission Performance Standards) Senate Bill 1368 is the companion bill of AB 32, which directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to adopt a performance standard for GHG emissions for the future power purchases of California utilities. SB 1368 limits carbon emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements for energy longer than 5 years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean, combined cycle natural gas power plant. The new law effectively prevents California’s utilities from investing in, otherwise financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants located in or out of the State. The CPUC adopted the regulations required by SB 1368 on August 29, 2007. The regulations implementing SB 1368 establish a standard for baseload generation owned by, or under long- term contract to publicly owned utilities, for 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour. SB 1078 and SBX1-2 (Renewable Electricity Standards) Senate Bill 1078 requires California to generate 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. SB 107 changed the due date to 2010 instead of 2017. On November 17, 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which established a Renewable Portfolio Standard target for California requiring that all retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. Executive Order S-21-09 also directed CARB to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010, requiring the State’s load serving entities to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by 2020. CARB approved the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010 by Resolution 10-23. SBX1-2, which codified the 33 percent by 2020 goal. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 107 SB 350 (Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015) Signed into law on October 7, 2015, SB 350 implements the goals of Executive Order B-30-15. The objectives of SB 350 are to increase the procurement of electricity from renewable sources from 33 percent to 50 percent (with interim targets of 40 percent by 2024, and 25 percent by 2027) and to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses of retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation. SB 350 also reorganizes the Independent System Operator to develop more regional electricity transmission markets and improve accessibility in these markets, which will facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States. AB 398 (Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms) Signed on July 25, 2017, AB 398 extended the duration of the Cap-and-Trade program from 2020 to 2030. AB 398 required CARB to update the Scoping Plan and for all GHG rules and regulations adopted by the State. It also designated CARB as the statewide regulatory body responsible for ensuring that California meets its statewide carbon pollution reduction targets, while retaining local air districts’ responsibility and authority to curb toxic air contaminants and criteria pollutants from local sources that severely impact public health. AB 398 also decreased free carbon allowances over 40 percent by 2030 and prioritized Cap-and-Trade spending to various programs including reducing diesel emissions in impacted communities. SB 150 (Regional Transportation Plans) Signed on October 10, 2017, SB 150 aligns local and regional GHG reduction targets with State targets (i.e., 40 percent below their 1990 levels by 2030). SB 150 creates a process to include communities in discussions on how to monitor their regions’ progress on meeting these goals. The bill also requires the CARB to regularly report on that progress, as well as on the successes and the challenges regions experience associated with achieving their targets. SB 150 provides for accounting of climate change efforts and GHG reductions and identify effective reduction strategies. SB 100 (California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: Emissions of Greenhouse Gases) Signed into Law in September 2018, SB 100 increased California’s renewable electricity portfolio from 50 to 60 percent by 2030. SB 100 also established a further goal to have an electric grid that is entirely powered by clean energy by 2045. CARB Advanced Clean Truck Regulation CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Truck Regulation in June 2020 requiring truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every new truck sold in California is required to be zero-emission. This rule directly addresses disproportionate risks and health and pollution burdens and puts California on the Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 108 path for an all zero-emission short-haul drayage fleet in ports and railyards by 2035, and zero- emission “last-mile” delivery trucks and vans by 2040. The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation accelerates the transition of zero-emission medium-and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8. The regulation has two components including a manufacturer sales requirement, and a reporting requirement: • Zero-Emission Truck Sales: Manufacturers who certify Class 2b through 8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines are required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales need to be 55 percent of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75 percent of Class 4 – 8 straight truck sales, and 40 percent of truck tractor sales. • Company and Fleet Reporting: Large employers including retailers, manufacturers, brokers and others would be required to report information about shipments and shuttle services. Fleet owners, with 50 or more trucks, would be required to report about their existing fleet operations. This information would help identify future strategies to ensure that fleets purchase available zero-emission trucks and place them in service where suitable to meet their needs. Executive Orders Related to GHG Emissions California’s Executive Branch has taken several actions to reduce GHGs using executive orders. Although not regulatory, they set the tone for the State and guide the actions of state agencies. Executive Order S-3-05 Executive Order S-3-05 was issued on June 1, 2005, which established the following GHG emissions 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 percent below 1990 levels. The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target. Because this is an executive order, the goals are not legally enforceable for local governments or the private sector. Executive Order S-01-07 Issued on January 18, 2007, Executive Order S 01-07 mandates that a statewide goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. The executive order established a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and directed the Secretary for Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the California Energy Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 109 Commission, CARB, the University of California, and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring the “life-cycle carbon intensity” of transportation fuels. CARB adopted the LCFS on April 23, 2009. Executive Order S-13-08 Issued on November 14, 2008, Executive Order S-13-08 facilitated the California Natural Resources Agency development of the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research. Executive Order S-14-08 Issued on November 17, 2008, Executive Order S-14-08 expands the State’s Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. Additionally, Executive Order S-21-09 (signed on September 15, 2009) directs CARB to adopt regulations requiring 33 percent of electricity sold in the State come from renewable energy by 2020. CARB adopted the Renewable Electricity Standard on September 23, 2010, which requires 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 for most publicly owned electricity retailers. Executive Order S-21-09 Issued on July 17, 2009, Executive Order S-21-09 directs CARB to adopt regulations to increase California's RPS to 33 percent by 2020. This builds upon SB 1078 (2002), which established the California RPS program, requiring 20 percent renewable energy by 2017, and SB 107 (2006), which advanced the 20 percent deadline to 2010, a goal which was expanded to 33 percent by 2020 in the 2005 Energy Action Plan II. Executive Order B-30-15 Issued on April 29, 2015, Executive Order B-30-15 established a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and directs CARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e). The 2030 target acts as an interim goal on the way to achieving reductions of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, a goal set by Executive Order S-3-05. The executive order also requires the State’s climate adaptation plan to be updated every three years and for the State to continue its climate change research program, among other provisions. With the enactment of SB 32 in 2016, the Legislature codified the goal of reducing GHG emissions by 2030 to 40 percent below 1990 levels. Executive Order B-55-18 Issued on September 10, 2018, Executive Order B-55-18 establishes a goal to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing statewide targets of reducing GHG Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 110 emissions. The executive order requires CARB to work with relevant state agencies to develop a framework for implementing this goal. It also requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan to identify and recommend measures to achieve carbon neutrality. The executive order also requires state agencies to develop sequestration targets in the Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan. Executive Order N-79-20 Signed in September 2020, Executive Order N-79-20 establishes as a goal that where feasible, all new passenger cars and trucks, as well as all drayage/cargo trucks and off-road vehicles and equipment, sold in California, will be zero-emission by 2035. The executive order sets a similar goal requiring that all medium and heavy-duty vehicles will be zero-emission by 2045 where feasible. It also directs CARB to develop and propose rulemaking for passenger vehicles and trucks, medium-and heavy-duty fleets where feasible, drayage trucks, and off-road vehicles and equipment “requiring increasing volumes” of new zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) “towards the target of 100 percent.” The executive order directs the California Environmental Protection Agency, the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), and the California Natural Resources Agency to transition and repurpose oil production facilities with a goal toward meeting carbon neutrality by 2045. Executive Order N-79-20 builds upon the CARB Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, which was adopted by CARB in July 2020. California Regulations and Building Codes California has a long history of adopting regulations to improve energy efficiency in new and remodeled buildings. These regulations have kept California’s energy consumption relatively flat even with rapid population growth. Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations The appliance efficiency regulations (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 20, Sections 1601-1608) include standards for new appliances. Twenty-three categories of appliances are included in the scope of these regulations. These standards include minimum levels of operating efficiency, and other cost-effective measures, to promote the use of energy- and water-efficient appliances. Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (CCR Title 24, Part 6) 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. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards approved on Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 111 January 19, 2016 went into effect on January 1, 2017. The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards were adopted on May 9, 2018 and went into effect on January 1, 2020. Under the 2019 standards, homes will use about 53 percent less energy and nonresidential buildings will use about 30 percent less energy than buildings under the 2016 standards. Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code The California Green Building Standards Code (CCR 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 most recent update to the CALGreen Code went into effect January 1, 2017. Updates to the 2016 CALGreen Code took take effect on January 1, 2020 (2019 CALGreen). The 2019 CALGreen standards will continue to improve upon the existing standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. Regional South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) formed a GHG California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Significance Threshold Working Group to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents. As of the last Working Group meeting (Meeting 15) held in September 2010, the SCAQMD is proposing to adopt a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency. With the tiered approach, the Project is compared with the requirements of each tier sequentially and would not result in a significant impact if it complies with any tier. Tier 1 excludes projects that are specifically exempt from SB 97 from resulting in a significant impact. Tier 2 excludes projects that are consistent with a GHG reduction plan that has a certified final CEQA document and complies with AB 32 GHG reduction goals. Tier 3 excludes projects with annual emissions lower than a screening threshold. For all industrial projects, the SCAQMD is proposing a screening threshold of 10,000 million tons of CO2e (MTCO2e) per year. SCAQMD concluded that projects with emissions less than the screening threshold would not result in a significant cumulative impact. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 112 Tier 4 consists of three decision tree options. Under the Tier 4 first option, SCAQMD initially outlined that a project would be excluded if design features and/or mitigation measures resulted in emissions 30 percent lower than business as usual emissions. However, the Working Group did not provide a recommendation for this approach. The Working Group folded the Tier 4 second option into the third option. Under the Tier 4 third option, a project would be excluded if it was below an efficiency-based threshold of 4.8 MTCO2e per service population per year. Tier 5 would exclude projects that implement off-site mitigation (GHG reduction projects) or purchase offsets to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than the proposed screening level. GHG efficiency metrics are utilized as thresholds to assess the GHG efficiency of a project on a per capita basis or on a service population basis (the sum of the number of jobs and the number of residents provided by a project) such that a project would allow for consistency with the goals of AB 32 (i.e., 1990 GHG emissions levels by 2020 and 2035). GHG efficiency thresholds can be determined by dividing the GHG emissions inventory goal of the State, by the estimated 2035 population and employment. This method allows highly efficient projects with higher mass emissions to meet the overall reduction goals of AB 32, and is appropriate, because the threshold can be applied evenly to all project types (residential or commercial/retail only and mixed use). The screening threshold for residential projects is 3,000 MTCO2e per year according to both the City of Fontana and SCAQMD. Therefore, the GHG threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year will be the threshold utilized to evaluate GHG emissions from the proposed residential Project. Southern California Association of Governments On September 3, 2020, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Council adopted the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020 RTP/SCS). The 2020 RTP/SCS charts a course for closely integrating land use and transportation so that the region can grow smartly and sustainably. The strategy was prepared through a collaborative, continuous, and comprehensive process with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non-profit organizations, businesses and local stakeholders within the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The RTP/SCS is a long-range vision plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The SCAG region strives toward sustainability through integrated land use and transportation planning. The SCAG region must achieve specific federal air quality standards and is required by state law to lower regional GHG emissions. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 113 Local City of Fontana General Plan The City of Fontana’s General Plan outlines the concerns of the community and the means of addressing those concerns. Chapter 9, Community Mobility and Circulation focuses on connecting neighborhoods and city destinations by expanding transportation choices in Fontana. General Plan policies that relate to greenhouse gas impacts include the following: Goal 4: Fontana meets the greenhouse gas reduction goals for 2030 and subsequent goals set by the state. Policy 4-1: Continue to collaborate with the San Bernardino County Transportation Agency (SBCTA), infrastructure agencies, and utilities on greenhouse gas reduction studies and goals. Goal 7: The City of Fontana participates in shaping regional transportation policies to reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions Policy 7-3: Participate in the efforts of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to coordinate transportation planning and services that support greenhouse gas reduction. Thresholds and Significance Criteria Addressing GHG emissions generation impacts requires an agency to determine what constitutes a significant impact. The amendments to the CEQA Guidelines specifically allow lead agencies to determine thresholds of significance that illustrate the extent of an impact and are a basis from which to apply mitigation measures. This means that each agency is left to determine whether a project’s GHG emissions will have a “significant” impact on the environment. The guidelines direct that agencies are to use “careful judgment” and “make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” the project’s GHG emissions.43 Based upon the criteria derived from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project normally would have a significant effect on the environment if it would: • Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, based on any applicable threshold of significance; or • Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. 43 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.4a Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 114 South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds The SCAQMD has not announced when staff is expecting to present a finalized version of its GHG thresholds to the governing board. On September 28, 2010, the SCAQMD recommended an interim screening level numeric “bright‐line” threshold of 10,000 metric tons per year of CO2e for industrial land uses. These efficiency-based thresholds were developed as part of the SCAQMD GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group. This working group was formed to assist SCAQMD’s efforts to develop a GHG significance threshold and is composed of a wide variety of stakeholders including the State Office of Planning and Research, CARB, the Attorney General’s Office, a variety of city and county planning departments in the SCAB, various utilities such as sanitation and power companies throughout the SCAB, industry groups, and environmental and professional organizations. The numeric “bright line” was developed to be consistent with CEQA requirements for developing significance thresholds, are supported by substantial evidence, and provides guidance to CEQA practitioners in determining whether GHG emissions from a proposed project are significant. The screening threshold for residential projects is 3,000 MTCO2e per year according to both the City of Fontana and SCAQMD. Therefore, the GHG threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year will be the threshold utilized to evaluate GHG emissions from the proposed residential Project. Methodology The Project’s construction and operational emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2020.4.0 (CalEEMod). Details of the modeling assumptions and emission factors are provided in Appendix G of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment. For construction, CalEEMod calculates emissions from off-road equipment usage and on-road vehicle travel associated with haul, delivery, and construction worker trips. GHG emissions during construction were forecasted based on the proposed construction schedule and applying the mobile-source and fugitive dust emissions factors derived from CalEEMod. The Project’s construction-related GHG emissions would be generated from off-road construction equipment, on-road hauling, and vendor (material delivery) trucks, and worker vehicles. The Project’s operational-related GHG emissions would be generated by vehicular traffic, area sources (e.g., landscaping maintenance, consumer products), electrical generation, natural gas consumption, water supply and wastewater treatment, and solid waste. Summary of Impacts Identified in the CHNSP FEIR The Certified 2004 CHNSP FEIR did not include an evaluation on greenhouse gas emissions. At the time of the CHNSP FEIR adoption, the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions was not required by CEQA. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 115 Impacts of the Citrus West Project Would the Citrus West Project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? No New or More Severe Impact. Short-Term Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Project would result in direct emissions of GHGs from construction. The approximate quantity of daily GHG emissions generated by construction equipment utilized to build the Project is depicted in the following Table 14, Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Table 14: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Category MTCO2e 2022 Construction 148.45 2023 Construction 611.61 Total Construction Emissions 760.06 30-Year Amortized Construction 25.34 Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for model outputs. As shown, the Project would result in the generation of approximately 760.06 MTCO2e over the course of construction. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over the lifetime of the Project (assumed to be 30 years), then added to the operational emissions.44 The amortized Project construction emissions would be 25.34 MTCO2e per year. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease. Long-Term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the Project. GHG emissions would result from direct emissions such as Project generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, and operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the Project, the emissions associated with solid waste generated from the Project, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators. Total GHG emissions associated with the Project are summarized in Table 15, Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As shown in Table 15, the Project would generate approximately 966.51 MTCO2e annually from both construction and operations and the Project. Project-related GHG emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold for non-industrial projects. 