HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration - Midland Plaza
MIDLAND PLAZA
MASTER CASE NUMBER 22-011; DESIGN REVIEW NO. 22-005;
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 22-002; MINOR USE PERMIT NO. 22-001;
and TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #TPM22-000033
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
CEQA Analysis Prepared for:
City of Fontana
Planning Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Attn: Cecily Session-Goins, Associate Planner
Prepared by:
UltraSystems Environmental Inc.
16431 Scientific Way
Irvine, CA 92618-4355
Telephone: 949-788-4900
FAX: 949/788-4901
July 2023
Project No. 7178
This page left intentionally blank.
❖ PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page i
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET
1. Project Title Midland Plaza
2. CEQA Lead Agency City of Fontana
Cecily Session-Goins, Associate Planner
8353 Sierra Ave • Fontana, CA 92335
E: CSGoins@fontana.org
T: (909) 350-6723
3. Project Applicant
Midland Oil Group LLC
3270 Inland Empire Boulevard, Ste. 430
Ontario, CA 91764
Paul Dhaliwal, Owner
T: (425) 251-6222
4. Project Location 16835 Baseline Avenue and Adjacent Parcels
SW Corner of Sierra Avenue and Baseline Avenue
5. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers APN 0241-051-01, 02, 16, 17, and 32-0-00
6. Project Site General Plan
Designation(s)
Current: C-G
7. Project Site Zoning Designation(s) Current C-2
8. Surrounding Land Uses and
Setting Surrounding uses include a mixture of vacant land,
single-family residential, medical office and
commercial uses.
9. Description of Project The project includes four buildings that are single
story and one building that would be two-story.
Below are the proposed uses, including:
Lot 1 – Gas Station with Retail and Drive Through
QSR
Lot 2 – Restaurant
Lot 3 – Car Wash
Lot 4 – Retail (2-story)
Lot 5 – Pharmacy
The site encompasses 284,279 sq. ft. (6.53 acres).
There would be 259 parking spaces provided.
Hours of operation will vary by tenant.
11. Selected Agencies whose Approval
is Required
City of Fontana
❖ PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page ii
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
12. Have California Native American
tribes traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant
to Public Resources Code §
21080.3.1? If so, has consultation
begun?
Letters were sent by the City of Fontana (the Lead
Agency), to local Native American tribes asking if
they wished to participate in AB 52 consultation
concerning the proposed project in the City of
Fontana. The letters were sent on August 18, 2022
from Cecily Session-Goins, Associate Planner, City of
Fontana by certified mail.
The AB 52 notice period for the Tribes is 30 days in
which they have an opportunity to respond to
notification of this proposed project.
For the proposed project, those tribe(s) that
requested consultation were contacted by the City
per Public Resources Code § 21074. Of the 12 tribes
that were contacted, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel
Nation responded and provided a set of suggested
mitigation measures and the Gabrielino – Kizh
Nation requested consultation. This consultation
was conducted and has been concluded.
No other tribes requested consultation.
13. Other Public Agencies Agencies that will review the proposed project
include the following:
• South Coast Air Quality Management District
• County of San Bernardino Health Department
❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page iii
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Proposed Project .................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Lead Agencies – Environmental Review Implementation .................................................. 1-2
1.3 CEQA Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Purpose of Initial Study ..................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.5 Review and Comment by Other Agencies .................................................................................. 1-3
1.6 Impact Terminology ........................................................................................................................... 1-4
1.7 Organization of Initial Study ........................................................................................................... 1-4
1.8 Findings from the Initial Study ....................................................................................................... 1-5
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Project Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Existing Characteristics of the Site ............................................................................................... 2-6
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Project Background ............................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Project Overview .................................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.3 Proposed Project Features .............................................................................................................3-10
3.4 Offsite Improvements ......................................................................................................................3-27
3.5 Construction Activities ....................................................................................................................3-27
3.6 Discretionary Actions .......................................................................................................................3-28
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ........................................................................................................ 4-1
4.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................................4.1-1
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .........................................................................................4.2-1
4.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................4.3-1
4.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................4.4-1
4.5 Cultural Resources ...........................................................................................................................4.5-1
4.6 Energy ....................................................................................................................................................4.6-1
4.7 Geology and Soils ..............................................................................................................................4.7-1
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...........................................................................................................4.8-1
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................4.9-1
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................... 4.10-1
4.11 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................ 4.11-1
4.12 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................................... 4.13-1
4.14 Population and Housing .............................................................................................................. 4.14-1
4.15 Public Services ................................................................................................................................ 4.15-1
4.16 Recreation ......................................................................................................................................... 4.16-1
4.17 Transportation ................................................................................................................................ 4.17-1
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 4.18-1
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................... 4.19-1
4.20 Wildfire .............................................................................................................................................. 4.20-1
4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................................................... 4.21-1
5.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 5-1
❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page iv
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 CEQA Lead Agency ............................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Project Applicant .................................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.3 UltraSystems Environmental, Inc. ................................................................................................. 6-1
7.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ....................................................................... 7-1
TABLES
Table 1.1-1 – Proposed New Construction/Uses and Square Footage ........................................................ 1-1
Table 2.2-1 - Summary of Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations ...................................................... 2-1
Table 3.2-1 - Project Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 3-1
Table 3.5-1 - Construction Phasing and Equipment Details ..........................................................................3-28
Table 3.6-1 - Permits and Approvals .......................................................................................................................3-29
Table 4.1-1 - Existing Visual Character and Land Uses in the Project Area............................................4.1-3
Table 4.1-2 - Project Compliance with Applicable City of Murrieta General Plan Policies Regarding
Scenic Quality .................................................................................................................................................................. 4.1-14
Table 4.1-4 - Obtrusive Light Limitations for Exterior Lighting Installations .................................... 4.1-16
Table 4.3-1 - Federal and State Attainment Status ...........................................................................................4.3-3
Table 4.3-2 - Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data .........................................................................................4.3-4
Table 4.3-3 - SCAQMD Emissions Thresholds for Significant Regional Impacts ..................................4.3-6
Table 4.3-4 - Construction Schedule .......................................................................................................................4.3-7
Table 4.3-5 - Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions ................................................................4.3-7
Table 4.3-6 - Maximum Daily Project Operational Emissions ......................................................................4.3-8
Table 4.3-7 - Results of Localized Significance Analysis.................................................................................4.3-9
Table 4.6-1 - Estimated Project Operational Energy Use ...............................................................................4.6-3
Table 4.8-1 - San Bernadino County GHG Reduction Targets for Countywide Emissions ...............4.8-1
Table 4.8-2 - FONTANA 2016 COMMUNITY GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY (MTCO2e) ................4.8-1
Table 4.8-3 - Project Construction-Related GHG Emissions .........................................................................4.8-4
Table 4.8-4 - Project Operational GHG Emissions .............................................................................................4.8-4
Table 4.13-1 - Sensitive Receivers in Project Area ........................................................................................ 4.13-2
Table 4.13-2- Ambient Noise Measurement Results..................................................................................... 4.13-5
Table 4.13-4 - California Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Sources ............................ 4.13-6
Table 4.13-6 - Construction Equipment Characteristics .......................................................................... 4.13-11
Table 4.13-6 - Estimated One-Hour Construction Noise Exposures at Nearest Offsite Sensitive
Receivers ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4.13-12
Table 4.13-6 - Vibration Levels of Construction Equipment .................................................................. 4.13-15
Table 4.14-1 - City of Murrieta Demographic Forecast ............................................................................... 4.14-1
Table 4.14-2 - Regional Housing Needs Assessment, City of Murrieta, 2021-2029......................... 4.14-2
Table 4.19-3 - Landfills Serving Fontana ........................................................................................................... 4.19-5
Table 4.19-4 - Estimated Project-Generated Solid Waste ........................................................................... 4.19-5
Table 7.0-1 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ......................................................................... 7-2
FIGURES
Figure 2.2-1 - Regional Location .................................................................................................................................. 2-2
Figure 2.2-2 - Project Location ..................................................................................................................................... 2-3
Figure 2.2-3 - Topographic Map .................................................................................................................................. 2-4
Figure 2.2-4 - Project Site Photographs .................................................................................................................... 2-5
❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page v
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 3.2-1 - Conceptual Site Plan ............................................................................................................................ 3-2
Figure 3.2-2 - Convenience Store Floor Plan .......................................................................................................... 3-3
Figure 3.2-3 - Canopy Slab Plan ................................................................................................................................... 3-4
Figure 3.2-4 - Car Wash Floor Plan ............................................................................................................................. 3-5
Figure 3.2-5 - Sit Down Restaurant Floor Plan ...................................................................................................... 3-6
Figure 3.2-6 - Quick Serve Restaurant Floor Plan ................................................................................................ 3-7
Figure 3.2-7 - Commercial Building Floor Plan - 1st Floor Only .................................................................... 3-8
Figure 3.2-8 - Pharmacy Floor Plan ............................................................................................................................ 3-9
Figure 3.3-1 - Building A Elevations ........................................................................................................................3-12
Figure 3.3-2 – Car Wash Elevations and Color Boards .....................................................................................3-13
Figure 3.3-3 – Sit Down Restaurant Elevations and Color Boards ..............................................................3-14
Figure 3.3-4 - Two-Story Commercial Building Elevations and Color Boards .......................................3-15
Figure 3.3-5 - Pharmacy Building Elevations and Color Boards ..................................................................3-16
Figure 3.3-7 - Street Level Rendering - Southwest Corner of Baseline and Sierra ...............................3-18
Figure 3.3-8 - Street Level Renderings - Southwest Corner of Baseline and Sierra .............................3-19
Figure 3.3-9 – Preliminary Landscape Plan ..........................................................................................................3-21
Figure 3.3-10 - Preliminary Landscape Plan - South ........................................................................................3-22
Figure 3.3-5 - Preliminary Landscape Plan - Plant Schedule .........................................................................3-23
Figure 4.1-1 - State Scenic Highways ......................................................................................................................4.1-4
Figure 4.1-2 - Existing Visual Character in the Vicinity of the Project Site .............................................4.1-5
Figure 4.1-3 - Existing Visual Character in the Vicinity of the Project Site .............................................4.1-6
Figure 4.1-4 - Aerial Rendering 1 .............................................................................................................................4.1-8
Figure 4.1-5 - Aerial Rendering 2 .............................................................................................................................4.1-9
Figure 4.1-6 - Street Level Rendering 1 .............................................................................................................. 4.1-10
Figure 4.1-7 - Street Level Rendering 2 .............................................................................................................. 4.1-11
Figure 4.1-8 - Street Level Rendering 3 .............................................................................................................. 4.1-12
Figure 4.1-9 - Street Level Rendering 4 .............................................................................................................. 4.1-13
Figure 4.2-1 - Important Farmland Categories ..................................................................................................4.2-2
Figure 4.2-2 - Zoning Designation............................................................................................................................4.2-4
Figure 4.4-1 – Project Location and Biological Study Area ...........................................................................4.4-3
Figure 4.4-2 – Land Cover Types ..............................................................................................................................4.4-4
Figure 4.4-3 – CNDDB Known Occurrences Plant Species and Habitats .................................................4.4-6
Figure 4.4-4 – CNDDB Known Occurrences Wildlife Species .......................................................................4.4-7
Figure 4.4-5 – CDFW Wildlife Corridors ............................................................................................................ 4.4-14
Figure 4.5-1 - Topographic Map ...............................................................................................................................4.5-2
Figure 4.7-1 - Alquist Priolo Fault Zones ..............................................................................................................4.7-3
Figure 4.7-2 - Regionally Active Faults ..................................................................................................................4.7-4
Figure 4.7-3 - Landslides and Liquefaction ..........................................................................................................4.7-5
Figure 4.7-1 - Fossil Localities in the Project Region .......................................................................................4.7-9
Figure 4.9-1 - Airport Influence Areas ...................................................................................................................4.9-6
Figure 4.9-2 - Fire Hazard Severity Zone - State Responsibility Area .......................................................4.9-9
Figure 4.9-3 - Fire Hazard Severity Zones - Local Responsibility Area ................................................. 4.9-10
Figure 4.10-1 - USGS Surface Waters and Watersheds ................................................................................ 4.10-3
Figure 4.11-1 - General Plan Land Use Designation ...................................................................................... 4.11-2
Figure 4.11-2 - Zoning Designation ...................................................................................................................... 4.11-3
Figure 4.12-1 - Designated Mineral Resource Zone ...................................................................................... 4.12-2
Figure 4.12-2 - Oil and Gas ....................................................................................................................................... 4.12-3
Figure 4.12-3 - Geothermal Wells ......................................................................................................................... 4.12-4
Figure 4.13-1 - Sensitive Receivers Map ............................................................................................................ 4.13-3
❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page vi
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.13-2 - Ambient Sampling Locations ................................................................................................... 4.13-4
APPENDICES
A Project Plans and Drawings
A1 Landscape Plans
A2 Pharmacy Refuse Plans
B1 Air Quality
B2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
C Biological Resources Data
D1 Cultural Resources Report
D2 Paleontological Resources Records Search
F1
F2
Phase I ESA (2014)
Phase I ESA (2018)
F3 Phase II ESA (2018)
G Preliminary WQMP
H Noise Assessment
I Traffic Impact Study
❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page vii
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
°F degrees Fahrenheit
AB Assembly Bill
AB 32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
AB 939 California Integrated Waste Management Act
AB 1327 California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ADT average daily traffic
AMSL above mean sea level
APE area of potential effect
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ARB California Air Resources Board
AST aboveground storage tank
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATP Active Transportation Plan
bgs below ground surface
BMPs Best Management Practices
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Cal/OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CALGreen California Green Building Standards
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
CAOs Cleanup and Abatement Orders
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDOs Cease and Desist Orders
CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGS California Geologic Society
CH4 methane
CHP California Highway Patrol
CHRIS California Historic Resources Inventory System
CIWMA State of California Integrated Waste Management Act
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page viii
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CRC California Residential Code
CRHR California Register of Historic Resources
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel scale
DIF Development Impact Fees
DMA drainage management area
DOC California Department of Conservation
DOSH California Division of Safety and Health
DRP Design Review Project
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMS Emergency Medical Service
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FAR floor area ratio
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zones
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FRAP CalFire Fire Resource and Assessment Program
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
GPCD gallons per capita per day
GWP global warming potential
GWTS groundwater treatment system
HAZNET Hazardous Waste Tracking System
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
Hz hertz
IFC International Fire Code
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
kWh kilowatt hours
L90 noise level that is exceeded 90 percent of the time
Leq equivalent noise level
LED light-emitting diode
LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
LID Low Impact Development
Lmax root mean square maximum noise level
LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LRP Legally Responsible Person
LSTs Localized Significance Thresholds
❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page ix
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
M-1 Light Industrial zoning designation
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MCR Master Case No.