44 The project lifetime is based on the standard 30-year assumption of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13, August 26, 2009). Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 116 Table 15: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emissions Source MTCO2e per Year Construction Amortized Over 30 Years 25.34 Area Source 18.94 Energy 133.56 Mobile 740.10 Waste 19.78 Water and Wastewater 28.79 Total 966.51 SCAQMD Threshold 3,000 Exceeds Threshold? No Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for model outputs. Therefore, the Project would generate a less than significant impact from greenhouse gas emissions with no mitigation measures required. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No New or More Severe Impact. SCAG RTP/SCS Consistency On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [2020 RTP/SCS]). The RTP/SCS is a long- range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The RTP/SCS embodies a collective vision for the region’s future and is developed with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and local stakeholders in the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. SCAG’s RTP/SCS establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks for 2020 and 2035 as well as an overall GHG target for the Project region consistent with both the target date of AB 32 and the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of Executive Orders 5-03-05 and B-30-15. The RTP/SCS contains over 4,000 transportation projects, ranging from highway improvements, railroad grade separations, bicycle lanes, new transit hubs and replacement bridges. These future investments were included in county plans developed by the six county transportation commissions and seek to reduce traffic bottlenecks, improve the efficiency of the region’s network, and expand mobility choices for everyone. The RTP/SCS is an important planning document for the region, allowing project sponsors to qualify for federal funding. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 117 The plan accounts for operations and maintenance costs to ensure reliability, longevity, and cost effectiveness. The RTP/SCS is also supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve state GHG emissions reduction goals and Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, support our vital goods movement industry, and utilize resources more efficiently. GHG emissions resulting from development-related mobile sources are the most potent source of emissions, and therefore Project comparison to the RTP/SCS is an appropriate indicator of whether the Project would inhibit the post-2020 GHG reduction goals promulgated by the state. The Project’s consistency with the RTP/SCS goals is analyzed in detail in Table 16, Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency. Table 16: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency SCAG Goals Compliance GOAL 1: Encourage regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness. N/A. This is not a project-specific policy and is therefore not applicable. However, the Project is located on a vacant site and development of the site would contribute to regional economic prosperity. GOAL 2: Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability, and travel safety for people and goods. Consistent. Although this Project is not a transportation improvement project, the Project is located near existing Omnitrans transit routes (Route 82) on Citrus Avenue. GOAL 3: Enhance the preservation, security, and resilience of the regional transportation system. N/A. This is not a transportation improvement project and is therefore not applicable. GOAL 4: Increase person and goods movement and travel choices within the transportation system. N/A. This is not a transportation improvement project and is therefore not applicable. GOAL 5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality. Consistent. The Project is located within a suburban area in proximity to existing employment centers and community services. Location of the Project within a developed area would reduce trip lengths, which would reduce GHG and air quality emissions. GOAL 6: Support healthy and equitable communities Consistent. The Project does not exceed state and localized thresholds. Based on the Friant Ranch decision, projects that would exceed the SCAQMD’s LSTs would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and result in no criteria pollutant health impacts. GOAL 7: Adapt to a changing climate and support an integrated regional development pattern and transportation network. N/A. This is not a project-specific policy and is therefore not applicable. GOAL 8: Leverage new transportation technologies and data-driven solutions that result in more efficient travel. N/A. This is not a project-specific policy and is therefore not applicable. GOAL 9: Encourage development of diverse housing types in areas that are supported by multiple transportation options. Consistent. The Project involves development of residential housing that will provide the community with more housing options. The Project is located within a relatively short walking distance to local bus routes and is surrounded by connected sidewalks and bicycle lanes to allow for multimodal transportation. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 118 SCAG Goals Compliance GOAL 10: Promote conservation of natural and agricultural lands and restoration of habitats. N/A. This the Project is located on an undeveloped site surrounded by residential neighborhoods and is unlikely to house natural resources. Additionally, the Project is not located on agricultural lands. Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, 2020. Compliance with applicable State standards would ensure consistency with State and regional GHG reduction planning efforts. The goals stated in the RTP/SCS were used to determine consistency with the planning efforts previously stated. As shown in Table 16, the proposed Project would be consistent with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts or interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s post-2020 mobile source GHG reduction targets. Consistency with the CARB Scoping Plan The California State Legislature adopted AB 32 in 2006. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Pursuant to the requirements in AB 32, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) in 2008, which outlines actions recommended to obtain that goal. The Scoping Plan provides a range of GHG reduction actions that include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non- monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms such as the cap-and-trade program, and an AB 32 implementation fee to fund the program. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update identifies additional GHG reduction measures necessary to achieve the 2030 target. These measures build upon those identified in the first update to the Scoping Plan in 2013. Although a number of these measures are currently established as policies and measures, some measures have not yet been formally proposed or adopted. It is expected that these actions to reduce GHG emissions will be adopted as required to achieve statewide GHG emissions targets. As shown in Table 17, Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures, the Project is consistent with most of the strategies, while others are not applicable to the Project. As such, impacts related to consistency with the CARB Scoping Plan would be less than significant. Table 17: Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures Scoping Plan Sector Scoping Plan Measure Implementing Regulations Project Consistency Transportation California Cap-and- Trade Program Linked to Western Climate Initiative Regulation for the California Cap on GHG Emissions and Market- Based Compliance Mechanism October 20, 2015 (CCR 95800) Consistent. The Cap-and-Trade Program applies to large industrial sources such as power plants, refineries, and cement manufacturers. However, the regulation indirectly affects people who use the products and services produced by these industrial sources when increased cost of products or services (such as electricity and fuel) are transferred to the consumers. The Cap-and-Trade Program covers the GHG emissions associated with electricity consumed in Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 119 Scoping Plan Sector Scoping Plan Measure Implementing Regulations Project Consistency California, generated in-state or imported. Accordingly, GHG emissions associated with CEQA projects’ electricity usage are covered by the Cap-and- Trade Program. The Cap-and-Trade Program also covers fuel suppliers (natural gas and propane fuel providers and transportation fuel providers) to address emissions from such fuels and combustion of other fossil fuels not directly covered at large sources in the Program’s first compliance period. California Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Standards Pavley I 2005 Regulations to Control GHG Emissions from Motor Vehicles Pavley I 2005 Regulations to Control GHG Emissions from Motor Vehicles Consistent. This measure applies to all new vehicles starting with model year 2012. The Project would not conflict with its implementation as it would apply to all new passenger vehicles purchased in California. Passenger vehicles, model year 2012 and later, associated with construction and operation of the Project would be required to comply with the Pavley emissions standards. 2012 LEV III California GHG and Criteria Pollutant Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards Consistent. The LEV III amendments provide reductions from new vehicles sold in California between 2017 and 2025. Passenger vehicles associated with the site would comply with LEV III standards. Low Carbon Fuel Standard 2009 readopted in 2015. Regulations to Achieve GHG Emission Reductions Subarticle 7. Low Carbon Fuel Standard CCR 95480 Consistent. This measure applies to transportation fuels utilized by vehicles in California. The Project would not conflict with implementation of this measure. Motor vehicles associated with construction and operation of the Project would utilize low carbon transportation fuels as required under this measure. Regional Transportation- Related GHG Targets. SB 375. Cal. Public Resources Code §§ 21155, 21155.1, 21155.2, 21159.28 Consistent. The Project would provide development in the region that is consistent with the growth projections in the RTP/SCS. Goods Movement Goods Movement Action Plan January 2007 N/A. The Project does not propose any changes to maritime, rail, or intermodal facilities or forms of transportation. Medium/Heavy-Duty Vehicle 2010 Amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulation, the Drayage Truck Regulation and the Tractor-Trailer GHG Regulation Consistent. This measure applies to medium and heavy-duty vehicles that operate in the state. The Project would not conflict with implementation of this measure. Medium and heavy-duty vehicles associated with construction and operation of the Project would be required to comply with the requirements of this regulation. High Speed Rail Funded under SB 862 N/A. This is a statewide measure that cannot be implemented by a project applicant or Lead Agency. Electricity and Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulation Consistent. The Project would not conflict with implementation of this measure. The Project would comply with the latest energy efficiency standards. Title 24 Part 6 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non- Residential Building Title 24 Part 11 California Green Building Code Standards Renewable Portfolio Standard/Renewable Electricity Standard. 2010 Regulation to Implement the Consistent. The Project would obtain electricity from the electric utility, Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE obtained 36 percent of its power supply from Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 120 Scoping Plan Sector Scoping Plan Measure Implementing Regulations Project Consistency Renewable Electricity Standard (33% 2020) renewable sources in 2018. Therefore, the utility would provide power when needed on site that is composed of a greater percentage of renewable sources. Million Solar Roofs Program SB 350 Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (50% 2030) Million Solar Roofs Program Tax Incentive Program Consistent. This measure is to increase solar throughout California, which is being done by various electricity providers and existing solar programs. The program provides incentives that are in place at the time of construction. Water Water Title 24 Part 11 California Green Building Code Standards Consistent. The Project would comply with the CalGreen standards, which requires a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use. The Project would also comply with the City’s Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations (Chapter 28, Article IV of the Fontana Municipal Code). SBX 7-7—The Water Conservation Act of 2009 Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Green Buildings Green Building Strategy Title 24 Part 11 California Green Building Code Standards Consistent. The State is to increase the use of green building practices. The Project would implement required green building strategies through existing regulation that requires the Project to comply with various CalGreen requirements. The Project includes sustainability design features that support the Green Building Strategy. Industry Industrial Emissions 2010 CARB Mandatory Reporting Regulation N/A. The Mandatory Reporting Regulation requires facilities and entities with more than 10,000 MTCO2e of combustion and process emissions, all facilities belonging to certain industries, and all electric power entities to submit an annual GHG emissions data report directly to CARB. The Project proposes a residential development and therefore this regulation would not apply. Recycling and Waste Management Recycling and Waste Title 24 Part 11 California Green Building Code Standards Consistent. The Project would not conflict with implementation of these measures. The Project is required to achieve the recycling mandates via compliance with the CALGreen code. The City has consistently achieved its state recycling mandates. AB 341 Statewide 75 Percent Diversion Goal Forests Sustainable Forests Cap and Trade Offset Projects N/A. The Project is not located in a forested area. High Global Warming Potential High Global Warming Potential Gases CARB Refrigerant Management Program CCR 95380 N/A. The regulations are applicable to refrigerants used by large air conditioning systems and large commercial and industrial refrigerators and cold storage system. The Project would not conflict with the refrigerant management regulations adopted by CARB. Agriculture Agriculture Cap and Trade Offset Projects for Livestock and Rice Cultivation N/A. No grazing, feedlot, or other agricultural activities that generate manure occur currently exist on-site or are proposed to be implemented by the Project. Source: California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017 and CARB, Climate Change Scoping Plan, December 2008. As seen in Table 16 and Table 17, the Project would be consistent with all applicable plan goals. As shown in Table 15, the Project is estimated to emit approximately 966.51 MTCO2e per year Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 121 directly from on‐site activities and would not exceed the SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold. Regarding goals for 2050 under Executive Order S-3-05, at this time it is not possible to quantify the emissions savings from future regulatory measures, as they have not yet been developed; nevertheless, it can be anticipated that operation of the proposed Project would benefit from the implementation of current and potential future regulations (e.g., improvements in vehicle emissions, SB 100/renewable electricity portfolio improvements, etc.) enacted to meet an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. The majority of the GHG reductions from the Scoping Plan would result from continuation of the Cap-and-Trade regulation. Assembly Bill 398 (2017) extends the state’s Cap-and-Trade program through 2030 and the Scoping Plan provide a comprehensive plan for the state to achieve its GHG targets through a variety of regulations enacted at the state level. Additional reductions are achieved from electricity sector standards (i.e., utility providers to supply 60 percent renewable electricity by 2030 and 100 percent renewable by 2045), doubling the energy efficiency savings at end uses, additional reductions from the LCFS, implementing the short-lived GHG strategy (e.g., hydrofluorocarbons), and implementing the Mobile Source Strategy and Sustainable Freight Action Plan. Several of the State’s plans and policies would contribute to a reduction in mobile source emissions from the Project. These include the CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation, Executive Order N-79-20, CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy, CARB’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan, and CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement. CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation in June 2020 requiring truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every new truck sold in California is required to be zero-emission. The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation accelerates the transition of zero-emission medium-and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8. Executive Order N-79-20 establishes the goal for all new passenger cars and trucks, as well as all drayage/cargo trucks and off-road vehicles and equipment, sold in California, will be zero- emission by 2035 and all medium and heavy-duty vehicles will be zero-emission by 2045. It also directs CARB to develop and propose rulemaking for passenger vehicles and trucks, medium-and heavy-duty fleets where feasible, drayage trucks, and off-road vehicles and equipment “requiring increasing volumes” of new ZEVs “towards the target of 100 percent.” CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy which include increasing ZEV buses and trucks and their Sustainable Freight Action Plan which improves freight system efficiency, utilizes near-zero emissions technology, and deployment of ZEV trucks. This Plan applies to all trucks accessing the Project site and may include existing trucks or new trucks that are part of the statewide goods movement sector. CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement identifies Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 122 measures to improve goods movement efficiencies such as advanced combustion strategies, friction reduction, waste heat recovery, and electrification of accessories. While these measures are not directly applicable to the Project, any commercial activity associated with goods movement would be required to comply with these measures as adopted. The Project would not obstruct or interfere with efforts to increase ZEVs or state efforts to improve system efficiency. As discussed above, the Project’s operational and construction emissions would not exceed local thresholds. Therefore, the Project would only benefit from implementation of these State programs and measures, which would reduce future GHG emissions from trucks. The Project’s long-term operational and short-term construction GHG emissions would not exceed the City’s threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Additionally, the Project would be consistent with applicable regulations and goals. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact , and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion With regard to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result significant impacts, with respect to GHG emissions. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 123 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 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? 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? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? The scope of this discussion and findings herein are based in part on the following study (refer to Appendix E of this Addendum): • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared by Weis Environmental (March 2021). Summary of Impacts Identified in the CHNSP FEIR The Certified 2004 CHNSP FEIR found that there would be less than significant impacts on hazards and hazardous materials, resulting from the implementation of the CHNSP, and no mitigation is required. The CHNSP FEIR concludes that there is no evidence of any recognized hazardous environmental condition or hazardous materials on the CHNSP site, or of any hazard to the public from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Further, the CHNSP site is not located on any listed hazardous materials site and would have no impact related to aviation, emergency Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 124 response or evacuation, or wildland fires. The CHNSP FEIR also discusses Summit Heights Elementary School and the planned Summit High School as being adjacent to the site, but that the CHNSP implementation would not emit any hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials with ¼ mile of either school. Therefore, no impact would occur. Currently, there is no Summit Heights Elementary School located near the CHNSP site, but there are two (2) nearby elementary schools: Falcon Ridge and Sierra Lakes. The Summit High School has also been constructed and is currently in operation. Additionally, the Phase I ESA conducted for the CHNSP identified areas requiring further investigation and concluded that the CHNSP would be required to clean these identified sites during site preparation for construction to ensure that no contamination or hazardous exposure from these areas would occur. With appropriate site cleanup and preparation, a less than significant impact would occur. The CHNSP has been developed with the exception of the Citrus West Project area (PA 12) and all site evaluations were conducted prior to construction for each development proposal. A Phase I (Appendix E) was prepared for the Project and determined that no recognized environmental conditions were noted in connection with the land use of the site and improvements at the site. Further, no land uses adjoining the site or in the vicinity represented recognized environmental conditions. The Project site is the last remaining parcel within the CHNSP for development and all other sites have been developed or are currently under development. Therefore, with the conclusions of the Phase I prepared for the site, no impacts would occur. Impacts of the Citrus West Project Would the Citrus West Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No New or More Severe Impact. Construction Any potentially hazardous materials used during Project construction would be handled on-site. This generally includes paints and solvents and other petroleum-based products, usually used for on-site construction equipment and for building exterior finishes. The use or handling of these potentially hazardous materials would be short-term only during the construction phases of Project. Although these materials could be stored on-site, they would be required to comply with the guidelines established by the San Bernardino County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 125 (SWPPP). The transport, removal, and disposal of hazardous materials on the Project site would be conducted by a permitted and licensed service provider consistent with federal, state, and local requirements including the U.S. EPA, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA), Caltrans, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the San Bernardino County Fire Department (the Certified Unified Program Agency for San Bernardino County) or through the Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) Program. Therefore, the management of hazardous materials during the Project’s construction phase would not result in a significant impact. Operations Direct hazardous waste would be generated from landscaping involving the use of pesticides/herbicides and fertilizers. Landscaping maintenance best management practices (BMPs) would be conducted according to the California Stormwater Quality Association’s Stormwater BMPs which would reduce pesticides and fertilizers from running off off-site. Indirect hazardous materials such as sediment, metals, oils and grease, trash/debris and other organic compounds that usually known as stormwater pollutants would be captured via infiltration basins to avoid stormwater runoff from seeping off-site. Impacts from operations would be less than significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No New or More Severe Impact. The Sierra Lakes Elementary School is located within ¼ mile southeast of the Project site. The Sierra Lakes Elementary School was not previously evaluated in the CHNSP FEIR. Direct and indirect hazardous materials would be contained on-site using BMPs and compliance with any applicable local, state, and federal laws pertaining to hazardous waste handling. The Project would adhere to the SWPPP and the CESQG program that would reduce hazardous materials from running off to the school. No long-term handling of hazardous materials would occur because the Project is residential in nature, and not industrial or manufacturing. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The Project and surrounding vicinity are not included on the California Department of Toxic Substances Cortese list (Government Code Section 65962.5).45 Further, Phase I ESA 45 State of California; Department of Toxic Substances Control (EnviroStor). (2021). Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese). Available at https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?PAGE=3&CMD=search&ocieerp=&business_name=&main_street_number=&main_street _name=&city=&zip=&county=&branch=&status=ACT%2CBKLG%2CCOM&site_type=CSITES%2CFUDS&cleanup_type=&npl=&funding=&reporttyp e=CORTESE&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29&federal_superfund=&state_response=&volunta Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 126 concluded that there was no evidence of Recognized Environmental Conditions, Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions, or Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions identified near the Project site. Therefore, no impacts associated with hazardous materials sites would occur. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The nearest airport to the Project site is the Ontario International Airport (ONT), located approximately 10 miles southwest of the Project site. As such the Project is not located within an airport land use plan nor is located within two (2) miles of a public airport or public use airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impact would occur. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The Project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. In August 2018, the City adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) with the intent to reduce and/or eliminate loss of life and property due to potential hazards. The City also has an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) that identifies evacuation routes, emergency facilities, and City personnel and equipment available to deal with any emergency situation. There will be no revisions of the adopted LHMP or EOP associated with the Project. The nearest fire stations are Fire Station 78, located approximately 1.7 miles south and Fire Station 79, located approximately 1 mile northwest of the Project site. This site would be able to provide any fire or emergency services and be able to reach the Project as no major roads would be altered during construction. As such, impacts are expected to be less than significant. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No Impact. The Project site is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as designated in the VHFHSZ Map.46 Refer to Section 20, Wildfire thresholds below for more information regarding the exposure of people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. ry_cleanup=&school_cleanup=&operating=&post_closure=&non_operating=&corrective_action=&tiered_permit=&evaluation=&spec_prog=&na tional_priority_list=&senate=&congress=&assembly=&critical_pol=&business_type=&case_type=&display_results=&school_district=&pub=&hw mp=False&permitted=&pc_permitted=&inspections=&complaints=&censustract=&cesdecile=&ORDERBY=city&next=Next+50. Accessed on September 29, 2021. 46 CAL FIRE. (2008). Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA; Fontana. Available at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5943/fontana.pdf. Accessed on September 27, 2021. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 127 Conclusion With regard to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to hazards and hazardous materials. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 128 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: 1) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; 2) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; 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; 4) impede or redirect flood flows? d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and Supporting Calculations was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates (January 2022). The document is included in this EIR Addendum as Appendix F. Surface Water Hydrology The City is located within the Lower Lytle Creek Watershed, which forms the northwest portion of the Santa Ana River Watershed and drains the eastern portion of the San Gabriel Mountains. Daytime temperatures in the summer months frequently exceed 100 degrees in the lower watershed and are about 10 to 15 degrees cooler in the upper watershed. Winter temperatures can fall below freezing throughout the entire watershed. The lower watershed averages 15 to 20 inches of rain annually while the upper watershed averages 35 inches annually. The Lower Lytle Creek Watershed covers an area of approximately 186 square miles with a mean annual runoff of roughly 31,720-acre-feet (AF). Lytle Creek is a tributary of Warm Creek, which in turn is Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 129 a tributary to the Santa Ana River (SAR), joining the main stem of the river in the vicinity of Prado Dam.47 Ground Water The Project site would be serviced by the Fontana Water Company’s (FWC). FWC’s water supplies predominately come from groundwater supplied by the Chino Basin, Rialto-Colton Basin, and No Man’s Land Basin. FWC also purchases imported water supplies from the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD). According to FWC 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), FWC’s groundwater wells have a total pumping capacity of approximately 50,000 gallons per minute (gpm) and booster pumping facilities with a total design pumping capacity of +115,000 gpm.48 Summary of Impacts Identified in the CHNSP FEIR The Certified 2004 CHNSP FEIR found that there would be less than significant impacts on hydrology and water quality with adherence to the BMPs established in the NPDES permit. Implementation of the CHNSP would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. A drainage plan was prepared for the CHNSP and all the development would be required to incorporate the design criteria contained in the drainage plan. The on-site drainage facilities would be split into two separate systems. The westerly portion would drain to the 72-inch storm drain to be installed in Lytle Creek Road and the remaining would drain to the northwest corner of Summit Avenue and Knox Avenue where a reinforced concrete box (RCB) storm drain was to be constructed in Summit Avenue. In addition, the CHNSP site is required to reduce post- development on-site runoff to a level slightly below the existing pre-development rate. The City is also required to implement its obligations under the Area-Wide Urban Storm Water Permit, issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). To comply with the Area-Wide Urban Storm Water Permit, the City has adopted a Municipal Storm Water Management Plan (MSWMP) that consists of a variety of control measures, including prohibition or regulation of specific types of discharges, inspections, avoidance of sewage spills, public education, controls on new development and redevelopment, site maintenance practices, and construction site management practices. Therefore, implementation of the CHNSP would not create or contribute to runoff that exceeds the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or introduce substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. 47 City of Fontana. General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. 2015-2035. Hydrology and Water Quality. Available at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update. Accessed January 15, 2021. 48 Fontana Water Company. (2015). Urban Water Management Plan; Page 3-2. Available at https://www.fontanawater.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/10/San-Gabriel-Fontana_Amended-Final-December-2017-1.pdf. Accessed January 15, 2021. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 130 The CHNSP FEIR includes that prior issuance of building permits, new development, and redevelopment projects subject to the City’s MSWMP restrictions are also required to submit and obtain approval of Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) that specifies the BMPs for water pollution control that are to be incorporated into the project design. With adherence to appropriate BMPs and control measures, a less than significant impact would occur. Impacts of the Citrus West Project Would the Citrus West Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? No New or More Severe Impact. The California Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Section 13000 (“Water Quality”) et seq., of the California Water Code), and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972, also referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA) require comprehensive water quality control plans be developed for all waters within the State of California. The Project’s WQMP was created to comply with the requirements of the City of Fontana and the Area-Wide Urban Storm Water Permit, consistent with the CHNSP FEIR analysis. The Project owner is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this plan and would ensure that this plan is amended as appropriate to reflect up‐to‐date conditions on the site consistent with MSWMP and the intent of the NPDES Permit for San Bernardino County and the incorporated cities of San Bernardino County within the Santa Ana Region until the WQMP is transferred to the Project’s new owner. The Project site is located within the jurisdiction of the RWQCB. Construction of the Project would involve filling in the Project site with documented soil at grade, utility installation, paving, building construction, and landscaping activities, which would result in the generation of potential water quality pollutants such as sediment, silt, debris, chemicals, paints, pesticides/herbicides and other solvents with the potential to adversely affect water quality. As such, short‐term water quality impacts have the potential to occur during construction of the Project in the absence of any protective or avoidance measures. Operation water quality impacts would arise directly from landscaping maintenance and indirectly from stormwater pollutants such as nitrogen, oil and grease, trash/debris, and other organic compounds. The Project would disturb more than one (1) acre of land surface and would, therefore, be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES stormwater program. To minimize water quality impacts during construction, construction activities would be required to comply with the WQMP via the San Bernardino County’s MSWMP, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), consistent with the General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activity (Construction Activity General Permit). To obtain coverage, the Project Applicant is required to submit a Notice of Intent prior to construction activities and develop and implement Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 131 an SWPPP and monitoring plan. The SWPPP identifies erosion-control and sediment-control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction Activity General Permit to control potential construction-related pollutants. Erosion-control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized. The development of the Project site would result in an increase of impervious surface which would increase stormwater runoff, however, this runoff would be captured and conveyed to the storm drain system. The Project would be required to implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), pursuant to the requirements of the City’s NPDES permit. The WQMP is a post- construction management program that ensures the ongoing protection of the watershed basin by requiring structural and programmatic controls. The WQMP identifies structural and programmatic BMPs and controls to minimize, prevent, and/or otherwise appropriately treat stormwater runoff flows before they are discharged from the site. Mandatory compliance with the WQMP BMPs would ensure that the Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during long‐term operation. The final Project WQMP would identify all BMPs incorporated into the final site design and provide other detailed information to minimize water quality impacts. Therefore, adherence to BMPs would ensure that potential Project impacts related to soil erosion, siltation, and sedimentation remain less than significant and avoid violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Water quality impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? No New or More Severe Impact. No potable groundwater wells are proposed as part of the Project. The Project would be served with potable water by FWC which receives groundwater resources from Chino Basin, Rialto-Colton Basin, and No-Man’s Land Basin and imported water supplies from external sources. These sources would be used to service the proposed residential development and for landscaping maintenance which may result in runoff. Although the Project would result in additional impervious surfaces on-site, the Project would implement a storm drain system based on a proposed flow patterns to capture stormwater runoff. The stormwater would be conveyed to underground chambers for pre-treatment for water quality volume infiltration. Additionally, infiltration basins would capture any runoff and would recharge groundwater. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 132 Therefore, the Project’s demand for domestic water service would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Please refer to the following threshold for more information about the proposed drainage system. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? No New or More Severe Impact. The Project would expose large areas of soil during the duration of Project construction. The appropriate soil erosion and control techniques would be employed in conformance to the Construction BMP handbook and the BMPs set in the WQMP. Furthermore, according to the WQMP preventive Low Impact Development (LID) site design practices would maintain existing drainage patterns and time of concentration. Additionally, the Project would limit erosion or siltation on- or off-site through the of the BMPs with compliance with all applicable NPDES permits. Landscaping areas would be inspected for signs of erosion, vegetation health and mulch depth regularly with landscaping maintenance activities or at minimum once per month. Identified eroded areas, decaying, or dying vegetation, and bare areas shall be repaired, replaced and/or mulched as soon as possible to minimize exposed sediment and potential for erosion. Therefore, with the proposed drainage systems and implementation of BMPs pursuant to the Project WQMP, impacts would be less than significant. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? No New or More Severe Impact. As discussed above, surface runoff in both construction and operation phases would not runoff in a manner which would result in flooding. Project design features pursuant to the BMPs within the WQMP, which includes a new drainage system, would reduce the rate of runoff from Project activities. As previously mentioned, according to the Preliminary WQMP (Appendix F), there are eleven low flow area drains and seven onsite catch basins throughout the site which would collect any stormwater from two drainage areas (DMA 1 and, DMA 2). DMA 1 and DMA 2 drain to a combined underground corrugated metal pipe (CMP) infiltration system that would provide storage capacity of up to 44,486 cubic feet (cf) to treat the stormwater. The maximum capacity of the proposed CMP detention system would be sufficient to capture and store the projected 44,426 cf onsite water quality volume, estimated in the Appendix F. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 133 The runoff reduction would also be consistent with the CHNSP FEIR’s requirement to reduce post- development on-site runoff to a level slightly below the existing pre-development rate. Further, the site does not include any streams or rivers, that would be altered by the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No New or More Severe Impact. On‐site stormwater runoff associated with the Project would be engineered to be conveyed through the proposed drainage system and detention basins. Additionally, runoff minimizing landscape would be implanted. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? No New or More Severe Impact. The Project site is proposed to be self-contained and would not include any offsite flows from adjacent properties. Storm water flows would pass through the infiltration facilities and will then flow through the storm drain to the west or east pending storm flow. The Project would include the development of drainage system consistent with City requirements to convey stormwater runoff to the mainline storm drain system. Stormwater management practices, as required under Fontana MC §28-111, would further reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact. The Project site is located over 60 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. As such, the potential for the Project site to be inundated by a tsunami is negligible. No steep slopes are located in the Project vicinity; therefore, the risk of mudflow is also negligible. No associated impacts are anticipated to occur. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? No New or More Severe Impact. No potable groundwater wells are proposed as part of the Project. The Project would be served with potable water by the Fontana Water Company (FWC). Domestic water from this service provider is supplied via the groundwater from multiple sources. This includes the Chino Groundwater Basin, the Rialto Groundwater Basin, the Lytle Groundwater Basin, and the No-Man’s Land Groundwater Basin. These sources provide the City with the majority of its water needs, with room for expansion. As well, all municipal water entities that exceed their safe yield incur a groundwater replenishment ligation, which is used to recharge the Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 134 groundwater basin with State Water Project. Thus, the Project’s demand for domestic water service would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Although the Project would result in additional impervious surfaces on-site, the Project would construct a water quality infiltration basin which would capture low flow storm water runoff from the site. Accordingly, the Project would not significantly impact local groundwater recharge and is not anticipated to conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The Project would be subject to the WQMP via the County’s SWPPP. Impacts would be less than significant. Conclusion With regard to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to hydrology and water quality. Therefore, the preparation of a SEIR is not warranted. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 135 LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Summary of Impacts Identified in the CHNSP FEIR The Certified 2004 CHNSP FEIR found that there would be less than significant impacts on land use and planning. Implementation of the CHNSP would not physically divide an established community as the proposed land uses are similar to those in the immediately adjacent Westgate Specific Plan (to the west), the Summit Heights Specific Plan (to the southwest), the Citrus Heights South Specific Plan (to the south), and the Summit Heights Specific Plan area and the Sierra Lakes Specific Plan area (to the southeast). Because the CHNSP land uses are consistent with the surrounding land uses, the impacts would be less than significant. Further, implementation of the CHNSP would also not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project to avoid or mitigate environmental effects. The CHNSP was evaluated for consistency and compatibility with Fontana GP goals and policies as well as the Zoning Map, available at the time of the CHNSP adoption in 2004. The CHNSP was found to be consistent and compatible with the available Fontana GP and Zoning Map during that time. Therefore, the CHNSP would conform to the existing land development regulations and impacts would be less than significant. Impacts of the Citrus West Project Would the Citrus West Project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The 9.4-acre Project site is a vacant and undeveloped rectangular-shaped lot that is bordered by Citrus Avenue to the east and Summit Avenue to the south. The Project would involve grading and site preparation operations prior to construction and include the development of 85 two-story single-family cluster homes with associated amenities such as recreational area and landscaping. Projects that are typically considered to have the potential to divide an established community include the construction of new freeways, highways, or roads, or other uses that physically separate an existing or established neighborhood. The Project does not require or propose improvements to a highway or above-ground infrastructure that would preclude or impede movement through the Project site or that which would cause permanent Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 136 disruption to the existing physical arrangement of the surrounding community. While new development and improvements would occur, implementation of the Project would not physically divide an established community. Since the Project would not divide an established community and would be consistent with adjacent uses, no impact would occur. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No New or More Severe Impact. CEQA requires that the analysis consider whether a Project may conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) that was adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. This environmental determination differs from the larger policy determination of whether a proposed Project is consistent with a jurisdiction’s general plan. The broader General Plan consistency determination takes into account all evidence in the record concerning the Project characteristics, its desirability, as well as its economic, social, and other non-environmental effects. Regarding plan or policy consistency, a Project is evaluated in terms of whether the proposed site plan, design features, and/or development at this location would substantially impede implementation of an adopted plan or policy. The mere fact that a Project may be inconsistent in some manner with particular policies in a general plan or zoning ordinance does not, per se, amount to a significant environmental effect. In the context of land use and planning, significant impacts occur when a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project results in an adverse physical environmental impact. The Project involves an amendment to the CHNSP PA 12 (SPA) to change the land use of the site from Neighborhood Commercial to Residential and creates new development standards for the 9.4-acre site. At the time of the CHNSP adoption, PA12 also contained a Local Activity Center Overlay intended to stimulate the development of a mix of neighborhood commercial land uses. The Project requires an SPA to develop 85 single-family units that would be compatible with the existing residential land uses throughout the CHNSP. The CHNSP EIR found consistency with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Since the approval of the CHNSP the City adopted the 2018 General Plan Update and EIR. The City adopted goals and policies that addressed relevant future growth and development patterns and housing opportunities and to ensure consistency with state requirements. The SPA would amend the existing PA12 land use from Neighborhood Commercial to CHNSP Residential- Medium Density, similar to the City’s R-2 zones. The SPA would include residential development standards that would be consistent with the Fontana MC. Furthermore, the Project would be consistent with the goals and policies as identified in the CHNSP EIR and the 2018 GP. The exception to this would be clarification to Goal #1, Policy 4 in the CHNSP EIR to amend the language in this policy to state that the Project would amend the Neighborhood land use to a Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 137 residential uses and therefore the Project would no longer provide commercial uses as described in the EIR. The Project would provide private amenities within the gated community within PA 12 and the Project would have access to the public parks constructed as part of the CHNSP. Additionally, multiple commercial developments have been constructed to the south and west of the CHNSP less than a mile of the Project and within walking distance. Therefore, the Project would be still be consistent with this policy. The Project would also be compatible with the surrounding residential developments. Therefore, the implementation of the Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts would be considered less than significant. Conclusion With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to land use and planning. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 138 MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 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? Summary of Impacts Identified in the CHNSP FEIR Revisions to the CEQA Guidelines made after approval of the CHNSP FEIR Project created a new separate CEQA checklist topic for “Mineral Resources,” consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. While FEIR did not specifically address mineral resources, Mineral resources thresholds were previously discussed in Geology and Soils Section. This section examines potential impacts related to mineral resources that could result from implementation of the Project. Impacts of the Citrus West Project Would the Citrus West Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. A mineral resource is any naturally occurring rock material with commercial value and often representable by a chemical formula. The most valuable mineral resource in the area would be sand and gravel deposits extending southward from the San Gabriel Mountains. These materials are essential in the creation of construction materials like concrete and mortar. Within the Project site, there are no amount of these materials found. In addition, there are no known gemstones, ores, or unique minerals in the area as denoted on the Data Basin Map for California Mineral Resources.49 More substantial deposits can also be found outside of the site area. As well, there are no known gemstones, ores, or unique minerals in the area. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. According to the Fontana GP, no mining operations are currently active within the City limits, and none are being considered at this time. Therefore, the Project would not have an effect on locally important mineral resources recovery site. Because the Project is not designated 49 Conservation Biology Institute. 2019. California Mineral Resources. Available at: https://databasin.org/maps/new#datasets=f2985196ca6b45cf8f2ad604beb95b34. Accessed on September 26, 2021. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 139 for mineral resource recovery and does not contain any known mineral resources, no impact would occur. Conclusion The Project would result in no new or more severe impact to mineral resources. Therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to mineral resources. With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts from the previously identified impacts, with respect to mineral resources. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 140 NOISE Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The following analysis is based on the Acoustical Assessment prepared for the Project by Kimley- Horn and Associates dated May 2022 and is included as Appendix H. Sound and Environmental Noise Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound can be described as the mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium (e.g., air) to human (or animal) ear. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), they can be heard and are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound and is expressed as cycles per second, or hertz (Hz). Noise is defined as loud, unexpected, or annoying sound. In acoustics, the fundamental model consists of a noise source, a receptor, and the propagation path between the two. The loudness of the noise source, obstructions, or atmospheric factors affecting the propagation path, determine the perceived sound level and noise characteristics at the receptor. Acoustics deal primarily with the propagation and control of sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady background noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These sources can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to continuous noise from traffic on a major highway. Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective from person to person. Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a large range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel (dB) scale was devised. The dB scale uses the hearing threshold of 20 micro- pascals (µPa) as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The dB scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in levels correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness. Table 18, Typical Noise Levels provides typical noise levels. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 141 Table 18: Typical Noise Levels Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities – 110 – Rock Band Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet – 100 – Gas lawnmower at 3 feet – 90 – Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 miles per hour Food blender at 3 feet – 80 – Garbage disposal at 3 feet Noisy urban area, daytime Gas lawnmower, 100 feet – 70 – Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area Normal Speech at 3 feet Heavy traffic at 300 feet – 60 – Large business office Quiet urban daytime – 50 – Dishwasher in next room Quiet urban nighttime – 40 – Theater, large conference room (background) Quiet suburban nighttime – 30 – Library Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall (background) – 20 – Broadcast/recording studio – 10 – Lowest threshold of human hearing – 0 – Lowest threshold of human hearing Source: California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013. Noise Descriptors The dB scale alone does not adequately characterize how humans perceive noise. The dominant frequencies of a sound have a substantial effect on the human response to that sound. Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Because environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise on people is largely dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. The equivalent noise level (Leq) is the average noise level averaged over the measurement period, while the day-night noise level (Ldn) and Community Equivalent Noise Level (CNEL) are measures of energy average during a 24-hour period, with dB weighted sound levels from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of Leq that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time- varying events. Each is applicable to this analysis and defined in Table 19, Definitions of Acoustical Terms. Table 19: Definitions of Acoustical Terms Term Definitions Decibel (dB) A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure. The reference pressure for air is 20. Sound Pressure Level Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed in µPa (or 20 micronewtons per square meter), where 1 pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of 1 newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The sound pressure level is expressed in dB as 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio between the pressures exerted by Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 142 Term Definitions the sound to a reference sound pressure (e.g., 20 µPa). Sound pressure level is the quantity that is directly measured by a sound level meter. Frequency (Hz) The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. Infrasonic sound are below 20 Hz and ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz. A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA) The sound pressure level in dB as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) The average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. 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. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night. Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) Minimum Noise Level (Lmin) The maximum and minimum dBA during the measurement period. Exceeded Noise Levels (L01, L10, L50, L90) The dBA values that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period. Day-Night Noise Level (Ldn) A 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity at nighttime. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.4 dBA Ldn. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) A 24-hour average Leq with a 5 dBA weighting during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and a 10 dBA weighting 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, respectively. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.7 dBA CNEL. Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location. Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends on its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. The A-weighted decibel (dBA) sound level scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time- varying events. The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus one dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends on the distance between the receptor and the noise source. A-Weighted Decibels The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent on many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable and can be approximated by dBA values. There is a strong correlation between dBA and the way the human ear perceives sound. For this reason, Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 143 the dBA has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels reported in this document are in terms of dBA, but are expressed as dB, unless otherwise noted. Addition of Decibels The dB scale is logarithmic, not linear, and therefore sound levels cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic. Two sound levels 10 dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the standard logarithmic dB is A-weighted, an increase of 10 dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70-dBA sound is half as loud as an 80-dBA sound and twice as loud as a 60-dBA sound. When two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dBA higher than one source under the same conditions. Under the dB scale, three sources of equal loudness together would produce an increase of 5 dBA. Sound Propagation and Attenuation Sound spreads (propagates) uniformly outward in a spherical pattern, and the sound level decreases (attenuates) at a rate of approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a stationary or point source. Sound from a line source, such as a highway, propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of approximately 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source, such as a roadway, depending on ground surface characteristics. No excess attenuation is assumed for hard surfaces like a parking lot or a body of water. Soft surfaces, such as soft dirt or grass, can absorb sound, so an excess ground-attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. For line sources, an overall attenuation rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance is assumed. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The way older homes in California were constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows. The exterior-to-interior reduction of newer residential units is generally 30 dBA or more. Human Response to Noise Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day or night or over a 24-hour period. Environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60 to 70 dBA range, and high above 70 dBA. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings with noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet, suburban, residential streets with noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate-level noise environments are urban residential or semi-commercial areas (typically 55 to 60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 144 most will accept the higher levels associated with noisier urban residential or residential- commercial areas (60 to 75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65 to 80 dBA). Regarding increases in dBA, the following relationships should be noted: • Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a 1-dBA change cannot be perceived by humans. • Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference. • A minimum 5-dBA change is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. A 5-dBA increase is typically considered substantial. • A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as an approximate doubling in loudness and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response. Effects of Noise on People Hearing Loss. While physical damage to the ear from an intense noise impulse is rare, a degradation of auditory acuity can occur even within a community noise environment. Hearing loss occurs mainly due to chronic exposure to excessive noise but may be due to a single event such as an explosion. Natural hearing loss associated with aging may also be accelerated from chronic exposure to loud noise. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has a noise exposure standard that is set at the noise threshold where hearing loss may occur from long- term exposures. The maximum allowable level is 90 dBA averaged over 8 hours. If the noise is above 90 dBA, the allowable exposure time is correspondingly shorter. Annoyance. Attitude surveys are used for measuring the annoyance felt in a community for noises intruding into homes or affecting outdoor activity areas. In these surveys, it was determined that causes for annoyance include interference with speech, radio and television, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and rest. The Ldn as a measure of noise has been found to provide a valid correlation of noise level and the percentage of people annoyed. People have been asked to judge the annoyance caused by aircraft noise and ground transportation noise. There continues to be disagreement about the relative annoyance of these different sources. A noise level of about 55 dBA Ldn is the threshold at which a substantial percentage of people begin to report annoyance.50 Groundborne Vibration Sources of ground-borne vibrations include natural phenomena (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides, etc.) or man-made causes (explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment, etc.). Vibration sources may be continuous (e.g., factory machinery) or transient (i.e., explosions or use of heavy equipment during construction). Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero. Several different 50 Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues, August 1992. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 145 methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One is vibration decibels (VdB) (the vibration velocity level in decibel scale). Other methods are the peak particle velocity (PPV) and the root mean square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. The RMS velocity is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. The PPV and RMS vibration velocity amplitudes are used to evaluate human response to vibration. Table 20, Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations below displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings produced by continuous vibration levels. The annoyance levels shown in the table should be interpreted with care since vibration may be found to be annoying at much lower levels than those listed, depending on the level of activity or the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage. In high noise environments, which are more prevalent where ground-borne vibration approaches perceptible levels, this rattling phenomenon may also be produced by loud airborne environmental noise-causing induced vibration in exterior doors and windows. Table 20: Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations Peak Particle Velocity (in/sec) Approximate Vibration Velocity Level (VdB) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings 0.006-0.019 64-74 Range of threshold of perception Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any type 0.08 87 Vibrations readily perceptible Recommended upper level to which ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected 0.1 92 Level at which continuous vibrations may begin to annoy people, particularly those involved in vibration sensitive activities Virtually no risk of architectural damage to normal buildings 0.2 94 Vibrations may begin to annoy people in buildings Threshold at which there is a risk of architectural damage to normal dwellings 0.4-0.6 98-104 Vibrations considered unpleasant by people subjected to continuous vibrations and unacceptable to some people walking on bridges Architectural damage and possibly minor structural damage Source: California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, 2013. in/sec – inches per second VdB - vibration decibels Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 146 Ground vibration can be a concern in instances where buildings shake, and substantial rumblings occur. However, it is unusual for vibration from typical urban sources such as buses and heavy trucks to be perceptible. Common sources for ground-borne vibration are planes, trains, and construction activities such as earthmoving which requires the use of heavy-duty earth moving equipment. For the purposes of this analysis, a PPV descriptor with units of inches per second (in/sec) is used to evaluate construction-generated vibration for building damage and human complaints. Regulatory Setting State California Government Code California Government Code Section 65302(f) mandates that the legislative body of each county and city adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of “normally acceptable,” “conditionally acceptable,” “normally unacceptable,” and “clearly unacceptable” noise levels for various land use types. Single-family homes are “normally acceptable” in exterior noise environments up to 60 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Multiple-family residential uses are “normally acceptable” up to 65 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Schools, libraries, and churches are “normally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL, as are office buildings and business, commercial, and professional uses. Title 24 – Building Code The State’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24: Part 1, Building Standards Administrative Code, and Part 2, California Building Code. These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for interior noise compatibility from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise-sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are located near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new multi-family residential buildings, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL. Local City of Fontana General Plan Adopted on November 13, 2018, the Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 (Fontana GP) identifies noise standards that are used as guidelines to evaluate transportation noise level impacts. These standards are also used to assess the long‐term traffic noise impacts Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 147 on specific land uses. According to the Fontana General Plan, land uses such as residences have acceptable exterior noise levels of up to 65 dBA CNEL. Based on the guidelines in the Fontana GP, an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL is generally considered the maximum exterior noise level for sensitive receptors. Land uses near these significant noise‐producers can incorporate buffers and noise control techniques including setbacks, landscaping, building transitions, site design, and building construction techniques to reduce the impact of excessive noise. Selection of the appropriate noise control technique would vary depending on the level of noise that needs to be reduced as well as the location and intended land use. The City has adopted the Noise and Safety Element as a part of the updated Fontana General Plan Chapter 11. The Noise and Safety Element specifies the maximum allowable unmitigated exterior noise levels for new developments impacted by transportation noise sources. Additionally, the Noise and Safety Element identifies transportation noise policies designed to protect, create, and maintain an environment free of harmful noise that could impact the health and welfare of sensitive receptors. The following Fontana General Plan goals, policies, and actions for addressing noise are applicable to the Project: Goal 8: The City of Fontana protects sensitive land uses from excessive noise by diligent planning through 2035. Policy 8.2: Noise-tolerant land uses shall be guided into areas irrevocably committed to land uses that are noise-producing, such as transportation corridors. Policy 8.4: Noise spillover or encroachment from commercial, industrial and educational land uses shall be minimized into adjoining residential neighborhoods or noise-sensitive uses. Action C: The State of California Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines shall be followed with respect to acoustical study requirements. Goal 9: The City of Fontana provides a diverse and efficiently operated ground transportation system that generates the minimum feasible noise on its residents through 2035. Policy 9.1: All noise sections of the State Motor Vehicle Code shall be enforced. Policy 9.2: Roads shall be maintained such that the paving is in good condition and free of cracks, bumps, and potholes. Action A: On-road trucking activities shall continue to be regulated in the City to ensure noise impacts are minimized, including the implementation of truck-routes based on traffic studies. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 148 Action B: Development that generates increased traffic and subsequent increases in the ambient noise level adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses shall provide appropriate mitigation measures. Action C: Noise mitigation practices shall be employed when designing all future streets and highways and when improvements occur along existing highway segments. Action D: Explore the use of “quiet pavement” materials for street improvements. Goal 10: Fontana’s residents are protected from the negative effects of “spillover” noise. Policy 10.1: Residential land uses, and areas identified as noise-sensitive shall be protected from excessive noise from non-transportation sources including industrial, commercial, and residential activities and equipment. Action A: Projects located in commercial areas shall not exceed stationary-source noise standards at the property line of proximate residential or commercial uses. Action B: Industrial uses shall not exceed commercial or residential stationary source noise standards at the most proximate land uses. Action C: Non-transportation noise shall be considered in land use planning decisions. Action D: Construction shall be performed as quietly as feasible when performed in proximity to residential or other noise-sensitive land uses. City of Fontana Municipal Code Standards established under the City of Fontana Municipal Code (Municipal Code) are used to analyze noise impacts originating from the Project. Operational noise impacts are typically governed by Fontana Municipal Code Sections 18-61 through 18-67. However, the City currently relies on delineated general industrial areas. According to the General Plan Noise and Safety section, these areas are buffered from residential uses through land use zoning that places either light industrial or commercial uses between the major manufacturers involved in heavy industrial uses and local residents. This separation of land uses meaning noise intrusion on conforming land uses is not a problem at this time. Guidelines for non-transportation and stationary noise source impacts from operations at private properties are found in the Zoning and Development Code in Chapter 30 of the Fontana Municipal Code. Applicable guidelines indicate that no person shall create or cause any sound exceeding the City’s stated noise performance standards measured at the property line of any residentially zoned property. Per Fontana Municipal Code Section 30-543(A), the performance standards for exterior noise emanating from any property are 70 dBA between the Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 149 hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 65 dBA during the noise-sensitive hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. at residential uses. For this analysis, a 65-dBA nighttime noise level standard is conservatively used to analyze potential noise impacts at off-site residential receptors within the City of Fontana. The City has also set restrictions to control noise impacts from construction activities. Section 18-63(b)(7) states that the erection (including excavation), demolition, alteration, or repair of any structure shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, except in the case of urgent necessity or otherwise approved by the City of Fontana. Although the Fontana Municipal Code limits the hours of construction, it does not provide specific noise level performance standards for construction. Existing Noise Sources The City is impacted by various noise sources. Mobile sources of noise, especially cars, trucks, and trains are the most common and significant sources of noise. Other noise sources are the various land uses (i.e., residential, commercial, institutional, and recreational and parks activities) throughout the City that generate stationary-source noise. Mobile Sources Existing roadway noise levels were calculated for the roadway segments in the Project vicinity. This task was accomplished using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and Existing (2017) ADT Volumes from the Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report. The noise prediction model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (also referred to as energy rates) used in the FHWA model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The Caltrans data indicates that California automobile noise is 0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national levels and that medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower than national levels. The average daily noise levels along roadway segments in proximity to the Project site are included in Table 21, Existing Traffic Noise Levels. As shown in Table 21, existing traffic noise levels in the Project vicinity range between 53.7 dBA CNEL and 64.4 dBA CNEL. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 150 Table 21: Existing Traffic Noise Levels Roadway Segment ADT1 dBA CNEL1 Citrus Avenue Casa Grande Avenue to Summit Avenue 1,500 53.7 Summit Avenue to Curtis Avenue 15,100 63.7 Summit Avenue Knox Avenue to Citrus Avenue 18,100 64.4 Citrus Avenue to Sierra Avenue 6,900 60.3 ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL= Community Equivalent Noise Level Notes: 1. Traffic data obtained from the Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2018. 2. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. Noise levels modeled using the FHWA-RD-77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model; see Appendix A for traffic noise modeling results. Stationary Sources The primary sources of stationary noise in the Project vicinity are those associated with the residential property to the north, west, and east of the Project site. The noise associated with these sources may represent a single-event noise occurrence or short-term noise. Other noises include mechanical equipment (e.g., heating ventilation and air conditioning [HVAC] equipment), dogs barking, idling vehicles, and residents talking. Noise Measurements The Project site is currently vacant and unoccupied. To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the Project area, Kimley-Horn conducted four short-term noise measurements on October 7, 2021; see Appendix A: Noise Data of the Acoustical Assessment. The noise measurement sites were representative of typical existing noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to the Project site. The 10-minute measurements were taken between 10:05 a.m. and 11:35 a.m. Measurements of Leq are considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day. The average noise levels and sources of noise measured at each location are listed in Table 22, Existing Noise Measurements and shown on Exhibit 8: Noise Measurement Locations. Table 22: Existing Noise Measurements Site Location Measurement Period Duration Daytime Average Leq (dBA) 1 Southeast corner of Florentine Avenue and Doran Lane 10:05 – 10:15 a.m. 10 Minutes 49.5 2 Western corner of Seminole Way and Riverwood Lane 10:35 – 10:45 a.m. 10 Minutes 48.8 3 Along the south side of Nuaimi Lane 11:10 – 11:20 a.m. 10 Minutes 54.2 4 Western side of Citrus Avenue 11:25 – 11:35 a.m. 10 Minutes 55.3 Source: Noise measurements taken by Kimley-Horn, October 7, 2021. See Appendix A for noise measurement results. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 151 Sensitive Receptors Noise exposure standards and guidelines for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with each of these uses. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long‐term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Sensitive land uses near the Project include existing single-family residential uses immediately to the north and east, and future residential uses (currently under construction) directly to the west. There are also single- family residences and Sierra Lakes Elementary School to the southeast of the Project site (southeast of the Citrus Avenue and Summit Avenue intersection). Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 152 This page intentionally left blank. Not to scale EXHIBIT 8: Noise Measurement Locations Citrus West Project, City of Fontana Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 154 This page intentionally left blank. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 155 Methodology Construction Construction noise levels were based on typical noise levels generated by construction equipment published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and FHWA. Construction noise is assessed in dBA Leq. This unit is appropriate because Leq can be used to describe noise level from operation of each piece of equipment separately, and levels can be combined to represent the noise level from all equipment operating during a given period. FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) was used to estimate construction noise at nearby sensitive receptors. For modeling purposes, construction equipment has been distributed evenly between the center of the construction site and the nearest receptor. To be conservative, the loudest and most used equipment was placed nearest the sensitive receptor. Noise level estimates do not account for the presence of intervening structures or topography, which may reduce noise levels at receptor locations. Therefore, the noise levels presented herein represent a conservative, reasonable worst-case estimate of actual temporary construction noise. Operations The analysis of the Without Project and With Project noise environments is based on noise prediction modeling and empirical observations. Reference noise level data are used to estimate the Project operational noise impacts from stationary sources. Noise levels are collected from field noise measurements and other published sources from similar types of activities are used to estimate noise levels expected with the Project’s stationary sources. The reference noise levels are used to represent a worst-case noise environment as noise level from stationary sources can vary throughout the day. Operational noise is evaluated based on the standards within the City’s Noise Ordinance and General Plan. The Without Project and With Project traffic noise levels in the Project vicinity were calculated using the FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Vibration Ground-borne vibration levels associated with construction-related activities for the Project were evaluated utilizing typical ground-borne vibration levels associated with construction equipment, obtained from FTA published data for construction equipment. Potential ground-borne vibration impacts related to building/structure damage and interference with sensitive existing operations were evaluated, considering the distance from construction activities to nearby land uses and typically applied criteria. For a building that is constructed with reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.20 in/sec is considered safe and would not result in any vibration damage. Human annoyance is evaluated in vibration decibels (VdB) (the vibration Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 156 velocity level in decibel scale) and occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. The FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA, 2018) (FTA Noise and Vibration Manual) identifies 80 VdB as the threshold for buildings where people normally sleep. Summary of Impacts Identified in the CHNSP FEIR The Certified 2004 CHNSP FEIR concluded that the implementation of CHNSP developments would result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance during construction. However, these impacts would be short-term and would be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures N-1 through N-5 of the CHNSP FEIR. Long term operational impacts, resulting from the CHNSP residential developments would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. CHNSP FEIR Mitigation Measures for Short-term construction Impacts N-1 Construction activities shall comply with Section 18-63 of the Fontana Municipal Code, which states that construction noise is limited to weekdays, between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. N-2 All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. N-3 Stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. N-4 Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from noise- sensitive receptors during construction activities. N-5 When necessary, use temporary sound barriers to reduce the impact of construction noise. Impacts of the Citrus West Project Would the Citrus West Project: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? No New or More Severe Impact. Construction Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise generated by construction Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 157 equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. During construction, exterior noise levels could affect the residential neighborhoods surrounding the construction site. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project construction area are residential uses located approximately 270 feet to the north of the Project site’s acoustic center. Following FTA methodology, when calculating construction noise, all equipment is assumed to operate at the center of the Project because equipment would operate throughout the Project site and not at a fixed location for extended periods of time. Construction activities would include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Such activities would require dozers and tractors during site preparation; excavators, graders, and dozers during grading; cranes, forklifts, generators, tractors, and welders during building construction; pavers, rollers, mixers, and paving equipment during paving; and air compressors during architectural coating. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by 3 to 4 minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. Typical noise levels associated with individual construction equipment are listed in Table 23, Typical Construction Noise Levels. The City’s Municipal Code does not establish quantitative construction noise standards. Instead, the Municipal Code establishes limited hours of construction activities. Municipal Code Section 18-63 states that construction activities may only take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, except in the case of urgent necessity or otherwise approved by the City of Fontana. However, this analysis conservatively uses the FTA’s threshold of 80 dBA (8-hour Leq) for residential uses to evaluate construction noise impacts. The noise levels calculated in Table 24, Project Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptor, show estimated exterior construction noise levels at the nearest sensitive uses (residences located approximately 270 to the north of the Project site’s acoustic center) without accounting for attenuation from physical barriers or topography. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 158 Table 23: Typical Construction Noise Levels Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) at 50 feet from Source Air Compressor 81 Backhoe 80 Compactor 82 Concrete Mixer 85 Concrete Pump 82 Concrete Vibrator 76 Crane, Derrick 88 Crane, Mobile 83 Dozer 85 Generator 81 Grader 85 Impact Wrench 88 Jack Hammer 85 Loader 85 Paver 89 Pneumatic Tool 85 Pump 76 Roller 74 Saw 76 Scraper 89 Shovel 82 Truck 88 Note: 1. Calculated using the inverse square law formula for sound attenuation: dBA2 = dBA1+20Log(d1/d2) Where: dBA2 = estimated noise level at receptor; dBA1 = reference noise level; d1 = reference distance; d2 = receptor location distance Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. Table 24: Project Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptor Construction Phase Modeled Exterior Construction Noise Level (dBA Leq) Noise Threshold (dBA Leq) Exceed Threshold? Site Preparation 74.9 80 No Grading 70.4 80 No Building Construction 69.4 80 No Paving 65.4 80 No Architectural Coating 63.0 80 No Note: Equipment distributed evenly between the center of the construction site and the nearest sensitive receptor. Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model, 2006. Refer to Appendix A of the Acoustical Assessment for noise modeling results. Table 24 depicts a worst-case scenario for each phase of construction, with all equipment operating simultaneously while located as close to the nearest sensitive receptor as possible. However, during construction, equipment would operate throughout the Project site and the Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 159 associated noise levels would not occur at a fixed location for extended periods of time. As indicated in Table 24, Project construction noise levels would not exceed the FTA’s 80 dBA threshold at the nearest residential uses. In addition, compliance with the Municipal Code would further minimize impacts from construction noise, as construction would be limited to daytime hours on weekdays and Saturdays. Therefore, because Project construction noise levels would not exceed FTA noise standards and construction activities would be required to comply with Municipal Code provisions, noise impacts would be less than significant noise impact in this regard. Previously identified mitigation measures (N-1 through N-5) would apply to reduce construction noise. The following Standard Condition would be carried out during Project construction. Standard Condition SC N-1 The construction contractor will use the following source controls at all times: a. Construction shall be limited to 7:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays, and no construction on Sundays and Holidays unless it is approved by the building inspector for cases that are considered urgently necessary as defined in Section 18-63(7) of the Municipal Code. b. For all noise-producing equipment, use types and models that have the lowest horsepower and the lowest noise generating potential practical for their intended use. c. The construction contractor will ensure that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, is properly operating (tuned-up) and lubricated, and that mufflers are working adequately. d. Have only necessary equipment onsite. e. Use manually-adjustable or ambient-sensitive backup alarms. When working adjacent to residential use(s), the construction contractor will also use the following path controls, except where not physically feasible, when necessary: i. Install portable noise barriers, including solid structures and noise blankets, between the active noise sources and the nearest noise receivers. ii. Temporarily enclose localized and stationary noise sources. iii. Store and maintain equipment, building materials, and waste materials as far as practical from as many sensitive receivers as practical. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 160 Operations Implementation of the Project would create new sources of noise in the Project vicinity. The major noise sources associated with the Project that would potentially impact existing nearby residences include stationary noise equipment (i.e., trash compactors, air conditioners, etc.); parking areas (i.e., car door slamming, car radios, engine start-up, and car pass-by); and off-site traffic noise. Mechanical Equipment The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are the single-family residences directly north of the Project site. Potential stationary noise sources related to long-term operation of the Project would include mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment (e.g., heating ventilation and air conditioning [HVAC] equipment) typically generates noise levels of approximately 52 dBA at 50 feet.4 Based on Project site plans, the nearest potential location for HVAC equipment would be located approximately 14 feet from the residential property line to the north. At this distance, HVAC noise levels would attenuate to approximately 63.1 dBA, which is below the City’s 65 dBA noise standard for residential uses. Additionally, standard construction practices, such as wall assemblies and windows, would result in an exterior-interior noise level reduction of approximately 25 dBA5. As such, interior HVAC noise levels would be approximately 38.1 dBA, which is below the City’s 45 dBA interior noise standard for residential uses. Operation of mechanical equipment would not increase ambient noise levels beyond the acceptable compatible land use noise levels. Further, it is noted that noise from stationary sources at the Project site would primarily occur during the daytime activity hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to stationary noise levels. Parking Noise The Project would provide 269 parking spaces. Parking spaces would be a combination of ground- floor garage spaces for each unit, and open parking spaces throughout the Project site. Nominal parking noise would occur within the on-site parking facilities. Traffic associated with parking lots is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards, which are based on a time-averaged scale such as the CNEL scale. The instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up, and car pass-bys range from 53 to 61 dBA6 and may be an annoyance to adjacent noise-sensitive receptors. It should be noted that parking lot noises are instantaneous noise levels compared to noise standards in the hourly Leq or 24-hour CNEL metrics, which are averaged over the entire duration of a time period. Additionally, parking noise also occurs at the adjacent properties to the north, east, and south under existing conditions. Parking and driveway noise would be consistent with existing noise in the vicinity and would be partially masked by background traffic noise from motor vehicles Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 161 traveling along Citrus Avenue to the west and Summit Avenue to the south. Actual noise levels over time resulting from parking activities will be far below the local noise standards. Therefore, noise impacts associated with parking would be less than significant. Off-Site Traffic Noise Implementation of the Project would generate increased traffic volumes along nearby roadway segments. According to the Trip Generation and VMT Screening Memorandum for the Proposed Citrus East Residential Project in the City of Fontana (Kimley-Horn, 2021) (Traffic Impact Study), the Project would generate 630 daily trips which would result in noise increases on Project area roadways. In general, a traffic noise increase of less than 3 dBA is barely perceptible to people, while a 5-dBA increase is readily noticeable. Generally, traffic volumes on Project area roadways would have to approximately double for the resulting traffic noise levels to increase by 3 dBA. Therefore, permanent increases in ambient noise levels of less than 3 dBA are considered to be less than significant. Traffic noise levels for roadways primarily affected by the Project were calculated using the FHWA’s Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Traffic noise modeling was conducted for conditions with and without the Project, based on traffic volumes from the Traffic Impact Study. As indicated in Table 25, Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels, Existing Conditions Plus Project traffic-generated noise levels on Project area roadways would range between 55.2 dBA CNEL and 64.4 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline, and the Project would result in a maximum increase of 1.4 dBA CNEL along Citrus Avenue. As such, the Project would result in an increase of less than 3.0 dBA CNEL for the roadway segments analyzed and traffic noise. Noise impacts from off-site traffic would be less than significant. Table 25: Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels Roadway Segment Existing Existing + Project Project Change from No Build Conditions Significant Impact? ADT1 dBA CNEL2 ADT dBA CNEL2 Citrus Avenue Casa Grande Avenue to Summit Avenue 1,500 53.7 2,130 55.2 1.5 No Summit Avenue to Curtis Avenue 15,100 63.7 15,730 63.8 0.1 No Summit Avenue Knox Avenue to Citrus Avenue 18,100 64.4 18,730 64.4 0.0 No Citrus Avenue to Sierra Avenue 6,900 60.3 7,530 60.5 0.2 No ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL= Community Equivalent Noise Level Notes: 1. Traffic data obtained from the Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2018. 2. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. Noise levels modeled using the FHWA-RD-77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model; see Appendix A for traffic noise modeling results. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 162 Table 26: Horizon Year and Horizon Year Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels Roadway Segment Horizon Year (2040) Horizon Year (2040) Plus Project Project Change from No Build Conditions Significant Impact? ADT1 dBA CNEL2 ADT dBA CNEL2 Citrus Avenue Casa Grande Avenue to Summit Avenue 4,000 57.9 4,630 58.5 0.6 No Summit Avenue to Curtis Avenue 16,000 63.9 16,630 64.1 0.2 No Summit Avenue Knox Avenue to Citrus Avenue 14,000 63.2 14,630 63.4 0.2 No Citrus Avenue to Sierra Avenue 11,000 62.3 11,630 62.5 0.2 No ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL= Community Equivalent Noise Level Notes: 1. Traffic data obtained from the Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2018. 2. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. Noise levels modeled using the FHWA-RD-77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model; see Appendix A of the Acoustical Assessment for traffic noise modeling results. The Horizon Year “2040 Without Project” and “2040 Plus Project” scenarios were also compared. As shown above in Table 26, Horizon Year and Horizon Year Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels, Horizon Year (2040) Plus Project roadway noise levels would range between 58.5 dBA CNEL and 64.1 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline, and the Project would result in a maximum increase of 0.6 dBA CNEL. As such, the Project would result in an increase of less than 3.0 dBA CNEL for the roadway segments analyzed and traffic noise. Noise impacts from off-site traffic would be less than significant in this regard. No new or more severe impact would occur. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No New or More Severe Impact. Increases in ground-borne vibration levels attributable to the proposed Project would be primarily associated with short‐term construction‐related activities. The FTA has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations in the FTA Noise and Vibration Manual. The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. For example, for a building that is constructed with reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.20 in/sec is considered safe and would not result in any vibration damage. Human annoyance is evaluated in vibration decibels (VdB) (the vibration velocity level in decibel scale) and occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. The FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Manual identifies 80 VdB as the approximate threshold for annoyance. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 163 Construction The nearest sensitive receptors are the residences located approximately 14 feet to the north of the Project site. However, since construction activity would be intermittent and the use of heavy construction equipment would be spread throughout the Project site and not concentrated at one specific location for an extended period of time, it is assumed the concentration of construction activity for the purposes of this vibration analysis would occur no closer than 50 feet from the nearest sensitive receptors. Table 27, Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, lists vibration levels at 25 and 50 feet for typical construction equipment. Groundborne vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. As indicated in Table 27 based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during Project construction range from 0.001 to 0.032 in/sec PPV at 50 feet from the source of activity, which is below the FTA’s 0.20 PPV threshold for building damage and 80 VdB threshold for human annoyance. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with the Project construction would be less than significant. Table 27: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Equipment Peak Particle Velocity at 25 Feet (in/sec) Peak Particle Velocity at 41 Feet (in/sec)1 Peak Particle Velocity at 50 Feet (in/sec)1 Approximate VdB at 25 Feet Approximate VdB at 41 Feet Approximate VdB at 50 Feet2 Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.042 0.032 87 81 78 Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.036 0.027 86 80 77 Jackhammer 0.035 0.017 0.012 79 73 70 Small Bulldozer/Tractors 0.003 0.001 0.001 58 52 49 BOLD text indicates a vibration level that meets or exceeds the FTA’s 80 VdB annoyance threshold. Notes: 1. Calculated using the following formula: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5, where: PPVequip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance; PPVref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018; D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver. 2. Calculated using the following formula: Lv(D) = Lv(25 feet) - (30 x log10(D/25 feet)) per the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018). Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018. Groundborne vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. As indicated in Table 27, based on FTA data, worst-case vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during Project construction range from 0.007 to 0.192 in/sec PPV at 15 feet from the source of activity (i.e., the closest potential distance from Project construction activities to the residences to the north), which is below the FTA’s 0.20 PPV threshold for building damage. However, as shown in Table 27, large bulldozers, loaded trucks, and jackhammers operating at a Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 164 distance of 15 feet, and large bulldozers and loaded trucks operating at a distance between 25 and 41 feet from the residences to the north would exceed the FTA’s 80 VdB annoyance threshold. Construction equipment vibration levels would not exceed the FTA’s 80 VdB threshold at distances beyond 41 feet as indicated in Table 27. Therefore, implementation of previously identified mitigation measures (N-1 through N-5) would apply to reduce construction vibration and noise annoyance impacts at the residences to the north of the Project Site. With implementation of mitigation measures, construction vibration impacts would be less than significant. Operations Once operational, the Project would not be a significant source of ground-borne vibration. Ground-borne vibration surrounding the Project currently result from heavy-duty vehicular travel (e.g., refuse trucks, heavy duty trucks, delivery trucks, and transit buses) on the nearby local roadways. Operations of the Project would include residential activities that typically would not cause excessive ground-borne vibrations. Due to the rapid drop-off rate of ground-borne vibration and the short duration of the associated events, vehicular traffic-induced ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible beyond the roadway right-of-way, and rarely results in vibration levels that cause damage to buildings in the vicinity. According to the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, trucks rarely create vibration levels that exceed 70 VdB (equivalent to 0.012 inches per second PPV) when they are on roadways. Therefore, trucks operating at the Project site or along surrounding roadways would not exceed FTA thresholds for building damage or annoyance. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. 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 New or More Severe Impact. The nearest airport to the Project site is the Ontario International Airport located approximately 9.42 miles to the southwest. Thus, the Project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport and would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. No new or more severe impact would occur in this regard. Conclusion With regard to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to noise. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 165 POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Summary of Impacts Identified in the CHNSP FEIR The Certified 2004 CHNSP FEIR found that there would be less than significant impacts on land use and planning. Implementation of the CHNSP would result in population increase of approximately 4,822 persons upon project buildout. The CHNSP implementation would increase the City’s 2003 estimated population of 145,770 persons by approximately 3.3 percent. However, the CHNSP is consistent with the City’s 2003 GP and zoning, which plan for a residential “buildout” population of 215,001 persons within the City. The CHNSP’s estimated 4,822 persons would constitute about 2.2 percent of the ultimate population. The growth is in accordance with long-range comprehensive planning and therefore impact would be less than significant. Additionally, under the CHNSP, a variety of housing types would be developed, consistent with Fontana GP’s Housing Goal 5.1. Thus, the CHNSP would increase the number of residential dwelling units and provide a variety of housing types and would not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing and no impact would occur in that regard. Impacts of the Citrus West Project Would the Citrus West Project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No New or More Severe Impact. The Project would construct 85 detached single-family “cluster” residential units, which would cause a direct increase in the City’s population by introducing new residents to the Project site and surrounding areas. The State of California Department of Finance (DOF) has provided population estimates per household for each city through their E-5 Table.51 In Fontana, the current average household size 51 California Department of Finance. 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Available at https://www.dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5/. Accessed on September 26, 2021. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 166 is 4.02 persons per household.52 Given an average household size of 4.02 persons per household Project could potentially add an estimated 342 residents to the City. The DOF has estimated the City’s total population for 2021 to be approximately 213,944 persons with the total housing stock of 55,909 housing units and 5.1% vacancy rate.53 Further, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) forecasts the population of Fontana will increase to approximately 286,700 residents by the year 2045, which is an increase of approximately 72,756 persons or 34 percent from the current population (SCAG 2020).54 The level of population growth associated with the project (342 residents) would be minimal. The Project’s housing development would count towards Fontana’s housing needs as prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).55 The increase of housing units is anticipated in the City of Fontana’s Housing Element, which strongly encourages housing expansion throughout the City and anticipated a percentage of potential rezones/upzones in the 6th Cycle Housing Element update. As such, the Project would create a less than significant impact to population growth in the area. The additional 342 persons would increase the CHNSP’s estimated population from 4,822 persons to 5,164 persons and would change the CHNSP’s contribution to the ultimate population growth from 2.2 percent to 2.4 percent. When compared to the projections in the CHNSP, the development of the Project, with the SPA, would result in a minimal increase of 0.2 percent in population. However, the incremental increase would not be considered unplanned as the Project would be consistent with the CHNSP and General Plan residential land use. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The Project proposes construction of 85 single-family housing units. The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. Therefore, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts would occur. Conclusion With regard to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to population and housing. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted. 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid. 54 Southern California Association of Governments. (August 2020). Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast. Available at https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf. Accessed on September 30, 2021. 55 City of Fontana. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Chapter 5 Housing. Page 5.7. Available at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26744/Chapter-5---Housing. Accessed on September 26, 2021. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 167 PUBLIC SERVICES Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1) Fire protection? 2) Police protection? 3) Schools? 4) Parks? 5) Other public facilities? Summary of Impacts Identified in the CHNSP FEIR The Certified 2004 CHNSP FEIR found that implementation of the CHNSP would have significant impacts on fire protection, police protection, schools, and libraries. As previously discussed in Section 14: Population and Housing, the CHNSP would result in population increase of approximately 4,822 persons upon project buildout. The CHNSP implementation would increase the City’s 2003 estimated population of 145,770 persons by approximately 3.3 percent. However, the CHNSP is consistent with the City’s 2003 GP and zoning, which plan for a residential “buildout” population of 215,001 persons within the City. The CHNSP’s estimated 4,822 persons would constitute about 2.2 percent of the ultimate population. Prior to the CHNSP adoption, only fire protection was provided to the CHNSP site. The CHNSP required extension of public services to serve the areas within the CHNSP boundary. These extended public services include fire protection, police protection, schools, and libraries. The CHNSP developments would increase additional need for fire protection from the San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD). Additionally, the CHNSP’s estimated population of 4,822 residents would require additional four (4) to five (5) sworn officers (using 0.99 per 1,000 residents). The increase in population, as a result of the CHNSP implement would also have significant impacts on schools and library services. With the estimated population of 4,822 persons, the CHNSP was projected to generate a total of approximately 1,546 students in all grades. To reduce the levels of impacts on fire protection, police services, schools, and libraries, mitigation measure PS-1 would apply to all CHNSP developments requiring payment of impact fees to compensate the City and mitigate the costs of additional public services that would be needed by the CHNSP’s residents. Paying the required impact fees would contribute to the Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 168 improvement and expansion of City’s infrastructure and service capacity and would reduce the impacts to less than significant. Impacts of the Citrus West Project Would the Citrus West Project: a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? No New or More Severe Impact. Project implementation would consequently increase the demand for fire protection services in the area. However, the Project would be designed in accordance with applicable city, county, and state regulations, codes, and policies pertaining to fire hazard reduction and protection. More specifically, the Project would be developed in accordance with the latest California 2019 Fire Code and 2019 Building Standards Code. The 85-unit residential development would be equipped with emergency sprinkler systems and fire detectors. Water lines with fire-sufficient flows, supplied by FWC, would be connected to fire hydrants placed in accordance with Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD) standards. The applicant is also required to pay the Development Impact Fees (DIF) pursuant to §11-2 of the Fontana MC . The payment of the Development Impact Fees would also be consistent with the CHNSP FEIR mitigation measure PS-1. Fire protection and emergency response services would be provided for the Project site by the FFPD. The FFPD operates seven fire stations. Fire Station 78 is located approximately 1.7 miles south and Fire Station 79 is located approximately 1 mile northwest of the Project site. According to the Fontana Fire District Strategic Plan 2018, Action Items No. 6 and No. 9 note that FFPD would construct two (2) new Fire Stations (Station 80 in Years 2020-2022) and (Station 81 in Years 2024-2025) which would improve service ratios, response times or other performance objectives in the City. 56 The FFPD will continue to collect funds through its Fire Facilities Fees until such a future time as more development in the area warrants the acquisition of property and construction of Station 81. Additionally, Project development would increase property tax revenues to provide a source of additional funding that is sufficient to offset any increases in the anticipated demands for public services granted by this Project. With compliance of the applicable city, and state regulations, codes, potential impacts on fire services from implementation of the Project would be less than significant. 56 City of Fontana. 2018. Fontana Fire Protection District Strategic Plan. Accessible at https://novus.fontana.org/AttachmentViewer.ashx?AttachmentID=16102&ItemID=12107. Accessed on September 27, 2021. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 169 ii) Police protection? No New or More Severe Impact. The Project buildout would consequently increase the demand for police protection services in Northern Fontana. The Project site is located in Area 1 of the Area Commander Program and would be served by the City of Fontana Police Department (Fontana PD), located 3.5 miles south of the Project site.57 The Fontana PD currently has 188 sworn officers providing law enforcement services 24 hours a day, 365 days a year with a one officer to 1,138 residents ratio, based on the 2021 DOF population estimate.58 The 342-person population increase resulting from the Project would lead to a possible increase in police services to the immediate Project site and to the surrounding areas. However, as stated above, contribution to the DIF, consistent with the CHNSP FEIR mitigation measure PS-1, would offset any increases in the demands for public services granted by this Project. Consequently, the Project would adhere with Fontana PD’s Standard Building Security Specifications and Crime Prevention through natural surveillance, natural access control, territorial reinforcements and maintenance and management. Lastly, since the Project is designed to have a gated entrance/exit this decreased demand for public police protection as in-house security would be supervising the development. As such, impacts would be less than significant. iii) Schools? No New or More Severe Impact. The Project site is located in the Fontana Unified School District (FUSD). The Project site is located approximately 200 feet northwest of Sierra Lakes Elementary School, 0.37 miles east of Summit High School, and approximately 0.68 miles southeast of Falcon Ridge Elementary School. Due to the nature of the Project, it is anticipated that some student growth could occur regarding the anticipated population growth of that area due to the Project. According to Government Code §65996, the payment of development fees, authorized by SB 50 is deemed to be full and complete school facilities mitigation. The Project would be required to pay mandated development impact fees for residential buildings. As such, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant impact. iv) Parks? No New or More Severe Impact. The Project proposes a total of approximately 117,445 square feet of usable open space areas that would include amenities for the residents of the development. The Project would also be subject to the DIF to offset the impact to the City’s public services and facilities, including parks. The Project would not create additional need for recreational facilities. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. 57 City of Fontana Police Department.Area Commander Program. Available at https://www.fontana.org/120/Area-Commander-Programs. Accessed on September 27, 2021. 