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MM(s) mitigation measure(s)
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMT million metric tons
MMTCO2e million metric tons of CO2e
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MS4 municipal separate storm sewer systems
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan
ND Negative Declaration
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NO nitric oxide
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOx Nitrogen oxides
NOI Notice of Intent
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPPA Native Plant Protection Act
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
O3 Ozone
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Pb lead
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PM particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
PM10 respirable particulate matter
Porter-Cologne Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
PPM parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
PRDs Permit Registration Documents
PRP potential responsible party
Qyf5 Young Alluvial Fan Deposits, unit 5
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC(s) recognized environmental condition(s)
RMS root mean square
ROG Reactive organic gases
ROW right-of-way
❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page x
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
RP Regional Plant
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SARWQCB Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCE Southern California Edison
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SLF Sacred Lands File
SMARTS Stormwater Multi-Application and Report Tracking System
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SOPs Standard Operating Procedures
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
SRAs source receptor areas
SSP Sunset Specific Plan
STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
SUSMP Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
SVE soil vapor extraction
SWP California State Water Project
SWRCB California State Water Resources Control Board
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TCRs tribal cultural resources
TMP Traffic Management Plan
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USGS United States Geological Survey
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VCP Vitrified Clay Pipe
VdB vibration decibels
VHFHSZs very high fire hazard severity zones
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
WEAP Worker Environmental Awareness Program
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WOUS water(s) of the United States
❖ SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 1-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Proposed Project
The proposed project consists of the development of a commercial project (project) southwest of the
intersection of Baseline Avenue and Sierra Avenue at 16835 Baseline Avenue in the City of Fontana
in San Bernardino County, California (Parcels 0241-051-16, 0241-051-17, 0421-051-01, 0241-051-
02, and 0241-05-32).
Specifically, the project proposes development of a commercial center consisting of a convenience
store, fuel canopy with two underground storage tanks, retail lease space, quick service restaurant
with drive-through, car wash, sit-down restaurant, pharmacy, and a two-story retail building on an
approximately 6.53-acre (284,279 sq. ft.) site.
1.1.1 Project Components
The proposed project would consist of (1) utilities improvements; (2) construction of five
commercial buildings and a fuel station; and (3) project site parking, circulation and landscaping.
Table 1.1-1
PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION/USES AND FEATURES AND SQUARE FOOTAGE
New Construction Proposed Uses/Features
Square
Feet
No. of
Stories
Approximate
Building Height
(feet)
Multi-Use Retail Building Convenience Store, Quick Serve
Restaurant, Retail Space
10,475 1 32 (tower)
Car Wash Building Self-Service Car Wash 4,180 1 22 (tower)
Restaurant Building 120-seat Restaurant 6,382 1 28 (tower)
Retail Building Pharmacy 14,696 1 28 (tower)
Commercial Building Commercial Space 11,628 2 38 (tower)
Fuel Canopy Fueling Area 7,567 na na
The project proposes 259 parking spaces. Code requirement is for 259 spaces, including 133 spaces
for retail, 86 spaces for restaurant and QSR, 25 spaces for convenience store and fueling, and 15
spaces for car wash. In addition, parking is provided for a total of 22 bicycles.
Additionally, there would be 49,422 sq. ft. of planned landscape areas at the project site.
1.1.2 Estimated Construction Schedule
Construction will commence as soon as permits are approved, which is anticipated in second or third
quarter (Q2 or Q3) of 2023, with all construction completed and tenants in place by the end of 2025.
Although tenants have not been confirmed, the initial goal is to have the fuel station, quick serve
(drive through) restaurant, retail and carwash open in 2023. Refer to Section 3.0 for additional
details relating to phasing and equipment details.
❖ SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 1-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
1.2 Lead Agencies – Environmental Review Implementation
The City of Fontana (“City”) is the Lead Agency for the proposed project. Pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its implementing regulations,1 the Lead Agency has the
principal responsibility for implementing and approving a project that may have a significant effect
on the environment.
1.3 CEQA Overview
1.3.1 Purpose of CEQA
All discretionary projects within California are required to undergo environmental review under
CEQA. A Project is defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15378 as the whole of the action having the potential
to result in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change to the environment
and is any of the following:
• An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to public works
construction and related activities, clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing
public structures, enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and
amendment of local General Plans or elements.
• An activity undertaken by a person which is supported in whole or in part through public
agency contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more
public agencies.
• An activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other
entitlement for use by one or more public agencies.
CEQA Guidelines § 15002 lists the basic purposes of CEQA as follows:
• Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant
environmental effects of proposed activities.
• Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.
• Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects
through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures (MMs) when the governmental agency
finds the changes to be feasible.
• Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the
manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.
1.3.2 Authority to Mitigate under CEQA
CEQA establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage where
feasible. Under CEQA Guidelines § 15041 a Lead Agency for a project has authority to require feasible
changes in any or all activities involved in the project in order to substantially lessen or avoid
significant effects on the environment, consistent with applicable constitutional requirements such
as the “nexus”2 and “rough proportionality”3 standards.
1 Public Resources Code §§ 21000 - 21177 and California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3.
2 A nexus (i.e., connection) must be established between the mitigation measure and a legitimate governmental
interest.
3 The mitigation measure must be “roughly proportional” to the impacts of the Project.
❖ SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 1-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
CEQA allows a Lead Agency to approve a project even though the project would cause a significant
effect on the environment if the agency makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that
there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effect. In such cases, the Lead Agency must
specifically identify expected benefits and other overriding considerations from the project that
outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project.
1.4 Purpose of Initial Study
The CEQA process begins with a public agency making a determination as to whether the project is
subject to CEQA at all. If the project is exempt, the process does not need to proceed any farther. If
the project is not exempt, the Lead Agency takes the second step and conducts an Initial Study to
determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
The purposes of an Initial Study as listed in § 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines are to:
• Provide the Lead Agency with information necessary to decide if an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR), Negative Declaration (ND), or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) should be
prepared.
• Enable a Lead Agency to modify a project to mitigate adverse impacts before an EIR is
prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a ND or MND.
• Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if required, by focusing the EIR on adverse effects
determined to be significant, identifying the adverse effects determined not to be significant,
explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant adverse effects would not
be significant, and identifying whether a program EIR, or other process, can be used to
analyze adverse environmental effects of the project.
• Facilitate an environmental assessment early during project design.
• Provide documentation in the ND or MND that a project would not have a significant effect
on the environment.
• Eliminate unnecessary EIRs.
• Determine if a previously prepared EIR could be used for the Project.
In cases where no potentially significant impacts are identified, the Lead Agency may issue a ND, and
no MMs would be needed. Where potentially significant impacts are identified, the Lead Agency may
determine that MMs would adequately reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. The Lead
Agency would then prepare a MND for the proposed project. If the Lead Agency determines that
individual or cumulative effects of the proposed project would cause a significant adverse
environmental effect that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels, then the Lead Agency
would require an EIR to further analyze these impacts.
1.5 Review and Comment by Other Agencies
Other public agencies are provided the opportunity to review and comment on the IS/MND. Each of
these agencies is described briefly below.
• A Responsible Agency (14 CCR § 15381) is a public agency, other than the Lead Agency, that
has discretionary approval power over the Project, such as permit issuance or plan approval
authority.
❖ SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 1-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
• A Trustee Agency4 (14 CCR § 15386) is a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural
resources affected by a project that are held in trust for the people of the State of California.
• Agencies with Jurisdiction by Law (14 CCR § 15366) are any public agencies who have
authority (1) to grant a permit or other entitlement for use; (2) to provide funding for the
project in question; or (3) to exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the
project. Furthermore, a city or county will have jurisdiction by law with respect to a project
when the city or county having primary jurisdiction over the area involved is: (1) the site of
the project; (2) the area in which the major environmental effects will occur; and/or (3) the
area in which reside those citizens most directly concerned by any such environmental
effects.
1.6 Impact Terminology
The following terminology is used to describe the level of significance of potential impacts:
• A finding of no impact is appropriate if the analysis concludes that the project would not
affect the particular environmental threshold in any way.
• An impact is considered less than significant if the analysis concludes that the project would
cause no substantial adverse change to the environment and requires no mitigation.
• An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated if the analysis
concludes that the project would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment
with the inclusion of environmental commitments, or other enforceable measures, that
would be adopted by the lead agency.
• An impact is considered potentially significant if the analysis concludes that the project could
have a substantial adverse effect on the environment.
An EIR is required if an impact is identified as potentially significant.
1.7 Organization of Initial Study
This document is organized to satisfy CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d), and includes the following
sections:
• Section 1.0 - Introduction, which identifies the purpose and scope of the IS/MND.
• Section 2.0 - Environmental Setting, which describes location, existing site conditions, land
uses, zoning designations, topography, and vegetation associated with the project site and
surroundings.
• Section 3.0 - Project Description, which provides an overview of the project, a description
of the proposed development, project phasing during construction, and discretionary actions
for project approval.
• Section 4.0 - Environmental Checklist, which presents checklist responses for each
resource topic to identify and assess impacts associated with the proposed project, and
proposes MMs, as needed, to reduce potential environmental impacts to less than significant.
• Section 5.0 - References, which includes a list of documents cited in the IS/MND.
4 The four Trustee Agencies in California listed in CEQA Guidelines § 15386 are California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, State Lands Commission, State Department of Parks and Recreation, and University of California.
❖ SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 1-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
• Section 6.0 - List of Preparers, which identifies the primary authors and technical experts
that prepared the IS/MND.
Technical studies and other documents, which include supporting information or analyses used to
prepare the IS/MND, are included in the following appendices:
A Project Plans and Drawings
A1 Landscape Plans
A2 Pharmacy Refuse Plans
B1 Air Quality
B2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
C Biological Resources Data
D1 Cultural Resources Report
D2 Paleontological Resources Records Search
F1 Phase I ESA (2014)
F2
F3
Phase I ESA (2018)
Phase II ESA (2018)
G Preliminary WQMP
H Noise Assessment
I Traffic Impact Study
1.8 Findings from the Initial Study
1.8.1 No Impact or Impacts Considered Less than Significant
Based on IS findings, the project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the
following environmental categories listed from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Energy
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
1.8.2 Impacts Considered Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Based on IS findings, the project would have a less than significant impact on the following
environmental categories listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines when proposed MMs are
implemented.
• Aesthetics
❖ SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 1-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology and Soils
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Mandatory Findings of Significance
❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 2-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 Project Location
The proposed Midland Plaza Project is located at 16835 Baseline Avenue in the City of Fontana,
California, on an approximately 6.53-acre site. Refer to Figure 2.1-1, which shows the project’s
location in a regional context. Local surface streets adjacent to the site include Sierra Avenue to the
east, Baseline Avenue to the north, and Montgomery Avenue to the south. Figure 2.1-2 depicts an
aerial photo of the project site and the surrounding land.
2.2 Project Setting
The project site is comprised of several parcels, APNs 0241-051-16, 0241-051-17, 0421-051-01,
0241-051-02, and 0241-05-32. The project proposes development of a commercial center consisting
of a convenience store, fuel canopy with two underground storage tanks, retail lease space, quick
service restaurant with drive-through, car wash, sit-down restaurant, pharmacy, and a two-story
retail building on site.
The project proposes 259 automobile parking spaces and parking for 22 bicycles. See Figure 2.2-3,
which depicts the topography of the site and surrounding area. Topography within the project site is
relatively flat (Google Earth Pro, 2022). Site photographs are provided in Figure 2.2-4.
2.2.1 Land Use and Zoning
The land use, zoning, and specific plan designations of the project site and its immediate vicinity are
listed in Table 2.2-1. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of General
Commercial(C-G) and a zoning designation of General Commercial (C-2) (City of Fontana, 2021a; City
of Fontana, 2021b). Under the existing General Plan and zoning designations,
Table 2.2-1
SUMMARY OF EXISTING LAND USE, ZONING AND SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATIONS
Location General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing
Development
Project Site General Commercial(C-G) General Commercial (C-2) Vacant land
North
Multi-Family Residential (R-M)
Walkable Mixed use Corridor &
Downtown (WMXU-1)
Promenade Specific Plan
and Form-Based Code Zone
Medical offices and
Single-Family
Residentials
South Multi-Family Residential (R-MF) Multi-Family (R-3) Multi-Family
Residential
East
Multi-Family Residential (R-M)
and General Commercial (C-G)
Medium-Density
Residential (R-2) and
General Commercial (C-2)
Single Family
Residences and Gas
Station
West Multi-Family Medium/High
Density Residential (R-MFMH)
Multi-Family Medium/High
Density Residential (R-4) Vacant
Source: City of Fontana, 2021a; City of Fontana, 2021b; Google Earth Pro, 2022
❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 2-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 2.2-1
REGIONAL LOCATION
❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 2-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 2.2-2
PROJECT LOCATION
❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 2-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 2.2-3
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 2-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 2.2-4
PROJECT SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 2-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
2.3 Existing Characteristics of the Site
2.3.1 Climate and Air Quality
The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), a 6,600-square-mile area
encompassing all of Orange County and the non-desert regions of Los Angeles County, Riverside
County and San Bernardino County. A persistent high‐pressure area that commonly resides over the
eastern Pacific Ocean largely dominates regional meteorology. The distinctive climate of this area is
determined primarily by its terrain and geographic location. Local climate is characterized by warm
summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate
humidity. Ozone (O3) and pollutant concentrations tend to be lower along the coast, where the
onshore breeze disperses pollutants toward the inland valley of the SCAB and adjacent deserts.
However, as a whole, the SCAB fails to meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for O3
and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and is classified as a “nonattainment area” for those pollutants.
2.3.2 Geology and Soils
The City of Fontana generally lies at the northwest margin of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic
Province of Southern California, which is characterized by northwest-southeast trending faults, folds,
and mountain ranges. Much of the Fontana region is underlain by loose soils such as sand and silt
(Stantec, 2018, p. 5.5-1).
Although there are no major active faults within the City boundaries, there are a number of faults
that border the Lytle Creek alluvial basin, including the Chino, Cucamonga, San Andreas, and
San Jacinto faults (Stantec, 2018, p. 5.5-3).
Soils in the area are characteristic of the Southern California interior alluvial basins and consist of
alluvial deposits and floodplain soils. The City is underlain by alluvial deposits of the Lytle Creek
alluvial fan (Stantec, 2018, p. 5.5-4).
The proposed project site straddles two geologic units:
• Qf _Young Alluvial Fan Deposits are fluvial deposits along valley floors, and consist of
unconsolidated sand, silt, and clay-nearing alluvium. These are surficial deposits, Holocene
to Late Pleistocene in nature; and
• Bedrock: Pauba Formation is composed of siltstone, sandstone, and conglomerate. The
formation designated Qpfs is comprised of brown, moderately well-indurated, cross-bedded
sandstone containing sparse cobble- to boulder-conglomerate beds. This bedrock is
Pleistocene in age (USGS, 2003).
2.3.3 Hydrology
The project site consists of a rectangular-shaped property on approximately 6.53-acres of land.
Surface topography is generally flat to slightly sloping with the highest surface elevations in the
northern portion of the site and the lowest surface elevations across the southern portions of the site,
sloping approximately 2.5 percent from north to south. Surface drainage from the site is minimal, and
sheet flows to Montgomery Avenue, which has no formal drainage system and minimal longitudinal
slope to convey stormwater.
❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 2-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
The project is within FEMA Map 06071C8656H (08/28/2008). The site is within an area of minimal
flood hazard, Zone X (FEMA, 2008).
As detailed in the City of Fontana General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact
Report, the City is located within the lower Lytle Creek watershed, which forms the northwest
portion of the Santa Ana River Watershed. This watershed drains the eastern portion of the
San Gabriel Mountains. The lower portion of Lytle Creek flows through the cities of Fontana, Rialto,
San Bernardino, and Colton, as well as a portion of the unincorporated area of San Bernardino
County. The upper reaches of Lytle Creek are generally perennial; the lower section of Lytle Creek
changes into an intermittent stream with a dry wash south of Interstate 15 (Stantec, 2018, p. 5.8-1).
2.3.4 Biology
The project site is located in an urbanized area, which provides low habitat value for special-status
plant and wildlife species. The vegetation onsite is predominantly ruderal in nature, including annual
grasses and forbs, and the soils are a fine sandy loam with large granitic cobbles characteristic of
alluvial fans in the vicinity. There is evidence that the site been recently ripped and likely has
experienced a history of regular surface disturbances. The ground is nearly bare, with only a few
annual plants germinating after the recent ripping. There are frequently observed California ground
squirrels, as well as several burrow complexes distributed throughout the project site that are likely
used by ground squirrels and valley pocket gopher.
2.3.5 Public Services
The City is served by a full range of public services. Fire services for the City of Fontana are provided
by the Fontana Fire Protection District of the San Bernardino County Fire Department (City of
Fontana, 2022). Seven fire stations are strategically located throughout the City, providing primary
response for emergency, prevention and services. The closest fire station to the project site is Fire
Station No. 718 (located at 16980 Arrow Boulevard, approximately 1.7-miles southeast of the project
site (Google Earth Pro, 2022).
The Fontana Police Department (FPD) provides police services in the City of Fontana and would
provide law enforcement services to the project site. Besides responding to incidents involving safety
and law enforcement, FPD consists of Divisions which include Administrative Services, Field Services
and Special Operations such as Field Evidence Unit, Fugitive Apprehension Team, Inland Valley
SWAT, Investigations Unit, K-9 Unit, Patrol Unit, Air Support, Communications Center, Personnel &
Training, Property Unit, Records Unit, Animal Services Team, COPE Community Outreach and Public
Engagement, Explorer Program, Fontana Leadership Intervention Program, Multiple Enforcement
Team, Press Information Office, Traffic Unit, Community Outreach And Support Team C.O.A.S.T.,
Homeless Outreach Support Team H.O.S.T., Social Work Action Group S.W.A.G. (FPD, 2022).
2.3.6 Utilities
The Fontana Water Company (FWC) supplies water to a portion of the City of Fontana, including the
project site. Water supplies consist of imported water from Lytle Creek surface flow, and from wells
in the Lytle Basin, Rialto Basin, Chino Basin, and another groundwater basin known as No Man's Land
(FWC, 2022). New domestic water meters would be installed as required to meet project demand.
❖ SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 2-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Solid waste disposal services in the City of Fontana are provided by Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc., a
private company under contract with the City. Electrical service to the site is provided by Southern
California Edison through a grid of transmission lines and related facilities (City of Fontana, 2022).
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 3-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Project Background
The proposed project consists of the development of a commercial project (project) southwest of the
intersection of Baseline Avenue and Sierra Avenue at 16835 Baseline Avenue in the City of Fontana
in San Bernardino County, California (Parcels 0241-051-16, 0241-051-17, 0421-051-01, 0241-051-
02, and 0241-05-32). Specifically, the project proposes development of a commercial center
consisting of a convenience store, fuel canopy with two underground storage tanks, retail lease space,
quick service restaurant with drive-through, car wash, sit-down restaurant, pharmacy, and a two-
story retail building on an approximately 6.53-acre (284,279 sq. ft.) site. The City is the Lead Agency
for the purposes of the CEQA.
The City’s General Plan Land Use designation for the site is C-G, General Commercial and the City’s
zoning district for the site is C-2, General Commercial. The proposed use is compatible with both the
land use and zoning designations, and no changes are proposed or required. However, a parcel map
must be filed.
3.2 Project Overview
The project would consist of: (1) utilities improvements; (2) construction of five commercial
buildings and a fuel station; and (3) project site parking, circulation and landscaping. The project
would include two commercial retail buildings, a restaurant building, a pharmacy building, a car
wash, and a gas station. Total area of new buildings is 47,361 square feet. Table 3.2-1 summarizes
the proposed project features. Figure 3.2-1 is a site plan depicting the layout of the proposed project
buildings and onsite facilities. Additionally, Figures 3.2-2 through 3.2-8 depict various floor plans of
the planned building components onsite.
Table 3.2-1
PROJECT SUMMARY
New Construction Proposed Uses/Features Square Feet No. of
Stories
Approximate
Building Height
at Tower (feet)
Multi-Use Retail
Building
Convenience Store, Quick Serve
Restaurant, Retail Space
10,475 1 32
Car Wash Building Self-Service Car Wash 4,180 1 22
Restaurant Building 120-seat Restaurant 6,382 1 28
Retail Building Pharmacy 14,696 1 28
Commercial Building Commercial Space 11,628 2 38
Fueling Canopy Fueling Space 7,567 na na
Parking Spaces The project proposes 259 parking spaces
consisting of 133 spaces for retail, 86
spaces for restaurants, 25 spaces for
convenience store and fueling, and 15
spaces for car wash.
Landscape Areas 49,422
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 3-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 3.2-1
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. December 1, 2022.
Note: Preliminary, Not for Construction.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 3-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 3.2-2
CONVENIENCE STORE FLOOR PLAN
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. April 27, 2022.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 3-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 3.2-3
CANOPY ELEVATIONS
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. December 1, 2022.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 3-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 3.2-4
CAR WASH FLOOR PLAN
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. April 27, 2022.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 3-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 3.2-5
SIT DOWN RESTAURANT FLOOR PLAN
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. April 27, 2022.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 3-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 3.2-6
QUICK SERVE RESTAURANT FLOOR PLAN
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. April 27, 2022.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 3-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 3.2-7
COMMERICAL BUILDING FLOOR PLAN – 1ST FLOOR ONLY
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. April 27, 2022.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 3-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 3.2-8
PHARMACY FLOOR PLAN
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. April 27, 2022.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 3-10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
3.3 Proposed Project Features
3.3.1 New Commercial Buildings
The project proposes the development of four commercial buildings with a total of 43,181 square
feet of leasable area plus a car wash building containing 4,180 square feet. Two of the buildings (two-
story retail and pharmacy) are plotted near the southern boundary of the site (Montgomery Avenue)
and Sierra Avenue, while two (restaurant and convenience store) are nearest to the northern edge of
the site and Sierra Avenue. Figures 3.3-1 through 3.3-5 show the proposed elevations and color
boards of each of the commercial buildings. Figures 3.3-6 through 3.3-8 show project renderings
from aerial and street view perspectives. The character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood
were carefully considered to ensure that the project architecture and massing blends in with the
existing surrounding uses. The project proposes a gross area of 47,361 square feet of new retail
space, including the car wash, plus a 7,567 square foot fuel canopy. The total footprint of the five
buildings, including the car wash, is 37,367 square feet, or approximately 13% of the project site.
The project proposes an architectural style to complement the surrounding neighborhood. The
project architecture includes both wall and roof plane articulation and would carry the design
elements to the elevation of each building in the project. Each building contains a tower element that
is the highest point in the building. Tower structures range from 28 to 38 feet, depending on the
building.
Energy-efficient features, including insulated and glazed windows and Low-E coating on windows,
would be incorporated into building design to comply with the provisions of the California Green
Building Code, Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations.
3.3.2 Project Design Features (PDFs)
The project will have several features that will reduce emissions of both criteria air pollutants and
greenhouse gases. These features are in addition to complying with the construction dust control
methods or the operational coating VOC limits required by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District.
Operating Hours Limitations
To reduce on road motor vehicle trip generation (and therefore vehicle miles traveled and
consequent emissions), leasing agreements will contain the following restrictions on the hours of
operation:
Land Use ITE
Code Operating Hours Trip Generation
Reduction (%)a
Convenience Store/Gas Station 945 24 hours/day 0.0
Pharmacy 881 10 a.m. – 10 p.m. 14.7
Retail Building 822 10 a.m. – 8 p.m. 28.1
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Through 934 5 a.m. - 9 p.m. 10.4
High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant 932 11 a.m. – 9 p.m. 11.1
Retail Store 815 9 a.m. – 8 p.m. 5.0
Car Wash 948b 8 a.m. - 8 p.m. 3.8
a Calculated by UltraSystems from hourly trip distributions in ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
bAs no data on average hourly trip distribution data were available for ITE 948, data for ITE 949 (Car Wash and
Detail Center) were used.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 3-11
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Vehicle Fueling Stations
Instead of having the originally proposed 20 gasoline vehicle fueling positions (VFPs), the
convenience market with gas pumps will have 16 gasoline VFPs. This will reduce visits by gasoline-
fueled vehicles by 25%.
Preclusion of Certain Fuel Burning Sources
Leases will prohibit installation and use of fireplaces, hearths, or similar combustion sources. This
measure will preclude emissions of criteria pollutants and GHG.
Energy-Efficient Appliances
Leases will require tenants to install the following ENERGY STAR appliances in the fast-food
restaurant and the sit-down restaurant:
• Dishwashers (15% more efficient than conventional appliances).
• Fans (50% more efficient than conventional appliances).
• Refrigerators (15% more efficient than conventional appliances).
This will reduce electricity use and thus reduce criteria pollutant and GHG emissions from electrical
power generation.
Water-Saving Devices
Leases will require tenants to install the following low-flow water-using fixtures wherever
applicable:
• Bathroom faucets (32% more efficient than state standard water flow rate).
• Kitchen faucets (18% more efficient than state standard water flow rate).
• Toilets (20% more efficient than state standard water flow rate).
This measure will reduce electricity requirements for transporting water to the project site, and
therefore reduce criteria pollutant and GHG emissions from generating the electricity.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 3-12
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 3.3-1
CONVENIENCE STORE BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND COLOR BOARDS
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. January 14, 2022.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 3-13
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 3.3-2
CAR WASH ELEVATIONS AND COLOR BOARDS
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. January 14, 2022.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 3-14
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 3.3-3
SIT DOWN RESTAURANT ELEVATIONS AND COLOR BOARDS
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. January 14, 2022.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 3-15
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 3.3-4
TWO-STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND COLOR BOARDS
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. January 14, 2022.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 3-16
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 3.3-5
PHARMACY BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND COLOR BOARDS
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. January 14, 2022.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 3-17
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 3.3-6
AERIAL RENDERING
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. January 14, 2022
Location: Rendering is looking Northwest towards Baseline Avenue from Sierra Avenue.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 3-18
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 3.3-7
STREET LEVEL RENDERINGS - SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASELINE AND SIERRA
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. January 14, 2022
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 3-19
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 3.3-8
STREET LEVEL RENDERINGS - SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASELINE AND SIERRA
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. January 14, 2022
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 3-20
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
3.3.3 Trash Enclosures
The project proposes separate trash enclosures to service the car wash and each of the retail
buildings, including the planned pharmacy. Locations of each of the trash enclosures will satisfy at
least the minimum standards for waste and recycling collection services as established by Burrtec,
the City’s contracted refuse collection operator.
3.3.4 Project Operations
At the time this Initial Study was prepared, the future tenant(s) of the proposed buildings were
unknown. For the purpose of environmental analysis, the future uses onsite are assumed to be any
of those uses permitted by the City of Fontana’s General Plan land use designation of General
Commercial (C-G), and the City’s zoning designation of General Commercial (C-2). It is anticipated
that the hours of operation will vary by use. The analysis assumes that the fuel station and
convenience store will be open 24 hours. It is anticipated that the remaining uses will have limited
hours determined by the tenant, within the hours outlined in Project Design Feature (PDF) GHG-1
and the table in Section 3.3.2.
Since the future tenant(s) are not yet known, the number of jobs generated by the proposed project
is also unknown. Therefore, for the purpose of environmental analysis in this Initial Study,
employment is estimated by using average employment density factors reported by the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG), in its publication “Employment Density Study
Report,” (SCAG, 2001). This document states that each non-regional retail employee in San
Bernardino County uses 432 square feet (SCAG, 2001, Table 7A). Therefore, the proposed project
site’s 47,361 square feet of building area would accommodate approximately 110 jobs for the
operational phase of the project.
3.3.4 Landscaping
All landscaping will follow the City’s Code of Ordinances for commercial districts landscaping
requirements (Zone C-2), § 30-671. This includes all requirements for trees, shrubs, and
groundcover. At a minimum, 15% of the total project site area, not including the building area, must
be landscaped.
The site plan includes several landscaped areas totaling 49,422 square feet, accounting for
approximately 17% of the project site. Figures 3.3-4 and 3.3-5 show the landscaping envisioned for
north and south portions of the proposed project, respectively. Figure 3.3-6 shows the project plant
schedule. There are 123 trees proposed to be planted, with 10% of the trees to be a minimum of 30-
inch boxes and the remainder in 24-inch boxes. Trees will include the following: Cootamundra
Wattle, Knife-leaf Wattle, Desert Museum Palo Verde, Chines Pistache, and the Fruitless Olive.
Additionally, a wide variety of shrubs, ornamental grasses and ground cover will be planted, with
50% of the shrubs required to be a minimum of 5 gallon with the remainder one gallon. Over 1,414
shrubs will be planted with 707 plants 5 gallon and 738 1 gallon. Ground cover will be planted as
required.
At project completion the site would be approximately 83 percent impervious (consisting of building
footprints plus hardscape).
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Page 3-21
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 3.3-9
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN – NORTH
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. March 4, 2022
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Page 3-22
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 3.3-10
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN – SOUTH
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. March 4, 2022
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Page 3-23
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 3.3-5
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN – PLANT SCHEDULE
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. March 4, 2022
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Page 3-24
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
3.3.5 Site Access, Circulation and Parking
Site ingress and egress would be provided by three 35-foot-wide driveways located on Baseline
Avenue, Sierra Avenue, and Montgomery Avenue. In addition, a left turn-in lane will be provided on
Sierra Avenue between Baseline Avenue and Montgomery Avenue (see Figure 3.2-1). Driveways
along Baseline Avenue and Sierra Avenue will be right-in/right-out only. Access to parking and the
buildings would be via a series of pedestrian sidewalks, parking areas and driveways running
throughout the site.
The project proposes 259 parking spaces, with spaces distributed adjacent to buildings in five
separate areas throughout the site.