58 City of Fontana Police Department. Available at https://www.fontana.org/2509/About-Us. Accessed on September 27, 2021. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 170 v) Other public facilities? No New or More Severe Impact. Other public facilities in the area such as senior centers or libraries, would be impacted by the increase in population of 342 persons, resulting from the Project implementation. As such, the Project would be required to contribute to the DIF, consistent with the CHNSP FEIR mitigation measure PS-1. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Conclusion With regard to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to public services. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 171 RECREATION a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Summary of Impacts Identified in the CHNSP FEIR The Certified 2004 CHNSP FEIR found that implementation of the CHNSP would have significant impacts on existing parks and recreational facilities. As previously discussed in Section 14: Population and Housing, the CHNSP would result in population increase of approximately 4,822 persons upon project buildout. To reduce the levels of impacts on parks and recreational facilities, mitigation measure PS-1 would apply to all CHNSP developments requiring payment of impact fees to compensate the City and mitigate the impacts on the existing parks and recreational facilities that would be needed by the CHNSP’s residents. Paying the required impact fees would help contribute to the City’s increased costs related to parks and recreational facilities. Impacts of the Citrus West Project Would the Citrus West Project: a) 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? No New or More Severe Impact. Refer to Response Public Service (15-a.iv) above. The City has 23 neighborhood parks, 12 community parks and Martin-Tudor-Jurupa Hills Regional Park. The nearest neighborhood park is Patricia Marrujo Park only 0.25 miles south of the Project site. As previously discussed, the Project would result in a potential increase of 342 residents. The Project would also include on-site amenities, including useable open spaces for the Project’s future residents. Thus, the Project would not substantially increase the use of existing neighborhood, regional parks or other recreational facilities and a less than significant impact is anticipated. b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No New or More Severe Impact. Refer to Response Public Service (15-a.iv) above. The Project includes the development of approximately 117,445 square feet of usable open space areas that would include amenities for the residents of the development and offset the need for City owned parks or recreational facilities. A less than significant impact would occur. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 172 TRANSPORTATION Would the project: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? A Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Memorandum was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, dated October 12, 2021. This report is summarized below and is included as Appendix I of this EIR Addendum. Summary of Impacts Identified in the CHNSP FEIR The Certified 2004 CHNSP FEIR found that implementation of the CHNSP would have potential significant impacts on transportation. Under implementation of the CHNSP, potentially significant impacts would occur at six (6) City intersections due to deficient Levels of Service (LOS) for Year 2007 Improvements. Implementation of Mitigation Measures TT-1 through TT-6 would reduce these LOS impacts to less than significant levels. Further, Under Year 2025 Intersection Improvements, potentially significant impacts would occur at eight (8) City intersections due to deficient Levels of Service (LOS). Implementation of Mitigation Measures TT-7 through TT-14 would reduce these LOS impacts to less than significant levels. Lastly, under Year 2025 Freeway Improvements, potentially significant impacts would occur at seven (7) freeway segments due to deficient Levels of Service (LOS). Implementation of Mitigation Measures TT-15 through TT-21 would reduce these LOS impacts to less than significant levels. Implementation of all mitigation measures would bring the LOS levels to meet with the minimum LOS standards. In addition, the CHNSP FEIR also evaluated the trip generation for each use within the entire 211.9-acre Specific Plan area. For the entire CHNSP site, the total trip generation was estimated to be 14,939 average daily trips (ADT) with 908 trips (250 inbound and 658 outbound) in the morning peak hour, and 1,480 trips (888 inbound and 592 outbound) in the evening peak hour. The Specific Plan trip generation estimates assume the following proposed land use quantities: • Single Family Residential (210) = 803 DUs • Condominiums/Townhomes (230) = 425 DUs • Shopping Center (820) = 107,000 square feet (SF) Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 173 Refer to Table 28, CHNSP Trip Generation below for further details. Table 28: CHNSP Trip Generation Source: Citrus Heights North Specific Plan – Final Environmental Impact Report. 2004. Summary of Citrus West Project Trip Generation and VMT Analysis As previously discussed, the Project site is in PA 12 of the CHNSP and designated for development of a neighborhood commercial center under the CHNSP. The approximately 9.4-acre Project site was designated for the development of an approximately 107,000 square-foot shopping center. The proposed shopping center was estimated to generate about 4,628 daily trips with 108 morning peak hour trips and 427 evening peak hour trips. The Trip Generation and VMT Screening Memorandum, prepared by Kimley-Horn for the Project site, provides ADT estimates for the 86-unit residential development. The Project would generate approximately 630 daily trips, with 39 trips (9 inbound and 30 outbound) in the morning peak hour and 48 trips (30 inbound and 18 outbound) in the evening peak hour. Compared to the Shopping Center land use in the CHNSP FEIR, the Project would generate 3,998 fewer trips on a daily basis, with 69 fewer trips in the morning peak hour, and 379 fewer trips in the evening peak hour. Based on the trip generation comparison, the Project trip generation estimates are significantly less than the estimated trips for the same site in the CHNSP FEIR; see Table 29, Summary of Project Trip Generation Citrus West Residential Project below for additional details. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 174 Table 29: Summary of Project Trip Generation Citrus West Residential Project TRIP GENERATION RATES 1 ITE Land Use ITE Code Unit Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 220 DU 7.320 0.106 0.354 0.460 0.353 0.207 0.560 Citrus Heights North Specific Plan Trips - Project Site Land Use Quantity Unit TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Shopping Center (ITE 6th Edition)2 107.000 SF 4,628 66 42 108 205 222 427 Proposed Project Project Land Use Quantity Unit TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 86* DU 630 9 30 39 30 18 48 Total Proposed Project Trips 630 9 30 39 30 18 48 Trip Differential (Proposed - Current Zoning) -3,998 -57 -12 -69 -175 -204 -379 PCE = Passenger Car Equivalent KSF = Thousand Square Feet *The final number of units may change but would not exceed 86 units. 1 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition 2 See attached exhibit (Attachment A) from the Citrus Heights North Specific Plan (March 2004) Jurisdictional Requirements The City of Fontana Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service Assessment (June 2020) provides guidance on when a Traffic Impact Study is required for a project. The City document specifies that: • If a project generates less than 50 peak hour trips, a traffic analysis shall not be required, and a trip generation memo will be considered sufficient unless the City has specific concerns related to project access and interaction with adjacent intersections. Since the Project is expected to generate less than 50 peak hour trips, a traffic analysis is not required. CEQA Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was approved by California legislature in September 2013. SB 743 requires changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), specifically directing the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop alternative metrics to the use of Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 175 vehicular “Level of Service” (LOS) for evaluating transportation projects. OPR has prepared a technical advisory (“OPR Technical Advisory”) for evaluating transportation impacts in CEQA and has recommended that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) replace LOS as the primary measure of transportation impacts. The Natural Resources Agency has adopted updates to CEQA Guidelines to incorporate SB 743 that requires VMT for the purposes of determining a significant transportation impact under CEQA. The City of Fontana’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service Assessment (June 2020) provides details on appropriate screening thresholds that can be used when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact without conducting a more detailed level analysis. Screening thresholds are broken down into the following four steps: 1. Projects in a Transit Priority Area (TPA) 2. Low VMT Area 3. Low Project Type 4. Project Net Daily Trip Less Than 500 ADT Land development projects that meet one or more of the above screening thresholds may be presumed to create a less than significant impact on transportation and circulation. 1. Projects in a Transit Priority Area (TPA) In accordance with the City of Fontana’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service Assessment (June 2020), projects located within half mile from an existing major transit stop or within half of a mile from an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor can be screened out. Based on San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) VMT Screening Tool, the Project is not located in a Transit Priority Area (TPA). The TPA screening criteria is not met. 2. Low VMT Area Residential and office projects located within a low VMT generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition, other employment related, and mixed-use land use projects may qualify for the use of screening if the project can reasonably be expected to generate VMT per resident, per worker, or per service population that is similar to the existing land uses in the low VMT area. Based on the traffic analysis zone (“TAZ”) that the Project is in and the San Bernardino County Traffic Analysis Model (SBTAM) travel forecast model, the low VMT area screening criteria is not met. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 176 3. Low Project Type The City presumes various usages, assumed to be local serving in nature, as having less than significant impact absent of substantial evidence to the contrary. The low VMT project type screening is not met for this project. 4. Project Net Daily Trips Less Than 500 ADT The City presumes that projects that generate fewer than 500 average daily trips (ADT) would not cause a substantial increase in the total citywide or regional VMT and would therefore have a less than significant impact on VMT. Based on the trip generation noted earlier, the Project is expected to generate more than 500 average net new daily trips. Therefore, the less than 500 ADT screening criteria is not met for the Project. VMT Analysis Potential CHNSP Trip Generation In March 2004, UltraSystems Environmental analyzed trip generations and traffic impacts associated with the CHNSP FEIR, based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (6th Edition). It was concluded that the CHNSP would generate approximately 14,939 daily trips, with 908 trips (250 inbound and 658 outbound) in the morning peak hour, and 1,480 trips (888 inbound and 592 outbound) in the evening peak hour. Project Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the Project were based on the current ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition) trip rates for Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise). The Project is estimated to generate 630 daily trips, with 39 trips (9 inbound and 30 outbound) in the morning peak hour and 48 trips (30 inbound and 18 outbound) in the evening peak hour. Compared to the CHNSP FEIR, the proposed Project would generate 3,998 fewer trips on a daily basis, with 69 fewer trips in the morning peak hour, and 379 fewer trips in the evening peak hour. Therefore, the Project would generate significantly less trips than the land use assumptions noted in the CHNSP FEIR for the Project site. The Project would not change the CHNSP FEIR determination regarding impacts associated with increased traffic volumes. Therefore, the Project would create a less than significant VMT impact, and no further analysis is required. Findings and Conclusions Based on review of the City’s guidelines, the Project is expected to generate less than 50 peak hour trips; therefore, Level of Service and traffic analyses are not required. Based on the VMT assessment noted in the Trip Generation and VMT Screening Memorandum, the Project would create a less-than-significant VMT impact, compared to the assumed land uses for the Project site in the CHNSP; therefore, no further analysis is required. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 177 Impacts of the Citrus West Project Would the Citrus West Project: a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? No New or More Severe Impact. The Project would be required to comply with any applicable traffic and circulation regulation set forth by the City of Fontana. The Project site will be utilizing existing roads; Citrus Avenue and Summit Avenue. A traffic study was not prepared for the Project. As determined in the Trip Generation and VMT Screening Memorandum, the Project would generate a nominal increase in traffic and is not anticipated to exceed thresholds for trips, as the Project would generate significantly less trips than the land use assumptions noted in the CHNSP FEIR for the Project site. The Project would not change the CHNSP FEIR determination regarding impacts associated with increased traffic volumes. Further, coordination with OmniTrans and other mass transit will be implemented to create reasonable access to their services. Internal pedestrian sidewalks are also implemented in the Project design as to enable an efficient flow of foot traffic throughout the development. With adherence to any relevant circulation regulations, the Project would result in a less than significant impact on circulation policies. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? No New or More Severe Impact. CEQA Guidelines §15064.3 contains several subdivisions. In brief, these Guidelines provide that transportation impacts of projects are, in general, best measured by evaluating the project's VMT. Methodologies for evaluating such impacts are already in use for most land use projects, as well as many transit and active transportation projects. Methods for evaluating VMT for roadway capacity projects continue to evolve and these Guidelines recognize a lead agency's discretion to analyze such projects, provided such analysis is consistent with CEQA and applicable planning requirements. As stated above, based on the City guidelines, the Project is expected to generate less than 50 peak hour trips and would be exempt from preparing a traffic analysis; therefore, the Project would generate a nominal increase in traffic and is not anticipated to exceed thresholds for trip generation. The Trip Generation and VMT Screening Memorandum also concludes that the Project would generate far less trips than the commercial land use assumed in the CHNSP FEIR and the Project would not result in new impacts other than those analyzed in the CHNSP FEIR or change the CHNSP FEIR determination regarding impacts associated with increased traffic volumes. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant VMT impact. As such, the Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 and less than significant impacts would occur. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 178 c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The design features of the Project do not incorporate any hazardous or incompatible features. The Project’s access points would not include sharp turns, but rather be designed to allow safe egress and ingress to the Project site. The drive aisles/fire lanes within the Project site have been designed to be both efficient and safe for vehicular traffic pursuant to City Standards approved by the Fontana Fire Department. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? No New or More Severe Impact. The Project would provide one main ingress and egress driveway along Summit Avenue. The primary access driveway includes a gated entry and a gated exit with planted dividers/median and a traffic circle. Both ingress and egress entries would each be 20 feet in width. In addition, the Project also proposes a 20-foot-wide emergency vehicle access (EVA) along Citrus Avenue in the northern portion of the site to also be utilized for emergency vehicles exiting the site. Project design features regarding the ingress and egress would be developed to comply with all relevant emergency regulations pursuant to the Fontana Fire Department standards. All driveways would be constructed per City standard plans. Additionally, construction of the Project is not expected to require road closures or otherwise adversely affect emergency access around the site perimeter. If any road closures (complete or partial) were to occur, the Fontana Police and Fire Department shall be notified of the construction schedule and any required detours would allow emergency vehicles to use alternate routes for emergency response. The impact on emergency access would be less than significant. Conclusion With regard to Public Resources Code 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to traffic. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 179 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Revisions to the CEQA Guidelines after approval of CHNSP EIR Project created a new separate CEQA checklist topic for “Tribal Cultural Resources,” (TCRs) consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The FEIR did not separately analyze Tribal Cultural Resources. However, the FEIR did evaluate cultural and paleontological resources and this section uses impact thresholds in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and examines potential impacts related to TCRs that could result from implementation of the Project. California Government Code §65352.3, pursuant to the requirements of Senate Bill 18 [SB 18], adopted in 2004, requires local governments to contact and consult with California Native American tribes prior to deciding to adopt or amend a general or specific plan, or designate land as open space. The tribal organizations eligible to consult have traditional lands in a local government’s jurisdiction, and are identified, upon request, by the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) provides Tribal Consultation Guidelines (2005) and explains that “[t]he intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places.” Sacred Lands File Search BCR Consulting conducted a Sacred Lands File search with the Native American heritage Commission (NAHC). Findings were positive during the Sacred Lands File (SLF) search with the NAHC. The NAHC has recommended contacting the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation for more information regarding this finding. In accordance with the requirements of SB 18, the City initiated consultation per SB 18, and coordinated with tribes on the list provided by Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 180 the NAHC. Since the City initiated and carried out the required Native American Consultation, the results of the consultation are not provided in the BCR report. Summary of Impacts Identified in the CHNSP FEIR The Certified 2004 CHNSP FEIR did not include an evaluation of tribal cultural resources. Impacts of the Citrus West Project Would the Citrus West Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. On May 23, 2022, the City sent notification letters with regards to the Project to all California Native American tribal representatives that have requested Project notifications, pursuant to SB 18 and are on file with the NAHC that may have an interest in the development of the Project site. The following tribes received notice pursuant to SB 18: • Agua Calienta Band of Cahuilla Indians • Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation • Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians • Morongo Band of Mission Indians • San Manual Band of Mission Indians • Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians • Serrano Nation of Mission Indians • Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians • Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 181 In response to the SB 18 notification letters, the City received no comment from the above tribes. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians received notice and determined that no further consultation was required and deferred to the other tribes of the area, ending the consultation. Similarly, Gabrieleño Tongva Indians of California provided no comment on the Project. Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation received notice and requested consultation with the City of Fontana, on March 16, 2022. The Tribe held consultation on May 18, 2022 and requested mitigation measures be incorporated and ended consultation. San Manual Band of Mission Indians received the required notices and requested mitigation measures be incorporated. The City would condition the Project with the Tribes requested mitigation measures. Therefore, with the mitigation measures MM CR-1 and MM CR-2 and SC CUL-1, SC CUL-2 and SC TR-1 as provided, impacts to Tribal Resources would be less than significant. The following Standard Condition would be carried out during Project construction. Standard Condition SC TR-1 Where consistent with applicable local, State, and federal law and deemed appropriate by the City, future site-specific development projects shall consider the following request by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians and Morongo band of Mission Indians in the event Native American cultural resources are discovered during construction: 1. All work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards (“archaeologist”) shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the overall project may continue during this period; 2. Initiate consultation between the appropriate Native American tribal entity (as determined by the archaeologist) and the project applicant; and 3. Transfer cultural resources investigations to the appropriate Native American entity (as determined by the archaeologist) as soon as possible. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 182 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Summary of Impacts Identified in the CHNSP FEIR The Certified 2004 CHNSP FEIR found that implementation of the CHNSP would result in a less than significant impact related to the City’s utilities and service systems infrastructure and service as the CHNSP was found to be consistent with the goals, policies, and actions specified in Chapter 8 of the Fontana GP available at the time of the CHNSP FEIR adoption. Further, mitigation measure PS-1 would apply to all CHNSP developments requiring payment of impact fees to compensate the City and mitigate the costs of additional public services that would be needed by the CHNSP’s residents. Paying the required impact fees would contribute to the improvement and expansion of City’s infrastructure and service capacity and would reduce the impacts to less than significant. Impacts of the Citrus West Project Would the Citrus West Project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 183 No New or More Severe Impact. The Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) provides wastewater treatment service throughout the City and would provide wastewater services to the Project site. The IEUA currently operates four regional wastewater treatment facilities: Regional Plant (RP-) No. 1, RP-4, RP-5, and Carbon Canyon Wastewater Reclamation Facility. RP-4 treats local wastewater generated by the City. IEUA’s four RPs have a total combined design treatment capacity of approximately 86 million gallons per day (MGD). Currently, all four reclamation facilities treat a total combined average daily flow of about 60 MGD. This is done through a system of regional trunk and interceptor sewers owned and operated by IEUA which transport wastewater to the RPs. Wastewater can be diverted from one RP to another in order to avoid overloading at any one facility. Local sewer systems are owned and operated by local agencies, in this case by the City of Fontana. The Project area would be served by RP-4 facility, located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. RP-4 treats an average flow of five MGD of wastewater and is operated in conjunction with RP-1 to provide recycled water to users. RP-4 was recently expanded to a capacity of 14 MGD. The Project would result in an increase in wastewater generation. The additional wastewater generated by the Project would be approximately 2,511 gallons per day (GPD), based on wastewater generation rates previously approved by IEUA (279 gallons per day per acre for residential use). This would be an additional .02 percent of the wastewater treatment capacity of the facility. The increase in the daily wastewater generated by this Project would lead to a less than significant impact. The Project would adequately receive utility services from service providers listed above. Therefore, the Project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the Project would cause a less than significant impact. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? No New or More Severe Impact. The Project would be served with potable water by Fontana Water Company (FWC). Domestic water supplies from this service provider are reliant on groundwater from the Chino Basin, Rialto-Colton Basin, and No Man’s Land Basin. The FWC also relies on surface water sourced from Lytle Creek and imported surface water from IEUA and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District. Based on available information, FWC is projected to have a water production potential of 29,998 to 42,271 AFY (acre-feet) in a projected single dry year, and 37,757 to 53,204 AFY in projected multiple dry years, while only utilizing approximately 62 to 72 percent of groundwater supplies. FWC also receives surface water supplies, imported water supplies, and recycled water supplies that could be used for projects not listed in FWC UWMP or not included in the City’s planned uses. Therefore, the Project would have sufficient Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 184 water supplies during the foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? No New or More Severe Impact. As discussed above, there are sufficient wastewater treatment facilities and capacity to service the Project. The Project would also be required to develop appropriately sized water and wastewater conveyance facilities to and from the Project site. Thus, less than significant impacts would occur. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? No New or More Severe Impact. The Project is anticipated to generate solid waste during the temporary, short-term construction phases, as well as the operational phase, but it is not anticipated to result in inadequate landfill capacity. According to CalRecycles’s Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, residential is estimated to produce 12.23 pounds of waste per household per day.59 This equates to approximately 1,052 pounds or 0.53 tons of waste per day, generated from the Project. That is approximately 0.0064 percent of the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill’s maximum daily throughput of 8,280 tons per day. Solid waste service for the City is provided by the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill located in the northern portion of the City. This facility handles solid waste from mixed municipal, construction/demolition, industrial, and tires. This landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of approximately 101.3 million cubic yards, and the landfill has a remaining capacity of approximately 67.52 million cubic yards. The anticipated life for the landfill at its currently permitted capacity is 2033.60 For these reasons, the Project’s solid waste disposal needs can be met by the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill. e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No New or More Severe Impact. The Project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan goals, policies, and actions based on solid waste handling. The Project is required to adhere to City ordinances with respect to waste reduction and recycling. As a result, no impacts related to State and local statutes governing solid waste are anticipated and no mitigation is required. 59 CalRecycle. 2006. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Available at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates. Accessed on September 28, 2021. 60 CalRecycle. 2021. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details. Available at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662. Accessed on September 28, 2021. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 185 Conclusion With regard to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to utilities and service systems. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 186 WILDFIRE If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Wildfire Hazard CAL FIRE’s VHFHSZ in Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) Map shows that a small portion of southern Fontana, and northern portions of the City near the base of the San Bernardino Mountains are listed as a VHFHSZ area.61 These areas or zones of transition between wildland (unoccupied land) and human development are known as wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas which are at high risk of catastrophic wildfire, can cause ecological disruption and result in the loss of life and property. The remainder of the City is urbanized and generally built out with established commercial, residential, and industrial development.62 Summary of Impacts Identified in the CHNSP FEIR Revisions to the CEQA Guidelines after approval of the CHNSP EIR Project include a new separate CEQA checklist topic for “Wildfire Hazards,” consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The FEIR did not analyze wildfire hazards. However, as part of the Public Services evaluation, the FEIR included an evaluation of a range of services provided in relation to emergency response for structural, miscellaneous, and wildland fires, and their respective fire risk. This section uses impact thresholds in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and examines potential impacts related to wildfire hazards that could result from implementation of the Project. 61 CAL Fire. (2008). Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA; City of Fontana. Available at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5943/fontana.pdf. Accessed on September 28, 2021. 62 City of Fontana. (2018). Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Wildfire Hazards Profile. Available at https://fontana.org/3196/Local-Hazard- Mitigation-Plan-LHMP. Accessed on September 28, 2021. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 187 Impacts of the Citrus West Project Would the Citrus West Project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No New or More Severe Impact. As previously noted in Checklist Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Threshold (g), the Project is neither in a State or Federal Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as designated in the VHFHSZ Map.63 The nearest VHFHSZ areas are located approximately 0.5-miles north at the San Bernardino Mountains. CALFIRE designates the Project site to be located in a non-VHFHSZ within the LRA.64 Development on the Project site would be subject to compliance with the latest CBC. The Project site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Summit Avenue and Citrus Avenue in the northern portion of the City. Main ingress and egress to the site is provided via Summit Avenue with a 20-foot-wide EVA along Citrus Avenue in the northern portion of the site. Construction would be short-term and adhere to a construction management plan that would not cause construction activities to impede emergency response access either through Citrus Avenue or Summit Avenue. The nearest Fire Station 78 is located approximately 1.7 miles south and Fire Station 79 is located approximately 1 mile northwest of the Project site. Lastly, the Project would be subject to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2017) which identifies mitigation goals, objectives, and projects to reduce wildfire hazards. Since the Project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan, impacts would be less than significant. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No New or More Severe Impact. Historically, CAL FIRE incidents database shows that most of wildfires have occurred in northwest Fontana.65 The Project is located on a generally flat area that is classified as a Non-VHFHSZ. Therefore, it is not anticipated that Project occupants or employees would be exposed to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors. With adherence to standard City General Plan policies and Municipal Code regulations, compliance with the City’s LHMP, and fire code standards and the California Fire Code, impacts would be less than significant. 63 CAL FIRE. (2008). Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA; Fontana. Available at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5943/fontana.pdf. Accessed January 15, 2021. 64 CALFIRE. 2020. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Viewer. Available at https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ . Accessed on January 18, 2021. 65 CAL FIRE. (2020). 2013-2020 Incident Database. Available at https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/. Accessed January 18, 2021. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Environmental Checklist and Analysis June 2022 Page 188 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? No New or More Severe Impact. All Project components would be located within the boundaries of the Project site, and impacts associated with the development of the Project within are analyzed throughout this document. The Project does not propose off-site improvements on Summit or Citrus Avenues that could exacerbate fire risks. Furthermore, the Fontana Fire Department would review all plans for adequate fire suppression (California Fire Code Chapter 9), fire access (California Fire Code Chapter 5), and emergency evacuation (California Fire Code Chapter 4) as part of the City’s review process to ensure compliance with the California Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Fontana. The Project would also adhere to §30-243. - Public safety: (a) Emergency access of the Fontana Municipal Code which states that emergency vehicles shall be incorporated into Project design in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code and (b) Fire hazards. The Project would also adhere to the City’s Utilities Municipal Code which states that (1) Temporary overhead power and telephone facilities are permitted only during construction and (2) All utilities including, but not limited to drainage systems, sewers, gas lines, water lines, and electrical, telephone, and communications wires and equipment shall be installed and maintained underground which is expected to occur. Placement, location, and screening of utilities of any kind which would be installed within the multi-family buildings for function and safety reasons require written approval by the Director of Community Development prior to any administrative or discretionary approval as stated in the City’s Municipal Code. Adherence to standard City Municipal Code and California Fire Code would reduce potential impacts to a level of less than significant. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No New or More Severe Impact. As discussed above in threshold b), the Project site is not in a VHFHSZ nor located near steep slopes or hillsides. The Project would implement efficient landscape maintenance practices to decrease the release of stormwater running off the site; therefore, the Project site would not expose people to downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. Conclusion With regard to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to Wildfire. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Determination June 2022 Page 189 6.0 DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE CEQA DOCUMENTATION The following discussion lists the appropriate subsections of Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines and provides justification for the City to determine that the Addendum is the appropriate CEQA document for the Project, based on the environmental analysis provided above. This section also includes a discussion of the revisions to the State CEQA Guidelines that have occurred since certification of the EIR, including the most recently adopted 2018 revisions. In 2018, the OPR transmitted its proposal for the comprehensive updates to the CEQA Guidelines to the California Natural Resources Agency. Included were proposed updates related to analyzing transportation impacts pursuant to SB 743, proposed updates to the analysis of GHG emissions, and revised Section 15126.2(a) in response to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369. The updated Guidelines became effective on December 28, 2018. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 ‒ Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that Project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the Project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The City proposes to implement the Project within the context of the CHNSP EIR, as described in this Addendum. As discussed in the Environmental Impact Analysis section of this Addendum, no new or more severe significant environmental effects beyond what was evaluated in the CHNSP EIR would occur. (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As documented herein, no circumstances associated with the location, type, setting, or operations of the Project have substantively changed beyond what was evaluated in the CHNSP EIR; and none of the Project elements would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects than previously identified. No major revisions to the CHNSP EIR are required. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Determination June 2022 Page 190 (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant environmental effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; No new significant environmental effects beyond those addressed in the CHNSP EIR were identified. (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; Significant Project-related effects previously examined would not be more severe than were disclosed in the CHNSP EIR as a result of the Project. Impacts associated with all environmental resource areas would be the same as or less than disclosed in the adopted CHNSP EIR. Implementation of the Project within the context of the CHNSP EIR would not substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or No mitigation measures or alternatives were found infeasible in the certified CHNSP EIR. (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. No other mitigation measures or feasible alternatives have been identified that would substantially reduce significant impacts. (b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subsection (a). Otherwise, the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation. Subsequent to certification of the CHNSP EIR in 2004, additional technical analyses were performed for the Project and are the subject of this Addendum. Based on the analyses in this document, the Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects nor would it increase the severity of significant effects previously identified in the CHNSP EIR. None of the conditions listed under subsection (a) would occur that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Determination June 2022 Page 191 (c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency’s role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in subsection (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this situation, no other Responsible Agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted. None of the conditions listed in subsection (a) would occur as a result of the Project. No SEIR is required. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 ‒ Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration (a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. As described above, none of the conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a SEIR have occurred. (b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur as a result of the Project. Therefore, an addendum to the certified CHNSP EIR is the appropriate CEQA document for the Project. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the CHNSP EIR or adopted negative declaration. This Addendum will be attached to the CHNSP EIR and maintained in the administrative record files at the City. (d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the CHNSP EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. The City will consider this Addendum with the CHNSP EIR prior to making a decision on the Project. (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s required findings on the Project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Determination June 2022 Page 192 This document provides substantial evidence for City records to support the preparation of this Addendum for the Project. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Conclusion June 2022 Page 193 7.0 CONCLUSION This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines to document the finding that none of the conditions or circumstances that would require preparation of a Subsequent EIR, pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, exist in connection with the Project. No major revisions would be required to the 2004 CHNSP FEIR as a result of the Project. No new significant environmental impacts have been identified, nor is there a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact. Since the certification of the 2004 CHNSP FEIR, there has been no new information showing that mitigation measures or alternatives once considered infeasible are now feasible or showing that there are feasible new mitigation measures or alternatives substantially different from those analyzed in the EIR that the City declined to adopt. Therefore, preparation of a Subsequent EIR is not required and the appropriate CEQA document for the Project is this Addendum to the 2004 CHNSP FEIR. No additional environmental impact report is required for the Project. This document will be maintained in the administrative record files at the City. Citrus West Project City of Fontana Conclusion June 2022 Page 194 This page intentionally left blank. Citrus West Project City of Fontana References June 2022 Page 195 8.0 REFERENCES Technical Studies BCR Consulting LLC. 2021. Cultural Resources Assessment; Methodology. Accessed December 2021. CAL FIRE FRAP (2021). Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Available at https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed October 2021. California Department of Conservation. 2015. California Important Farmland: 1984-2018. Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/. Accessed May 31, 2022. California Department of Conservation. 2021. Mineral Land Classification. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc Accessed August 21, 2021. California Department of Finance. 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Available at https://www.dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5/. Accessed on October 5, 2021. California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Available at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape- architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed October 2021. City of Fontana. 2019. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035. Available at https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015---2035. Accessed October 2021. City of Fontana. 2021. General Plan Land Use Map. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28163/General-Plan-Land-Use-Map- 3-2-2021?bidId= (accessed October 2021) and City of Fontana. 2021. Zoning District Map. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/30623/Zoning-District-Map-3-2- 21?bidId=. Accessed October 2021. City of Fontana. 2021. Zoning Map. https://www.Fontanaca.gov/sites/default/files/Fontana- Files/Planning/Documents/Zoning%20Map/Zoning_20210212.pdf Accessed October 2021. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2021). EnviroStor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?page=5&cmd=search&business_ name=&main_street_name=&city=&zip=&county=&status=ACT%2CBKLG%2CCOM&bra nch=&site_type=CSITES%2CFUDS&npl=&funding=&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AN D+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29&reporttype=CORTESE&Federal_superfund Citrus West Project City of Fontana References June 2022 Page 196 =&state_response=&voluntary_cleanup=&school_cleanup=&operating=&post_closure= &non_operating=&corrective_action=&tiered_permit=&evaluation=&spec_prog=&natio nal_priority_list=&senate=&congress=&assembly=&critical_pol=&business_type=&case _type=&searchtype=&hwmp_site_type=&cleanup_type=&ocieerp=&hwmp=False&per mitted=&pc_permitted=&inspections=&inspectionsother=&complaints=&censustract=& cesdecile=&school_district=&orderby=city . Accessed October 2021. Kimley-Horn and Associates. October 2021. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment. Kimley-Horn and Associates. November 2021. Noise Assessment. Kimley-Horn and Associates. January 2021. Water Quality Management Plan.