3.3.6 Exterior Lighting
The project proposes area lighting throughout the project site. Lighting for the project would comply
with the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code. Specifically, the project would be required to
comply with City of Fontana Municipal Code § 30-544, Lighting and Glare, which states, “all lights
shall be directed and/or shielded to prevent the light from adversely affecting adjacent properties.
No structure or feature shall be permitted which creates adverse glare.”
The proposed project would include installation of exterior lighting fixtures, as necessary, for safety
and security. LED exterior fixtures would be mounted on the walls of the buildings. Latest LED
lighting fixtures with photosensors and motion sensors would be provided. Cut-off shields would be
provided as necessary to prevent light spillage beyond the project boundary. Parking lot lighting
would also utilize LED technology.
3.3.7 Project Entry Signage
There is proposed signage for the various onsite uses. Signs include the following:
• Multi-tenant signage to the east of the driveway entrance on Montgomery Avenue for
office/retail/restaurant users.
• Multi-tenant signage at the northeast corner of the site at Baseline Avenue and Sierra Avenue.
• Gas and restaurant signage north of the driveway on Sierra Avenue.
• Pharmacy signage at the southeast corner of the site on Sierra Avenue.
• Drive-through menu and order station sign, near the QSR site, proximate to Sierra Avenue.
3.3.8 Perimeter Fencing and Exterior Walls
No walls or fences are proposed for the project. Trees and other landscaping will be located in planter
areas bordering Baseline Avenue, Sierra Avenue and Montgomery Avenue.
3.3.9 Utilities
The project would require sewer, domestic water, fire water, irrigation and dry utilities connections
to existing utility infrastructure.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Page 3-25
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Sanitary Sewer - The project proposes to tie into an existing sewer line in Sierra Avenue and
construct a new sanitary sewer manhole at the existing cleanout station. Sewage provider will be
Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). The sewer main line will come from the intersection of Sierra
Avenue and Montgomery Avenue across Montgomery Avenue to the westerly property line of the
project.
Domestic Water - New domestic water meters would be installed as required to meet project
demands in compliance with the requirements of the city’s Public Works Department. Water would
be provided by Fontana Water Company, which serves this part of the city of Fontana. Construction
would need to occur in the public right-of-way during installation of domestic water lines. Currently
here is no main on the project side of the street of either Sierra Avenue or Baseline Avenue. The
concrete main on Baseline Avenue on the north side of the property may be impacted by construction.
The project will require main extension from the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Baseline Avenue
to either the south property line or west property line, depending on the location of the proposed
connection point.
Fire Water - The project proposes construction of a new fire water line to the project site. Final
design of water facilities will be determined based on the approved Fire Department plan to assess
what size of main is adequate to provide the needed fire flow.
Dry Utilities - Southern California Edison (SCE) would provide electricity to the project site.
Electrical utilities would be undergrounded. An existing overhead power line next to the south site
boundary along Montgomery Avenue would be removed and placed underground. Construction
would need to occur in the public right-of-way during installation of a new utility connections to the
project site.
Stormwater - Onsite stormwater facilities will include catch basins, roof drains, conveyance piping,
hydrodynamic separator pre-treatment, and an underground infiltration facility. Stormwater from
the proposed conditions will be collected in catch basins and conveyed via pipes to hydrodynamic
separators for pre-treatment prior to soil infiltration via underground infiltration chambers. The
design capture volume (DCV) will be managed onsite, including system oversizing for the new
pavement and sidewalk areas within Montgomery Ave right-of-way, which will drain to the onsite
treatment and retention system via the under-sidewalk drain proposed along Montgomery Avenue,
which also functions as an emergency overflow. Overflow from the proposed site will be directed to
its natural discharge location, which is to Montgomery Avenue, south of the site. Discharge to
Montgomery Avenue will be only for storm events that overflow the onsite infiltration system.
Discharge will be via a piped conveyance to an under sidewalk drain, per City standard drawing
#3001.
Trash Service - Trash service would be provided by Burrtec Waste Industries, which has a contract
with the City of Fontana to provide an array of trash, recycling and special waste handling services
to residents and businesses (Fontana, 2022).
Cable Television - It is anticipated that new cable television connections would be needed to serve
the project. ATT and Spectrum serve customers near the project site (digalert.org, 2022).
3.3.10 Security Features
The project and its component buildings will be enhanced by a full range of security features,
including the following:
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Page 3-26
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
• Security cameras
• Motion detectors
• Commercial fire alarm systems
• Temperature and humidity alarms
• Water/flooding alarm
• Panic button alarms
• Construction site security plan
• Fencing/Access Control
• Warning Signs
• Surveillance cameras
• 24/7 UST monitoring system
• Emergency shutoff system/alarm system
• Site lighting system
• Clear lines of sight throughout the property and inside buildings
• Employee training/inspection checklists/emergency procedures
• Shatterproof glass
• Secure doorways
• Height lines at doorways
• Landscape maintenance program
• Well-lit, visible areas – dumpsters, employee entrances, etc.
• Mirrors & cameras inside buildings
• Employee lockers
3.3.11 Sustainability
Low Impact Development (LID) features such as vegetated swales, tree-based infiltration, and inert
bioswales are included throughout the project site to protect water quality. The project includes
environmentally sustainable design features that would result in a reduction in energy usage, water
usage, and waste generation and in doing so would also reduce project-related greenhouse gas
emissions.
The project proposes the following sustainability features:
• Will be used:
o Energy Star appliances
o Occupancy sensing lighting controls
o LED lighting – interior and exterior with timers / sensors
o Low flow plumbing fixtures
o Smart HVAC Systems
o Water efficient fixtures
o Drought resistant landscaping, low flow irrigation system
• Could be used
o Electrochromic Glass – subject to final design
o Variable Frequency Drives on Fans and Pumps – subject to final design
o Structural Insulated Panels – subject to pricing and availability
o Low Emitting Materials – Adhesives and Sealants, Paints and Coatings, Flooring
Systems, Composite Wood, and/or Agrifiber Products – as required by code
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Page 3-27
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
3.4 Offsite Improvements
Construction would need to occur in Sierra Avenue, Montgomery Avenue and Baseline Avenue to
connect the utility lines for the proposed project to the existing main lines.
3.5 Construction Activities
For safety reasons, temporary barricades would be used to limit access to the site during project
construction and maintain safe access for construction workers. Construction would occur during
daylight and during regular business hours. Lighting for the construction site would be limited to the
minimum amount of light needed for safety and security.
Site grading would involve raw cut of 3,500 cubic yards (cy) and raw fill of 3,500 cy. The site would
be balanced onsite, and no import of soil would occur. After site preparation is completed,
infrastructure such as sewer laterals and storm drains would be installed and/or connected to
existing facilities. The building foundations would be poured and framing of the buildings would
begin. The final steps of construction would involve interior furnishings, detail work, and completion
of common areas and outside landscaping.
The 284,279 square-foot (6.53 acres) site is currently undeveloped pervious surface. The building
footprint would be 69,192 square feet, hardscape area would be 82,509 square feet, and landscaped
area would be 49,982 square feet. The project would result in the conversion of 151,701 square feet
(75%) to impervious surface on the project site.
The only offsite improvements would be installation of utility laterals and connections of laterals to
mains. The construction contractor would use heavy equipment during grading; estimated numbers
and types of equipment per construction phase are identified below in Table 3.5-1. Construction
staging would be limited to the project site; no offsite areas would be used.
3.5.1 Construction Employees
Project construction workers would park their vehicles on the project site. Below is the anticipated
number of construction employees by construction phase:
• Grading:
➢ 8 employees
• Building Construction:
➢ 58 employees
• Paving:
➢ 8 employees
• Architectural Coating:
➢ 12 employees
3.5.2 Construction Schedule and Equipment
Construction will commence as soon as permits are approved, which is anticipated in second or third
quarter (Q2 or Q3) of 2023, with all construction completed and tenants in place by the end of 2025.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Page 3-28
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Table 3.5-1 contains additional detail about the construction schedule, equipment required, and
construction employment.
Table 3.5-1
CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND EQUIPMENT DETAILS
Phase/Calendar
Months
Number of Pieces of
Equipment Equipment Number of
Working Days
Grading:
1 month
1 Excavator
20 1 Grader
1 Rubber Tired Dozer
3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Building Construction:
10.5 months
2 Cranes
230
3 Forklifts
1 Generator Set
3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 Welder
Paving:
1 month
2 Pavers
20 2 Paving Equipment
2 Rollers
Architectural Coating:
1 month 1 Air Compressor 20
Source: CalEEMod 2020.4.0.
3.6 Discretionary Actions
The proposed uses on the site are consistent with the current land use designation in the City of
Fontana General Plan (C-G) and zoning of the site (C-2), and thus no discretionary actions beyond
Design Review approval, Parcel Map and Conditional Use Permit are required.
3.6.1 Other Permits and Approvals
The project is being processed through the City as Master Case Number 22-011, Design Review
Number 22-005, Conditional Use Permit Number 22-002, and Minor Use Permit Number 22-001.
The proposed project would be reviewed in detail by applicable City of Fontana departments and
divisions that have the responsibility to review land use application compliance with City codes and
regulations. City staff is also responsible for reviewing this IS/MND to ensure that it is technically
accurate and is in full compliance with CEQA. The departments and divisions at the City of Fontana
responsible for technical review include:
• City of Fontana Community Development Department;
• City of Fontana Public Works Department;
• City of Fontana Fire Protection District; and
• City of Fontana Engineering Department.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Page 3-29
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Following the City’s approval of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the following
permits/approvals, as shown in Table 3.6-1, would be required prior to construction.
Table 3.6-1
PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Agency Permit or Approval
City of Fontana Planning Division Conditional Use Permit
Minor Use Permit
Design Review
Parcel Map
City of Fontana Building & Safety Division
Construction Permits
Building
Fire
Engineering Permit
Utility
Sign
MEP (Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing)
Right-of-Way
San Bernardino County Permits CUPA (Hazardous Waste)
Health
South Coast Air Quality Management
Board
ATC/PTO (Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate)
NESHAP 6C (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants – Gasoline Distribution)
❖ SECTION 4.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Page 4-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or as a “Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agricultural and Forest Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population / Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination (To Be Completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☒ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to
be addressed.
☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
Date
Printed Name
City of Fontana
❖ SECTION 4.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Page 4-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
(1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should
be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards
(e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project-specific screening analysis).
(2) All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including offsite as well as
onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as
well as operational impacts.
(3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one
or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
(4) “Negative Declaration: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially
Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the
mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to less than significant
level.
(5) Earlier analyses may be use where, pursuant to the tiering, Program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an affect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
(See Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines. In this case, a brief discussion should
identify the following:
(a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where the earlier analysis available for
review.
(b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
(c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
(6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference
❖ SECTION 4.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Page 4-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached
and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
(7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used
or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
(8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,
lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant
to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
(9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
(a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
(b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.1-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
4.1 Aesthetics
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings? (Public views
are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If
the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X
A “visual environment” includes the built environment (development patterns, buildings, parking
areas, and circulation elements) and natural environment (such as hills, vegetation, rock
outcroppings, drainage pathways, and soils) features. Visual quality, viewer groups and sensitivity,
duration, and visual resources characterize views. Visual quality refers to the general aesthetic
quality of a view, such as vividness, intactness, and unity. Viewer groups identify who is most likely
to experience the view. High-sensitivity land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, religious
institutions, and passive outdoor spaces such as parks, playgrounds, and recreation areas. Duration
of a view is the amount of time that a particular view can be seen by a specific viewer group. Visual
resources refer to unique views, and views identified in local plans, from scenic highways, or of
specific unique structures or landscape features.
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than Significant Impact
Scenic vistas generally include extensive panoramic views of natural features, unusual terrain, or
unique urban or historic features, for which the field of view can be wide and extend into the distance,
and focal views that focus on a particular object, scene or feature of interest. Distant scenic vistas are
visible from the project site and surroundings of Mt. San Antonio to the northwest and the mountains
of Big Bear Lake and the San Bernardino National Forest to the northeast. The project site is an
undeveloped parcel surrounded by single-family homes and a gas station/convenience store to the
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.1-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
east, vacant land to the south and west, and a recently-constructed family medical clinic and some
single-family homes to the north. There are only scattered trees visible in the immediate area,
primarily near the southern border of the site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provides information regarding officially
designated or eligible state scenic highways designated as part of the California Scenic Highway
Program. The nearest designated state scenic highway to the project site is State Route 138 through
the San Gabriel Mountains, approximately 13.5 miles to the north of the project. Due to the large
distance between the project site and SR-138, construction and implementation of the project would
have no impacts on state scenic highways. Therefore, the project would have no impacts on trees,
rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views
are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant Impact
The project site is located in an emerging suburban setting characterized by a mix of residential and
commercial land uses and vacant land. Views of the existing streetscape are characterized by low
height (one-story and two-story) buildings, utilities (including utility lines, poles, and street lights)
and landscaping. Refer to Table 4.1-1, which describes the existing visual character in the vicinity of
the project site. Figure 4.1-2 includes photographs of the project vicinity.
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.1-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Table 4.1-1
EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER AND LAND USES IN THE PROJECT AREA
Location General
Characteristics Existing Lighting Building Height and
Design Landscaping
Project Site Undeveloped parcel none Non-existent Grasses, dirt
Surrounding Areas
East
Single-family homes
and an AM/PM mini
mart with an ARCO
gas station
Exterior lighting
associated with the
commercial
development and
residences.
Two-story buildings sloping
roofs and plastered exterior
walls painted in varying
colors. Gas station and
single-story building.
Ornamental
vegetation
consisting of trees,
grasses, and shrubs
South
Mostly vacant with
scattered single-
family homes
Limited exterior
lighting associated
with the homes
Single story buildings
A few trees and
ornamental
vegetation
West Undeveloped parcel None Vacant land Grasses and dirt
North
Arrowhead Family
Health Center and
single-family homes
Exterior lighting
associated with the
clinic and
residential
developments with
street lighting.
Single-story commercial
and two-story residential
buildings in varying colors
and trim.
Limited ornamental
vegetation.
Source: UltraSystems, 2022 and Google Earth Pro, 2022.
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.1-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.1-1
STATE SCENIC HIGHWAYS
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.1-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.1-2
EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.1-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.1-3
EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.1-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Construction. Construction of the proposed project would result in temporary views of construction
activities, construction staging areas, grading, excavation, construction equipment, material storage
areas, construction debris, and exposed trenches on the project site. During project construction,
there would be certain elements on the project site that are not compatible with the project vicinity.
These may include construction equipment, stockpiled materials, and construction‐area barriers and
fencing. While these elements would be removed following construction, they would nonetheless
result in a temporary impact. However, during project construction, work areas would be screened
from public view by temporary barriers/fencing. Project construction could temporarily degrade the
existing visual character of the project area and its immediate surroundings. This impact would be
short-term and thus would be less than significant.
Operation. The completed project would consist of four single-story buildings and one two-story
building, each with an attached small tower-like architectural element that rises about five to nine
feet above the individual building’s roofline. The project proposes an architectural style to
complement the surrounding neighborhood. The project architecture includes both wall and roof
plane articulation and would carry the design elements to each elevation. The maximum building
height of any of the towers in any of the proposed buildings is the two-story retail building at the
south edge of the project, at approximately 38 feet. The buildings would have smooth steel-troweled
white cement plaster walls, accented by various decorative elements and aluminum windows, doors
and storefronts. The proposed commercial project would complement the character of the
surrounding area, which consists of primarily residential and commercial uses and vacant land. See
Figures 4.1-2 and Figure 4.1-3.
Additionally, Figures Figure 4.1-4 and Figure 4.1-5 show conceptual aerial view renderings of the
proposed project, while Figures 4.1-6 through 4.1-9 show conceptual street-level renderings. The
proposed project would not degrade the existing visual character of the site because new buildings
would be consistent with the general character of surrounding neighborhood buildings in terms of
architectural style and setbacks.
The overall site plan design and building placement would create several landscaped areas onsite.
Figure 3.3-5 in Section 3.0 depicts the landscaping envisioned for the proposed project. The project
would improve an existing underutilized piece of land with a commercial center and related
landscaping, thereby resulting in a beneficial change to existing site conditions and would not
adversely affect the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings.
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.1-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.1-4
AERIAL RENDERING 1
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Location: S/W Corner of Sierra Avenue and Baseline Avenue.
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.1-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.1-5
AERIAL RENDERING 2
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Location: N/E Corner of Sierra Avenue and Baseline Avenue.
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.1-10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.1-6
STREET LEVEL RENDERING 1
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Location: Site Interior looking north.
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.1-11
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.1-7
STREET LEVEL RENDERING 2
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Location: Site Interior looking north
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.1-12
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.1-8
STREET LEVEL RENDERING 3
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Location: N/E corner of Sierra Avenue and Baseline Avenue.
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.1-13
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.1-9
STREET LEVEL RENDERING 4
Source: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Location: N/E corner of Sierra Avenue and Baseline Avenue
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.1-14
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Further, the proposed project would adhere to the City’s regulations and policies regarding
aesthetics. Table 4.1-2, Project Compliance with Applicable City of Fontana General Plan Policies
Regarding Scenic Quality, details the applicable aesthetics policies from the City General Plan and how
the project would adhere to them.
Table 4.1-2
PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE CITY OF FONTANA GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
REGARDING SCENIC QUALITY
Land Use Element. Goal 7: Public and private development meets high design standards.
Policy:
Support high-quality development in
design standards and in land use decisions.
Project Compliance:
The proposed project would construct a high-
quality development with architecture and
ornamental landscaping that would complement
the surrounding residential land uses. Therefore,
the proposed project would not conflict with this
policy.
Based on the analysis above, the project would not conflict with applicable General Plan policies
governing scenic quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact with Implementation of Mitigation
Construction
During project construction there would be additional sources of light that would be used to provide
security lighting for the construction staging area(s) on the project site. To ensure that construction
lighting would not have a significant impact on surrounding residences, mitigation measure AES-1 is
recommended to reduce potential temporary construction lighting impacts to a less than significant
level.
Project construction would not generate substantial glare that would adversely affect daytime or
nighttime views in the area. Construction equipment consists of low-glare materials. Construction
would occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and so would not involve long durations of
nighttime work. The proposed exterior building materials would not be highly reflective.
Construction glare impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measure
MM AES-1 During project construction the project applicant shall place construction staging
areas as far away as possible from adjacent residences so as to minimize, to the
maximum extent possible, any potential lighting impacts to nearby residences. The
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.1-15
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
lighting used during project construction shall consist of the minimum amount of
light necessary for safety and security on the project site.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of MM AES-1 and given that project construction would be temporary, the
proposed project would have a less than significant impact regarding temporary construction
lighting and glare.
Operation
The project proposes new exterior lighting throughout the site. Installation of exterior lighting would
be necessary for safety and nighttime visibility throughout the proposed commercial development.
The new project lighting would be visible from the surrounding area. Therefore, the project’s
proposed exterior lighting is expected to contribute to ambient nighttime illumination in the project
vicinity. The project site is located in an urban area, which is characterized by low to medium
nighttime ambient light levels. Streetlights, traffic on local streets, and exterior lighting in
surrounding developments are the primary sources of light that contribute to the ambient light levels
in the project area. Light-sensitive uses in the project vicinity are limited to residences.
Fontana’s Municipal Code § 30-697 sets forth requirements for exterior lighting, as follows:
• Sec. 30-697. - Lighting
“The minimum standard of one foot-candle is required for all entrances, exits, pedestrian
paths, parking lots, and activity areas. All areas shall be illuminated during hours of
darkness and all luminaries utilized shall be vandal-resistant fixtures. The type of
lighting shall be fluorescent, white L.E.D.s or metal halide. A photometric layout may be
required to ensure the minimum light standard is met, per Police Department security code
requirements.
All lights shall be directed and shielded to prevent light or glare from spilling over onto and
adversely affecting adjacent properties. Light standards shall have a design compatible
with the architectural style of related buildings.”
According to the Institution of Lighting Engineers (ILE, 2005), now called the Institution of Lighting
Professionals, and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI, 2000), light trespass5 varies
according to surrounding environmental characteristics. Areas that are more rural in character, and
therefore have few existing artificial sources of light, are more susceptible to impacts resulting from
the installation of new artificial lighting sources. In contrast, urbanized areas are characterized by a
large number of existing artificial lighting sources and are thus less susceptible to adverse effects
associated with new artificial lighting sources. To determine appropriate lighting standards that
represent the existing lighting conditions, land uses are typically categorized into one of four
environmental zones, as depicted in Table 4.1-4 below. The project site and surrounding area can
be characterized as an area of medium ambient brightness (E3 environmental zone). Based on these
environmental zones, the ILE and EPRI have established recommendations for limiting light trespass
5 Light trespass (also known as obtrusive light or spill light) is the condition where poorly shielded or poorly aimed
light fixtures cast light onto areas where it is unwanted or not needed.
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.1-16
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
onto adjacent properties. The recommendations established by the ILE are summarized in Table 4.1-
4 below.
Table 4.1-4
OBTRUSIVE LIGHT LIMITATIONS FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTING INSTALLATIONS
Environmental Zone
Light Trespass Illuminance
Pre-Curfew (Dusk –
11:00 p.m.)
Post Curfew (11:00 p.m. –
7:00 a.m.)
ILE
E1 2 lx 0.2 fc 1 lx 0.1 fc
E2 5 lx 0.5 fc 1 lx 0.1 fc
E3 10 lx 0.9 fc 2 lx 0.2 fc
E4 25 lx 2.3 fc 5 lx 0.5 fc
EPRI
E1 1 lx 0.1 fc 1 lx 0.1 fc
E2 3 lx 0.3 fc 1 lx 0.1 fc
E3 9 lx 0.8 fc 3 lx 0.3 fc
E4 16 lx 1.5 fc 7 lx 0.6 fc
E1: natural surroundings, dark lighting conditions
E2: rural surroundings, low lighting conditions
E3: suburban surroundings, medium lighting conditions
E4: urban surroundings, high lighting conditions
lx = lux fc = foot-candles
Source: Adopted from ILE (2003) and EPRI (2000).
Curfew hours listed in the table are from the Institution of Lighting Engineers, Guidance Notes for the
Reduction of Obtrusive Light, 2005 (ILE, 2005, p. 5), which states, “Curfew = the time after which
stricter requirements (for the control of obtrusive light) will apply; often a condition of use of lighting
applied by the local planning authority. If not otherwise stated - 23.00 hrs. [11:00 p.m.] is suggested.”
In the project area, light trespass impacts would be considered potentially significant if illuminance6
produced by the project would impact sensitive receptors with lighting levels that exceed
0.8 foot-candles during pre-curfew hours (dusk to 11:00 p.m.) and 0.3 foot-candles during the post
curfew hours (11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), as measured on the vertical and horizontal planes.7 The
project proposes new exterior lighting throughout the site, including area lighting and wall mounted
lighting
Light trespass onto the single-family residential properties to the east of this site would not reach the
residential buildings across Sierra Avenue, which are bordered along Sierra by a concrete block wall.
Thus, light trespass impacts on the single family uses to the east would be less than significant. Given
the rapidly urbanizing nature of the project’s surroundings and that the project is in an area with
existing nighttime lighting, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact regarding
new sources of light.
6 Measured in foot-candles, illuminance is the intensity of light falling on a surface.
7 A full moonlit night in rural areas with negligible ambient light would equal approximately 0.02-0.03 foot-candle,
while a typical 30-foot tall streetlamp would have an illumination of 1.3 foot-candles at a distance of 10 feet (NLPIP,
2007).
❖ SECTION 4.1 – AESTHETICS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.1-17
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Sky Glow
Sky Glow is the brightening of the sky that occurs as a result of outdoor lighting fixtures emitting a
portion of their light directly into the sky. There are no dark sky requirements or lighting restrictions
beyond the residential municipal code specifications. Sky glow impacts would be less than significant.
Glare
Glare is the objectionable brightness caused by over-illumination, as well as poorly shielded or poorly
aimed light fixtures. The proposed project would introduce new outdoor artificial lighting elements,
which have the potential to result in glare if the main beams of proposed lighting elements (i.e., the
portion of the lamp with the greatest illuminance) are visible from offsite locations, resulting in
excessive, uncontrolled brightness. However, the project would comply with the requirements of the
City’s Municipal Code § 30-544, Lighting and Glare, which requires:
“All lights shall be directed and/or shielded to prevent the light from adversely affecting
adjacent properties. No structure or lighting feature shall be permitted which creates
adverse glare. A photometric plan shall be provided that indicates the amount of
light emanating from the proposed/existing light fixtures.”
❖ SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.2-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
§ 12220(g)), timberland (as defined
by Public Resources Codes § 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code § 51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
X
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
No Impact
Most of the project site is mapped as “Other Land” by the Division of Land Resource Protection
(DLRP) as (see Figure 4.2-1 below), which is land not included in any other mapping category. Other
Land includes low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not
suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines,
borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than forty acres (DOC, 2022). Around of the site is mapped as
Urban and Built-Up Land, and other land. Therefore, project development would not convert
farmland to non-agricultural use and no impacts would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.2-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.2-1
IMPORTANT FARMLAND CATEGORIES
❖ SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.2-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
No Impact
The project site is zoned General Commercial (C-2) (see Figure 4.2-2). The site is not zoned for
agricultural use (County of San Bernardino, 2021). Williamson Act contracts restrict the use of
privately-owned land to agriculture and compatible open-space uses under contract with local
governments; in exchange, the land is taxed based on actual use rather than potential market value.
The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract or under an Agricultural Preserve contract.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act
contract and no impact would occur.
c) Would the project (c) conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public Resources Code § 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Codes § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code § 51104(g))?
No Impact
The project site is zoned General Commercial (C-2) and the site is not zoned for forest, timberland,
or timberland production use. Therefore, project development would not conflict with zoning for
forest land or timberland, and no impact would occur.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
No Impact
The project site is vacant; the site surroundings consist of vacant land to the south and west; vacant
land and single-family residences to the north opposite Baseline Avenue; and a gas station and single-
family residences opposite Sierra Avenue. The site and surroundings are not cultivated for forest
resources. Therefore, project development would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use, and no impact would occur.
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural
use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact
The project site is vacant and is surrounded by residential uses, a gas station, and vacant land. No
important farmland is near the project site; the nearest such farmland is Unique Farmland
approximately 2.5 miles to the west. No forest land is present on or near the project site.
Therefore, project development would not indirectly cause conversion of farmland to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and no impacts would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.2-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.2-2
ZONING DESIGNATION
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.3-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
4.3 Air Quality
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
4.3.1 Pollutants of Concern
Criteria pollutants are air pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and
an ambient air quality standard has been established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) and/or the California Air Resources Board (ARB). The criteria air pollutants of concern are
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), lead (Pb), and ozone, and their precursors, such as reactive organic gases (ROG) (which are
ozone precursors). Since the Midland Plaza Project would not generate appreciable SO2 or Pb
emissions,8 it is not necessary for the analysis to include those two pollutants. Presented below is a
description of the air pollutants of concern and their known health effects.
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) serve as integral participants in the process of photochemical smog
production and are precursors for certain particulate compounds that are formed in the atmosphere.
The two major forms of NOx are nitric oxide (NO) and NO2. NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed
from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or
high pressure. NO2 is a reddish-brown pungent gas formed by the combination of NO and oxygen.
NO2 is an acute respiratory irritant and eye irritant and increases susceptibility to respiratory
pathogens. A third form of NOx, nitrous oxide (N2O), is a greenhouse gas (GHG) (USEPA, 2011).
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless non-reactive pollutant produced by incomplete
combustion of carbon substances (e.g., gasoline or diesel fuel). The primary adverse health effect
associated with CO is its binding with hemoglobin in red blood cells, which decreases the ability of
8 Sulfur dioxide emissions will be below 0.05 pound per day during construction and below 0.17 pound per day during
operations.
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.3-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
these cells to transport oxygen throughout the body. Prolonged exposure can cause headaches,
drowsiness, or loss of equilibrium; high concentrations are lethal (USEPA, 2022a).
Particulate matter (PM) consists of finely divided solids or liquids, such as soot, dust, aerosols,
fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulate matter are now regulated. Respirable particles, or
PM10, include that portion of the particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers
(i.e., 10 one-millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch) or less. Fine particles, or PM2.5, have an aerodynamic
diameter of 2.5 micrometers (i.e., 2.5 one-millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch) or less. Particulate
discharge into the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and
transportation activities. However, wind action on the arid landscape also contributes substantially
to the local particulate loading. Fossil fuel combustion accounts for a sizable portion of PM2.5. In
addition, particulate matter forms in the atmosphere through reactions of NOX and other compounds
(such as ammonia) to form inorganic nitrates and sulfates. Both PM10 and PM2.5 may adversely affect
the human respiratory system, especially in those people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible
to breathing problems (USEPA, 2022b).
Reactive organic gases (ROG) are compounds comprised primarily of atoms of hydrogen and carbon
that have high photochemical reactivity. The major source of ROG is the incomplete combustion of
fossil fuels in internal combustion engines. Other sources of ROG include the evaporative emissions
associated with the use of paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving and the use of
household consumer products. Some ROG species are listed toxic air contaminants, which have been
shown to cause adverse health effects; however, most adverse effects on human health are not caused
directly by ROG, but rather by reactions of ROG to form other criteria pollutants such as ozone. ROG
are also transformed into organic aerosols in the atmosphere, contributing to higher levels of fine
particulate matter and lower visibility. The term “ROG” is used by the ARB for air quality analysis and
is defined essentially the same as the federal term “volatile organic compound” (VOC).
Ozone (O3) is a secondary pollutant produced through a series of photochemical reactions involving
ROG and NOx. Ozone creation requires ROG and NOx to be available for approximately three hours in
a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. Because of the long reaction time, peak ozone
concentrations frequently occur downwind of the sites where the precursor pollutants are emitted.
Thus, O3 is considered a regional, rather than a local, pollutant. The health effects of O3 include eye
and respiratory irritation, reduction of resistance to lung infection and possible aggravation of
pulmonary conditions in persons with lung disease. Ozone is also damaging to vegetation and
untreated rubber (USEPA, 2020a).
4.3.2 Climate/Meteorology
The project site is located wholly within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes all of
Orange County, as well as the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino
Counties. The distinctive climate of the SCAB is determined by its terrain and geographical location.
The SCAB is in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific
Ocean in the southwest quadrant with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The
general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. Thus, the climate
is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted
infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds (SCAQMD,
1993).
The annual average temperature varies little throughout the 6,600-square-mile SCAB, ranging from
the low 60s to the high 80s. However, with a less pronounced oceanic influence, the inland portion
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.3-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
shows greater variability in the annual minimum and maximum temperatures (SCAQMD, 1993). The
mean annual high and low temperatures in the project area – as determined from the nearest weather
station in the City of San Bernardino9 (Western Regional Climate Center, 2022), which has a period
of record from 1984 to 2010 – are 78.5 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and 50.3°F, respectively. The overall
climate is a mild Mediterranean, with average monthly maximum temperatures exceeding 96.2°F in
the summer and down to 41.5°F in the winter.
In contrast to a steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. The
total average annual precipitation is 18.81 inches, of which 43.8 percent occurs between January and
March.
4.3.3 Local Air Quality
Table 4.3-1 shows the area designation status of the SCAB for each criteria pollutant for both the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards
(CAAQS).
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has divided the SCAB into source
receptor areas (SRAs), based on similar meteorological and topographical features. The proposed
project site is in SCAQMD’s Central San Bernardino Valley (SRA 34), which is served by the Fontana-
Arrow Monitoring Station, located about 3.4 miles west-southwest of the proposed project site, at
14360 Arrow Route, in Fontana (SCAQMD, 2022). Criteria pollutants monitored at the Fontana-
Arrow Monitoring Station include ozone, PM10, PM2.5, and NO2. CO has not been monitored in the
SCAB since 2012. The ambient air quality data in the proposed project vicinity as recorded at the
Fontana-Arrow Monitoring Station from 2019 to 2021 and the applicable state standards are shown
in Table 4.3-2.
Table 4.3-1
FEDERAL AND STATE ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutants Federal Classification State Classification
Ozone (O3) Nonattainment (Extreme) Nonattainment
Particulate Matter (PM10) Maintenance (Serious) Nonattainment
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment (Serious) Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maintenance (Serious) Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Maintenance Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment
Sulfates
Unclassified
Attainment
Lead (Pb) Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particles Unclassified
Sources: ARB, 2022a; USEPA, 2022c, 2022d, 2022e, 2022f, 2022g.
9 Data for San Bernardino Fire Station #226. Accessed May 2022. A closer weather station was available up until 1984.
The San Bernardino station represents more current data.
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.3-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Table 4.3-2
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA
Air Pollutant Standard/Exceedance 2019 2020 2021
Ozone (O3)
Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm) 0.124 0.151 0.125
Max. 8-hour Concentration (ppm) 0.109 0.112 0.104
# Days > Federal 8-hour Std. of 0.070
ppm 67 89 81
# Days > California 1-hour Std. of 0.09
ppm 41 56 44
# Days > California 8-hour Std. of 0.070
ppm 71 91 83
Respirable Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Max. 24-hour Concentration (µg/m3) 88.8 76.8 73.8
Est. # Days > Fed. 24-hour Std. of 150
µg/m3 0 ND ND
Federal Annual Average (12 µg/m3) 35.3 37.2 30.1
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)
Max. 24-hour Concentration (µg/m3) 81.3 57.6 55.1
# Days > Fed. 24-hour Std. of 35 µg/m3 9.1 12.3 5.9
State Annual Average (12 µg/m3) ND 12.7 12
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm) 0.07 0.07 0.07
State Annual Average (0.030 ppm) 0.017 0.018 0.018
# Days > California 1-hour Std. of 0.18
ppm 0 0 0
Source: ARB, 2022b
ND - There were insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value.
4.3.4 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
The SCAQMD is required to produce plans to show how air quality will be improved in the region.
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires that these plans be updated triennially to incorporate
the most recent available technical information. A multi-level partnership of governmental agencies
at the federal, state, regional, and local levels implements the programs contained in these plans.
Agencies involved include the USEPA, ARB, local governments, SCAG, and SCAQMD. The SCAQMD and
the SCAG are responsible for formulating and implementing the AQMP for the SCAB. The SCAQMD
updates its AQMP every three years.10
The 2016 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Board on March 3, 2017, and on March 10, 2017 was
submitted to the ARB as part of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). It focuses largely on
reducing NOx emissions as a means of attaining the 1979 one-hour ozone standard by 2022, the 1997
eight-hour ozone standard by 2023, and the 2008 eight-hour standard by 2031. The AQMP prescribes
a variety of current and proposed new control measures, including a request to the USEPA for
10 Adoption of the successor AQMP has been delayed. The public review period for this document, the “Revised Draft
2022 AQMP,” ended October 18, 2022. Internet: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-
mgt-plan. Accessed October 20, 2022.
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.3-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
increased regulation of mobile source emissions. The NOx control measures will also help the SCAB
attain the 24-hour standard for PM2.5 (SCAQMD, 2017).11
4.3.5 Sensitive Receptors
Some people, such as individuals with respiratory illnesses or impaired lung function because of
other illnesses, persons over 65 years of age, and children under 14, are particularly sensitive to
certain pollutants. Facilities and structures where these sensitive people live or spend considerable
amounts of time are known as sensitive receptors. For the purposes of a CEQA analysis, the SCAQMD
considers a sensitive receptor to be a receptor such as a residence, hospital, or convalescent facility
where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours (Chico and Koizumi, 2008, p. 3-2).
Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition of sensitive receptor, because
employees typically are present for shorter periods of time, such as eight hours. Therefore, applying
a 24-hour standard for PM10 is appropriate not only because the averaging period for the state
standard is 24 hours, but because the sensitive receptor would be present at the location for the full
24 hours.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are single-family residences east of the project site,
across Sierra Avenue. Additionally, one school is within 0.2 mile of the project site: Mango
Elementary School at 7450 Mango Avenue in the city of Fontana.
4.3.6 Applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules
Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Rule)
During construction, the project would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (fugitive dust). SCAQMD
Rule 403 does not require a permit for construction activities, per se; rather, it sets forth general and
specific requirements for all construction sites (as well as other fugitive dust sources) in the SCAB.
The general requirement prohibits a person from causing or allowing emissions of fugitive dust from
construction (or other fugitive dust source) such that the presence of such dust remains visible in the
atmosphere beyond the property line of the emissions source. SCAQMD Rule 403 also prohibits
construction activity from causing an incremental PM10 concentration impact, as the difference
between upwind and downwind samples, at the property line of more than 50 micrograms per cubic
meter as determined through PM10 high-volume sampling. The concentration standard and
associated PM10 sampling do not apply if specific measures identified in the rules are implemented
and appropriately documented.
Other requirements of Rule 403 include not causing or allowing emissions of fugitive dust that would
remain visible beyond the property line; no track-out extending 25 feet or more in cumulative length
and all track-out to be removed at conclusion of each workday; and using the applicable best available
control measures included in Table 1 of Rule 403.
Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings)
Construction of this project will include the application of architectural coatings and be subject to
SCAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). Among other applicable requirements, Rule 1113
11 NOx is a precursor to several inorganic nitrate compounds (such as ammonium nitrate) that form in the atmosphere
and become part of the PM2.5 load. Therefore, reducing NOx emissions will help reduce atmospheric PM2.5.
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.3-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
requires the use of architectural coatings that contain VOC less than or equal to the VOC limits
specified in Table 1 of the rule.
4.3.7 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
Less than Significant Impact
The SCAQMD has developed criteria in the form of emissions thresholds for determining whether
emissions from a project are regionally significant. They are useful for estimating whether a project
is likely to result in a violation of the NAAQS and/or whether the project is in conformity with plans
to achieve attainment (SCAQMD, 2019). SCAQMD’s significance thresholds for criteria pollutant
emissions during construction activities and project operation are summarized in Table 4.3-3. A
project is considered to have a regional air quality impact if emissions from its construction and/or
operational activities exceed the corresponding SCAQMD significance thresholds.
Table 4.3-3
SCAQMD EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS FOR SIGNIFICANT REGIONAL IMPACTS
Pollutant
Mass Daily Thresholds (Pounds/Day)
Construction Operation
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 55
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 75 55
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 150
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55 55
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 150
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Lead 3 3
Source: SCAQMD, 2019.
Air Quality Methodology
Estimated criteria pollutant emissions from the project’s onsite and offsite project activities were
calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod
(CAPCOA, 2022) is a planning tool for estimating emissions related to land use projects.
Model-predicted project emissions are compared with applicable thresholds to assess regional air
quality impacts. As some construction plans have not been finalized, CalEEMod defaults were used
for construction offroad equipment and on-road construction trips and vehicle miles traveled. It was
also assumed that the construction contractor would comply with all pertinent provisions of
SCAQMD Rule 403.12 Because compliance is mandatory for all development projects, these emission-
reducing requirements do not constitute mitigation under CEQA. Finally, the project’s traffic impact
12 Rule 403 applies to fugitive dust emissions. All projects in the SCAQMD are required to implement dust control
measures such as regularly wetting disturbed soils.
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.3-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
analysis’ operational trip generation values (RKE, 2022) were used instead of the default values
generated by CalEEMod.
For the purpose of this analysis, construction activities for the Midland Plaza Project are anticipated
to be around twelve months and would begin in September 2023 and end in October 2024. There
would be four construction phases:
• Grading.
• Building Construction.
• Paving.
• Architecture Coating.
There would be no overlap of construction activities among any of the phases. Table 4.3-4 shows the
project schedule used for the air quality, GHG emissions (Section 4.8) and noise (Section 4.13)
analyses.
Table 4.3-4
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Construction Phase Start End
Grading September 1, 2023 September 28, 2023
Building Construction September 29, 2023 August 15, 2024
Paving August 16, 2024 September 12, 2024
Architectural Coating September 13, 2024 October 10, 2024
These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dusts, fumes, equipment
exhaust, and other air contaminants. Mobile sources (such as diesel-fueled equipment onsite and
traveling to and from the project site) would primarily generate NOX emissions. The quantity of
emissions generated daily would vary, depending on the amount and types of construction activities
occurring at the same time.
As shown in Table 4.3-5, construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds.
Therefore, the project’s short-term regional air quality impacts would be less than significant. Refer
to Appendix B1 of this document for the air quality calculations.
Table 4.3-5
MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction Activity
Maximum Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Emissions, 2023 2.1 20.4 21.2 4.6 2.4
Maximum Emissions, 2024 13.9 15.3 20.8 2.2 1.0
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 55
Significant? (Yes or No) No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2020.4.0) (CAPCOA, 2022).
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.3-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Regional Operational Emissions
The primary source of operational emissions would be vehicle exhaust emissions generated from
project-induced vehicle trips, known as “mobile source emissions.” Other emissions, identified as
“energy source emissions,” would be generated from energy consumption for water, space heating,
and cooking equipment, while “area source emissions,” would be generated from structural
maintenance and landscaping activities, and use of consumer products. CalEEMod was also used to
estimate operational emissions. In general, default program inputs were used. However, the model’s
trip generation factors for mobile sources were adjusted to reflect reduction of operating hours from
default values. These reductions are project design features and are not considered to be mitigation.
In addition, some of other traffic parameters were adjusted to bring them into line with values in the
traffic report (RKE, 2022).
As seen in Table 4.3-6, for each criteria pollutant, operational emissions would be below the
pollutant’s SCAQMD significance threshold. Therefore, operational criteria pollutant emissions
would be less than significant
Table 4.3-6
MAXIMUM DAILY PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Emission Source Pollutant (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Source 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Energy Source 0.1 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.1
Mobile Source 20.1 15.0 102.7 16.5 4.5
Total Operational Emissions 21.2 15.7 103.3 16.6 4.6
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds 55 55 550 150 55
Significant? (Yes or No) No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2020.4.0) (CAPCOA, 2022).
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact
The SCAQMD recommends that a project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts be assessed
by utilizing the same significance criteria as those for project-specific impacts. Furthermore, the
SCAQMD states that if an individual development project generates less-than-significant construction
or operational emissions impacts, then the development project would not contribute to a
cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in
nonattainment.
As discussed above, the mass daily construction and operational emissions generated by the project
would not exceed any of the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds. Also, as discussed below, localized
emissions generated by the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s Localized Significance
Thresholds (LSTs). Therefore, the project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable increase
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.3-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
in emissions for the pollutants which the SCAB is in nonattainment. Thus, cumulative air quality
impacts associated with the project would be less than significant.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Less than Significant Impact
Construction of the project would generate short-term and intermittent emissions. Following the
SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (Chico and Koizumi, 2008), only onsite
construction emissions were considered in the localized significance analysis. The residence north
and east of the project site is the nearest sensitive receptor (130 feet away).13 LSTs for projects in
Source Receptor Area 34 (Fontana) were obtained from tables in Appendix C of the aforementioned
methodology. Table 4.3-7 shows the results of the localized significance analysis for the project.
Localized short-term air quality impacts from construction of the project would be less than
significant.
Table 4.3-7
RESULTS OF UNMITIGATED LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS
Nearest Sensitive Receptor
Maximum Onsite Construction Emissions
(pounds/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum daily unmitigated emissions 17.9 16.2 4.0 2.3
SCAQMD LST for 5 acres @ 40 metersa 289.2 2136 32 9.2
Significant (Yes or No) No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2020.4.0) (CAPCOA, 2022)
aInterpolated for thresholds between 25 and 50 meters.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact
Odors can cause a variety of responses. The impact of an odor results from interacting factors such
as frequency (how often), intensity (strength), duration (in time), offensiveness (unpleasantness),
location, and sensory perception.
The SCAQMD recommends that odor impacts be addressed in a qualitative manner (SCAQMD, 1993).
Such an analysis shall determine whether the project would result in excessive nuisance odors, as
defined under the California Code of Regulations and § 41700 of the California Health and Safety
Code, and thus would constitute a public nuisance related to air quality.
Land uses typically considered associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste
disposal facilities, or agricultural operations. The proposed project is not a land use typically
13 In accordance with the SCAQMD’s methodology, the distance is from the site boundary to the sensitive receptor; other
analyses in this IS/MND have different definitions of distance.
❖ SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.3-10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
associated with emitting objectionable odors. It would involve the use of diesel construction
equipment and diesel trucks during construction. However, project-generated emissions would
rapidly disperse in the atmosphere and would not be noticeable to the nearby public. It would also
include a gasoline station. However, according to the Senior Supervisor of the SCAQMD’s Gas
Dispensing Team, odor complaints about gas stations are few (Tran, 2023). In conclusion, the project
would not generate a significant odor impact during construction or operation.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.4-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
4.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
X
4.4.1 Discussion of Impacts
e) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.4-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
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?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Plant and wildlife species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or under the
California Endangered Species Act (CESA) are referred to collectively as “listed species” in this
section. Plant and wildlife species not listed under ESA or CESA but still protected by federal agencies,
state agencies, local or regional plans, and/or nonprofit resource organizations, such as the California
Native Plant Society (CNPS), are collectively referred to as “sensitive species” in this section. The term
“special-status species” is used when collectively referring to both listed and sensitive species.
Environmental Setting
The City of Fontana is in southwestern San Bernardino County, California. A mixture of residential,
retail and commercial developments, as well as some vacant land, surround the project site and
compose the biological study area (BSA), shown in Figure 4.4-1. The project site is located in a
relatively urbanized area, and provides generally low-value habitat for special status plant and
wildlife species. The project site itself has a relatively flat topography. Elevations on the project site
range from 1,402 to 1,414 feet above mean sea level (amsl); the southeast segment of the site lies at
a slightly lower elevation than the northwest segment of the project site. The project site is currently
undeveloped. Stormwater runoff generated on the project site generally flows southward and
southwest, and into a storm drain inlet at Montgomery Avenue.
The BSA is located within a historical alluvial fan, the Fontana Plain. This alluvial fan flared out from
mouth of Lytle Creek at the base of the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains to the base of the Jurupa
Mountains to the southwest (Dutcher and Garrett, 1963). The soils are a fine sandy loam with large
granitic cobbles characteristic of alluvial fans in the vicinity. Cobbles are up to about 40 cm in
diameter. The development of the I-15 freeway created a barrier to the fluvial processes that created
the alluvial fan. As a result, the areas in northern Fontana, including the proposed project, are no
longer part of an active alluvial fan.
Habitat Assessment Survey
UltraSystems Environmental, Inc (UltraSystems) biologist Dr. Michael Tuma conducted a habitat
assessment survey on July 8, 2022 to assess the habitats, plants and wildlife that occur within the
BSA. Three land cover types occur within the BSA and they are each described later in this section
where potential project impacts to sensitive plant communities are addressed (See Figure 4.4-2).
The vegetation onsite is predominantly ruderal in nature, including annual grasses and forbs. There
is evidence of former buildings or structures onsite in the southwest and east-central portions of the
site. There is also evidence of building demolition, dumping of gravel and other construction debris,
and wind-blown trash throughout the site. As noted earlier, the soils are a fine sandy loam with large
granitic cobbles that measure up to about 40 centimeters in diameter, characteristic of alluvial fans
in the vicinity, ornamental species that are likely remnants of the former use of the site were also
observed. In addition, there is evidence that the site been recently ripped and likely has experienced
a history of regular surface disturbances. The ground is nearly bare, with only a few annual plants
germinating after the recent ripping. Plant and wildlife species were recorded during the habitat
assessment survey and other surveys and these species lists can be viewed in Appendix C1, Plant
and Wildlife Species Recorded During the Field Surveys.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.4-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.4–1
PROJECT LOCATION AND BIOLOGICAL STUDY AREA
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7175/Sierra Avenue Townhomes Project
Page 4.4-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
July 2023
Figure 4.4–2
LAND COVER TYPES
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.4-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Impacts to Special Status Plants
Based on a literature review and query from publicly available databases (USFWS 2022a, b, CNDDB
2022a), referred to hereafter as plant inventory, for reported occurrences within a 10-mile radius of
the project site, there were 10 listed and 31 sensitive plant species identified by one of the following
means: reported in the plant inventory; recognized as occurring based on previous surveys or
knowledge of the area; or observed during the habitat assessment survey or other surveys (see
Figure 4.4-3). Of those 41 total species, no listed candidate, listed, or sensitive plant species were
determined to have the potential to occur. These species are detailed in Attachment F of Appendix
C1, Special-Status Species Inventory and Potential Occurrence Determination. The project site lacks
suitable habitat, or is outside the elevation or geographic range of all special-status plant species
documented in the plant inventory. Additionally, there is evidence that the project areas experience
frequent significant disturbances, due to ripping of soils and other factors. The project site does not
offer suitable habitat for special-status plant species, and no special-status plant species were
observed during the surveys. It is anticipated that construction of the project will have no impact on
special-status plant species within the BSA.
Plants observed include the following native and non-native species: western ragweed (Ambrosia
psilostachya); common sunflower (Helianthus annuus); redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium); prickly
Russian thistle (Kali tragus); puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris); shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia
incana); ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus); wall barley (Hordeum murinum); telegraphweed
(Heterotheca grandiflora); Canada horseweed (Erigeron canadensis); common knotweed (Polygonum
arenastrum); prostrate pigweed (Amaranthus blitoides); common fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia);
and long-beaked filaree (Erodium botrys).
Impacts to Special Status Wildlife
Based on a literature review and query from publicly available databases (CDFW, 2022a, b USFWS
2022a, b, CNDDB 2022) hereafter referred to as wildlife inventory, for reported occurrences within
a 10-mile radius of the project site, there were 19 listed and 35 sensitive wildlife species identified
by one of the following means: reported in the wildlife inventory; recognized as occurring based on
previous surveys or knowledge of the area; or observed during the habitat assessment survey or
other surveys. Refer to Figure 4.4-4, which displays species identified in the California Natural
Diversity Database (CNDDB) wildlife inventory within a two-mile radius of the BSA. Of those 54 total
species, 18 special-status wildlife species were determined to have at least a low potential to occur
and these species are listed in Attachment F of Appendix C1, Special-Status Species Inventory and
Potential Occurrence Determination. Species with a low potential to occur include San Diego black-
tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), pallid San Diego
pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax pallidus), northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Perognathus
fallax fallax), and other species. There were no listed species determined to have the potential to
occur onsite. No special-status wildlife species, including the 18 special-status species determined to
have at least a low potential to occur, were observed during the surveys, . Considering that none of
the special-status wildlife species determined to have at least a low potential to occur within the BSA
were observed, it is anticipated that construction of the project will have a less than significant impact
on special-status plant species within the BSA. Eighteen of the 54 special-status wildlife species
identified in the wildlife inventory were determined to have at least a low potential to occur in the
BSA. It is anticipated that construction of the project will have a less than significant impact on all of
those special-status plant species. Neither these special-status species nor their signs were observed
during surveys.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.4-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.4-3
CNDDB KNOWN OCCURRENCES PLANT SPECIES AND HABITATS
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.4-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.4-4
CNDDB KNOWN OCCURRENCES WILDLIFE SPECIES
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.4-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Wildlife Survey Results and Discussion
Because there are multiple suitable burrows distributed across the project, there is a low potential
for construction of the project to impact burrowing owls (BUOW). BUOW were determined to have a
low potential to occur due to the frequent disturbances of the project site area. Ground-disturbing
activities associated with the project such as excavation, ripping, trenching and soil compaction
would directly impact any BUOW that would establish burrows on the project site. All ground
surfaces would be heavily disturbed and would result in the likely destruction of any existing
burrows. As a result of potential impacts to BUOW, the project proponent will implement mitigation
measure BIO-1 to survey the site for the presence of BUOW prior to the commencement of
construction activities. The project proponent will consult with the City of Fontana, Department of
Public Works (DPW) – Environmental Management Division and California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) if any BUOW are observed during the pre-construction BUOW survey, to determine
how to minimize impacts to existing BUOWImplementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 would
reduce impacts to BUOW to less than significant.
General Wildlife Surveys Results and Discussion
During the surveys, no nests were observed within any of the trees within the BSA. Due to many
disturbances within the BSA, including regular ripping of on-site soils, frequent traffic noise, and a
high level of human activity, it is not likely that birds would build nests on the project site. The project
site contains very low-quality habitat for ground-nesting birds, however the ornamental vegetation,
including large trees in the BSA, could potentially provide suitable nesting habitat for birds addressed
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
Project construction could cause several potential direct and indirect impacts on nesting and foraging
behavior of birds. Although there are no trees scheduled for removal as a result of the project, dust,
noise and vibration associated with project activities would indirectly impact nesting birds by
causing stress and increasing the likelihood of nest abandonment. Additionally, the conversion of
onsite vegetated areas – which may support prey species such as small birds and mammals – to
developed areas may result in the loss of foraging habitat for raptors such as Cooper’s hawk. Noise
and dust generated by construction activities would also indirectly impact foraging and nesting
behavior of raptors in the area. Lastly, contact with toxic liquids such as oil or gas that leak from
machinery, and which could contaminate soil surfaces or temporary onsite water sources, could
potentially impact birds and other wildlife.
Areas outside the project site (within the BSA) contain some large trees and other physical features
that could potentially provide some foraging, nesting, and cover habitats to support an assortment of
bird species (year-round residents, seasonal residents, and migrants). A majority of the birds
observed during the field surveys and those birds that could potentially breed within the BSA are
protected by the MBTA and Fish and Game Code § 3503, § 3503.5, and § 3513. Implementation of
BIO-2 would reduce the impacts of project activities on breeding birds to a less than significant
degree. Refer to the recommended mitigation measures below which would reduce potential project
impacts to biological resources.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.4-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1: Pre-Construction BUOW Surveys Within 30 Days Prior to Construction and
BUOW Protection Measures
Although BUOW was not detected on the site during the focused surveys, the project
site contains numerous suitable burrows distributed throughout, which appear to be
utilized by California ground squirrel and valley pocket gopher. Therefore, a 30-day
pre-construction BUOW survey is recommended. A qualified biologist would conduct
a pre-construction BUOW survey in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing
Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012) within 30 days prior to ground disturbance.
Following the completion of the pre-construction BUOW survey, the biologist would
prepare a letter report summarizing the results of the survey. The report would be
submitted to the City of Fontana prior to initiating any ground disturbance activities.
If no BUOWs or signs of BUOW are observed during the survey and concurrence is
received from City of Fontana DPW and CDFW, project activities may begin and no
further mitigation would be required.
If BUOW or signs of BUOW are observed during the survey, the site would be
considered occupied. The biologist would implement mitigation measure BIO-2 and
contact the City of Fontana DPW and CDFW to assist in the development of avoidance,
minimization and mitigation measures, prior to commencing project activities. The
list of potential measures to avoid and minimize impacts to BUOWs described below
should be implemented.
BUOW Protection Measures
If BUOWs or signs of BUOW are observed during the survey, then the site would be
considered occupied and the biologist shall contact the City of Fontana, DPW and
CDFW to assist in the development of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measures discussed below, prior to commencing project activities.
Planning BUOW Protection Measures
Grading, construction, and other project activities on all grassland habitat will be
delayed until the qualified biologist has implemented burrow exclusion and closure.
No ground-disturbing activities within 50 meters (165 feet) of an active BUOW
burrow will be permitted until burrow exclusion and closure have been implemented.
No destruction of foraging habitat will be permitted until burrow exclusion and
closure have been implemented.
Preconstruction BUOW Protection Measures
Prior to the initiation of grading and construction activities, the biologist shall
implement passive relocation of an active BUOW burrow by installing a one-way door
and then permanently excluding the BUOW from returning once it is confirmed that
no BUOW individuals remain in the burrow. A biological monitor will visit the site
daily to verify that the burrow is empty by monitoring and scoping the burrow.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.4-10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Construction BUOW Protection Measures
A biological monitor will be onsite to monitor any BUOW or signs of BUOW. If any
BUOW are observed then the biologist will consult with the County DPW and CDFW
to determine the appropriate measures.
MM BIO-2: Pre-Construction Breeding Bird Survey
To maintain compliance with the MBTA and Fish and Game Code, and to avoid
impacts or take of migratory non-game breeding birds or their nests, young, and eggs,
the following measures will be implemented. The measures below will help to reduce
direct and indirect impacts caused by construction on migratory non-game breeding
birds to less than significant levels.
• Project activities that will remove or disturb potential nest sites – such as
open ground, trees, shrubs, grasses, or burrows – during the breeding season
would be a potential significant impact if migratory non-game breeding birds
are present. Project activities that will remove or disturb potential nest sites
will be scheduled outside the breeding bird season to avoid potential direct
impacts on migratory non-game breeding birds protected by the MBTA and
Fish and Game Code. The breeding bird nesting season is typically from
February 15 through September 15, but can vary slightly from year to year,
usually depending on weather conditions. Removing all physical features that
could potentially serve as nest sites will also help to prevent birds from
nesting within the project site during the breeding season and during
construction activities.
• If project activities cannot be avoided during February 15 through September
15, a qualified biologist will conduct a pre-construction breeding bird survey
for breeding birds and active nests or potential nesting sites within the limits
of project disturbance. The survey will be conducted at least seven days prior
to the onset of scheduled activities, such as mobilization and staging. It will
end no more than three days prior to vegetation, substrate, and structure
removal and/or disturbance.
• If no breeding birds or active nests are observed during the pre-construction
survey or they are observed and will not be impacted, project activities may
begin and no further mitigation will be required.
• If a breeding bird territory or an active bird nest is located during the pre-
construction survey and will potentially be impacted, the site will be mapped
on engineering drawings and a no-activity buffer zone will be marked
(fencing, stakes, flagging, orange snow fencing, etc.) a minimum of 100 feet in
all directions or 500 feet in all directions for listed bird species and all raptors.
The biologist will determine the appropriate buffer size based on the type of
activities planned near the nest and the type of bird that created the nest.
Some bird species are more tolerant than others of noise and activities
occurring near their nest. This no-activity buffer zone will not be disturbed
until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is inactive, the young
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.4-11
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
have fledged, the young are no longer being fed by the parents, the young have
left the area, or the young will no longer be impacted by project activities.
Periodic monitoring by a biologist will be performed to determine when
nesting is complete. Once the nesting cycle has finished, project activities may
begin within the buffer zone.
• If listed bird species are observed within the project site during the pre-
construction survey, the biologist will immediately map the area and notify
the appropriate resource agency to determine suitable protection measures
and/or mitigation measures and to determine if additional surveys or focused
protocol surveys are necessary. Project activities may begin within the area
only when concurrence is received from the appropriate resource agency.
• Birds or their active nests will not be disturbed, captured, handled or moved.
Active nests cannot be removed or disturbed; however, nests can be removed
or disturbed if determined inactive by a qualified biologist.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant
Special-status plants are not anticipated to occur within the BSA and thus there are anticipated to be
less than significant. With implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, the proposed
project would have less than significant impacts, either directly or through habitat modifications, to
special-status wildlife species and other wildlife species. See Appendix C Biological Resources Data
for a complete list of all plant and wildlife species in the species inventory.
f) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations
or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact
The project site is situated on relatively level ground. No ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial
streams or rivers were identified in the literature review or observed during the biological survey.
Vegetation within the BSA primarily consists of non-native annual grasses and forbs, with the
occurrence of some native species. Some ornamental vegetation that appears to be remnant from
past uses of the property are also present. The land cover types observed within the BSA are
described below.
Land Cover Type Mapping
The three land cover types are briefly described below. None of the cover types are classified as
sensitive natural communities in the CDFW’s California Natural Community List (CDFW, 2022b).
Therefore, there are no anticipated impacts to sensitive natural communities as a result of
construction of the project.
Wild oats and annual brome grasslands
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.4-12
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Wild oats and annual brome grasslands occupy all of the project area’s approximately 6.49 acres. The
remainder of the wild oats and annual brome grasslands within the BSA occur in the undeveloped
areas west of the project site and south of the project site, on the south side of Montgomery Avenue
(Google Earth Pro, 2022). A total of approximately 15.33 acres of wild oats and annual brome
grassland was mapped within the BSA. The non-native annual grassland land cover is dominated by
wall barley and ripgut brome, and is interspersed with patches of other non-native annual grasses
and mostly non-native annual forbs. The project site also contains occasional ornamental species
such as bird of paradise (Caesalpinia gilliesii) and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) that are likely
remnants of the former use of the site.
Disturbed
Disturbed lands consist of exposed soils that have undergone some type of disturbance such as
compaction by vehicle traffic, mowing, ripping, excavation or other type of alteration of the soil
surface. These lands often consist of ruderal vegetation dominated by non-native, weedy species. The
ground is nearly bare, with only a few annual plants germinating after the recent ripping. The project
site appears to be regularly mowed and ripped.
The disturbed land cover was not mapped within the project area. The mapped disturbed area in the
BSA is an approximately 2.01-acre undeveloped area located north of the project site, northwest of
the intersection of Baseline Avenue and Sierra Avenue (Google Earth Pro, 2022).
Developed/ornamental
Developed/ornamental land cover type may generally include man-made structures such as houses,
sidewalks, buildings, parks, water tanks, flood control channels, transportation infrastructure
(bridges and culverts) and ornamental landscaping consisting of exotic or non-native plant species
that occurs in parks, gardens and yards.
Developed/ornamental land cover was not mapped within the project area. The mapped
developed/ornamental areas in the BSA include the house, driveway, and associated landscaped
areas located in the northeast corner of the property that is adjacent to the southern project
boundary, southwest of the intersection of Montgomery Avenue and Sierra Avenue (Google Earth
Pro, 2022). These areas also include the paved roadways, landscaped areas, residential
developments and other associated features that generally surround the project area. Ornamental
trees are those propagated for aesthetic purposes, typically in landscape design projects and gardens.
Approximately 3.42 acres of developed/ornamental areas were mapped in the BSA; this land cover
was not mapped onsite.
The BSA does not support riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Both the literature
review (CDFW, 2022a, b; CNDDB, 2022; CNPS, 2022a,b) and results of the reconnaissance-level field
survey indicate that riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities do not occur on the
project site. Therefore, construction of the project would not result in impacts on any riparian habitat,
or sensitive natural communities identified in local, regional state, or federal plans, policies, or
regulations. No impact would occur and no mitigation is proposed.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.4-13
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
g) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact
Drainages, depressions and other topographic features that would be conducive to wetlands
formation were not identified within the BSA. It was determined by the results of the literature study
and field survey that state or federal protected wetlands and other waters do not occur on the project
site No impact would occur and mitigation is not proposed.
h) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is not within a Essential Connectivity Area, Natural Landscape Block, Potential
Riparian Connection, or Small Natural Area. The nearest Essential Connectivity Area is located
approximately 2.5 miles north from the project. There are approximately three Small Natural Areas
within a one-mile radius of the project (See Figure 4.4-5).
Construction and operation of the proposed project would not interfere with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors. No impact would occur, and mitigation is not proposed.
By contrast, direct impacts are anticipated to native wildlife nursery sites of fossorial species.
UltraSystems biologist Dr. Michael Tuma observed burrows of valley pocket gopher and frequently
observed California ground squirrels during the survey, as well as several burrow complexes
distributed throughout the project site that are likely used by ground squirrels and valley pocket
gopher. These sightings of fossorial mammals and their burrows indicate that there may be resident
populations of these species onsite. Thus, it is likely that fossorial mammal species give birth and
raise young within the burrow complexes located onsite. Ground disturbing activities such as ripping,
bulldozing and excavating would lead to death and injury of fossorial species which do not typically
evacuate their burrows during this type of disturbance.
Although there would likely be direct impacts to nursery sites of fossorial species as a result of
construction of the project, it is not anticipated that these impacts will be significant. The California
Fish and Game Commission classifies both California ground squirrels and valley pocket gophers as
nongame animals, and as such, property owners can legally take these species (Baldwin, 2019; Quinn
et al., 2018). No mitigation is required for the take of either of these fossorial species. The direct
impacts of construction of the project to nursery sites of fossorial species would be less than
significant.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.4-14
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.4-5
CDFW WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.4-15
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
i) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact
The BSA does not contains trees that qualify for protection under the Fontana Code of Ordinances,
Chapter 28, Vegetation Article II, Section 26-28 (City of Fontana, 1993). Therefore, no mitigation is
proposed. The project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
j) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
No Impact
The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Therefore, no mitigation is proposed.
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.5-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
4.5 Cultural Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to in § 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
X
Information from UltraSystems’ Cultural Resources Inventory Report, dated September 29, 2022
(see Appendix D1), prepared for the Midland Plaza Project, City of Fontana has been included within
this section.
4.5.1 Methodology
A cultural resources inventory was requested March 3, 2021, for the Midland Plaza project site
(Figure 4.5-1, Topographic Map) that included a California Historic Resources Inventory System
(CHRIS) records and literature search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at
California State University, Fullerton. The completed SCCIC records search was received August 8,
2022. Additionally, a request was made to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to
conduct a search of their Sacred Lands File (SLF) for potential traditional cultural properties as well
as to provide a list of local Native American tribal organizations to contact. The NAHC request was
made on May 27, 2022, and a reply was received on July 7, 2022; letters were sent to the listed tribes
on July 15, 2022, and follow-up telephone calls were conducted following conclusion of the 30-day
response period on September 14, 2022. Pedestrian field surveys of the project site were conducted
on June 14, 2022, and July 8, 2022.
4.5.2 Existing Conditions
A cultural resources records search was requested from the SCCIC, the local California Historical
Resources Information System facility, on May 11, 2022, and the results were received August 8,
2022. Based on the cultural resource records search, it was determined that no prehistoric and one
historic cultural resource (P-36-010660) had been previously recorded within the project site
boundary. Within the one-half - mile buffer zone, there has been one previously recorded historic-
era cultural resource (P-36-010909). According to the records at the SCCIC, there was one previous
survey report that included a portion of the project site (SB-02621). This was a general survey of the
northern portion of the City of Fontana and did not record any cultural features in the project area.
(See Section 4.1 and Tables 4.1-1 and Table 4.1-2 in Appendix D1.) The pedestrian field surveys
undertaken for this project noted the presence of four concrete structure foundation slabs and light
debris (see Section 4.3 in Appendix D1) but was negative for prehistoric resources.
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.5-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.5-1
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.5-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
4.5.3 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to in § 15064.5?
No Impact
A historical resource is defined in § 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines as any object, building,
structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript determined to be historically significant or
significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social,
political, military, or cultural annals of California. Historical resources are further defined as being
associated with significant events, important persons, or distinctive characteristics of a type, period
or method of construction; representing the work of an important creative individual; or possessing
high artistic values. Resources listed in or determined eligible for the California Register, included in
a local register, or identified as significant in a historic resource survey are also considered as
historical resources under CEQA.
Similarly, the National Register criteria (contained in Code of Federal Regulations Title 36 § 60.4) are
used to evaluate resources when complying with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act. Specifically, the National Register criteria state that eligible resources comprise districts, sites,
buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association, and that (a) are associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) that are associated with the lives
of persons significant in our past; or (c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period,
or method of construction, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (d) that have yielded or
may be likely to yield, information important to history or prehistory.
A substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, as a result of a project or
development, is considered a significant impact on the environment. Substantial adverse change is
defined as physical demolition, relocation, or alteration of a resource or its immediate surroundings
such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired. Direct impacts are
those that cause substantial adverse physical change to a historic property. Indirect impacts are those
that cause substantial adverse change to the immediate surroundings of a historic property, such that
the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.
There is one historic site, CA-SBR-10660H, which consists of concrete foundations slabs of four prior
structures in the northeast quarter of the project parcel related to the past orchard industry. Two of
the features had been previously recorded, and the remaining two were observed and recorded for
this project. (See Section 4.1.1 and Section 4.1.3 in Appendix D1.) It was determined that these
features are not regarded as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) nor
the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), and therefore their demolition during project
construction would not result in an adverse effect.
With no adverse project impacts to the historical resources anticipated, as the historical resources
do not meet criteria to qualify as a significant historic resource, there would be no substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in § 15064.5, and therefore the project
would have no impact in this regard.
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.5-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
An archaeological resource is defined in § 15064.5(c) of the CEQA Guidelines as a site, area or place
determined to be historically significant as defined in § 15064(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, or as a
unique archaeological resource defined in § 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code as an artifact,
object, or site that contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions of
public interest or that has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best example of
its type, or that is directly associated with a scientifically-recognized important prehistoric or historic
event or person.
The past singular use of the project site for agriculture suggests that ground on the project site has
been minimally disturbed, with the native surface soil remaining. The cultural resources
investigation conducted by UltraSystems, which included a CHRIS records search of the project site
and buffer zone, a search of the SLF by the NAHC, and pedestrian field survey, suggests there is a low
potential for undisturbed unique archeological resources exist on the project site.
Based on the SCCIC cultural resources records search, it was determined that there are no prehistoric
and one historic cultural resource previously recorded within the project site boundary. Within the
half-mile buffer zone, there has been one recorded resource, this being an historic resource (see
Table 4.1-1 in Appendix D1).
Based on the cultural resource records search, it was determined that one cultural resource (P-36-
010660) has been previously recorded within the project site boundary. Within the one-half-mile
buffer zone, there has been one previously-recorded historic-era cultural resource (P-36-010909).
The historic site located on the parcel consists of a long, narrow concrete slab oriented east/west
approximately 125 feet long by 25 feet wide; it is associated with a moderate scatter of historic and
modern household refuse consisting primarily of glass and ceramic consumer items, along with a
circa 1921-1942 red clay brick (Shepard 2002: 1 and 3). Based on a review of aerial photos and
government maps, Shepard suggested the structure may have been present between 1941 and 1966
(ibid.: 4). Another survey of the project site in 2003 resulted in the additional recording of a smaller
concrete slab, measuring 44 feet long and 13 feet wide, located 16 feet south of the previously
recorded larger concrete slab recorded by Shepard the year before (Chambers Group 2002:1).
Further research conducted for the Continuation Sheet showed that in 1938 there were only citrus
trees present in the parcel, but by 1952 there was a complex of four long, rectangular, east/west
oriented structures. By 1969, however, no standing structures remained. Other records suggested
the buildings were present by 1946 (Chambers Group 2003:1). The Continuation Sheet states that
“As a result of its lack of historic significance, research potential, and integrity, the site is not
recommended eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register
of Historic Resources, and avoidance during construction activities associated with widening of
Sierra Avenue will not be necessary” (Chambers Group 2003:1).
According to the records at the SCCIC, there was one previous survey report that included a portion
of the project site (SB-02621). This was a general survey of the northern portion of the City of
Fontana and did not record any cultural features in the project area. There have been an additional
six cultural resource studies within the one-half-mile buffer of the project (see Table 4.1-2 and
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.5-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Attachment D in Appendix D1). None of these studies recorded cultural resources in the project
site.
A NAHC SLF search was conducted on and within a half-mile buffer around the project site. The NAHC
letter of July 2, 2022 was negative for the presence of traditional cultural property within this area.
Eighteen representatives of 11 Native American tribes were contacted requesting a reply if they have
knowledge of cultural resources in the area that they wished to share and asking if they had any
questions or concerns regarding the project. These tribes included:
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
• Gabrielino Band of Mission
Indians – Kizh Nation
• Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel
Band of Mission Indians
• Gabrielino / Tongva Nation
• Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
• Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuman Reservation
• San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
• Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Serrano Nation of Mission Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
There have been five direct responses to the outreach contact to date. Nicole A. Raslich,
Archaeological Technician for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians responded by email on July
15, 2022, indicating that the project area was not located within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area.
Therefore, they defer to the other tribes in the area. Christina Conley, Tribal Consultant and
Administrator for the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council responded by email on
July 15, 2022, indicating that the tribe has no comment regarding that area as it reaches into their
sister tribe’s land. Laura Chatterton, Cultural Resource Specialist for the Morongo Band of Mission
Indians responded by email on September 9, 2022 indicating that the project area is within the tribe’s
traditional use area and that the tribe wishes to be included in AB 52 consultation. Jill McCormick,
Historic Preservation Officer for the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation responded by email
on July 19, 2022 indicating that the tribe has no comments on this project and defers to the more
local Tribes and supports their decisions on the project. Ryan Nordness, Cultural Resources Analyst
for the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, responded by email on July 26, 2022 indicating that the
proposed project is not located near any known tribal cultural resources.
Following up on the initial letter and email contacts, telephone calls were conducted on September
14, 2022, to the eight tribal contacts who had not already responded. Two telephone calls were
placed with no direct answer and so messages were left describing the project and requesting a
response. These were to Sandonne Goad, Chairperson of the Gabrieleno / Tongva Nation and Wayne
Walker, Co-Chairperson of the Serrano Nation of Mission Indians. In a call to Andrew Salas,
Chairperson of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, the phone call was not
answered, and a message could not be left due to the answering machine being full. In a call to Lovina
Redner, Acting Chair of the Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians the tribal office receptionist indicated
that the Chair was not in the office and that the best way to reach her is through email (which had
already been done). In a call to Mark Cochrane, Co-Chairperson of the Serrano Nation of Mission
Indians, the phone line was disconnected. There have been no further responses to date from these
tribes.
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.5-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
During the telephone calls of September 14, 2022, Chairperson Anthony Morales of the
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians stated that Baseline Road north of the
project parcel has been a major route of travel with villages and water ways along the way. According
to Chairperson Morales much of this area is natural landscape that has not been developed previously
and is an area of concern. The Chairperson requested Native American and archaeological
monitoring. He also requested that his tribe be included in monitoring. Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department for the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians stated that the tribe defers to San
Manuel. Charles Alvarez, Chairperson of the Gabrieleno-Tongva Nation indicated that he has no
comment on the project. (See contact record table in Attachment C, Appendix D1.)
Pedestrian surveys were conducted on June 14, 2022 and July 8, 2022. The survey consisted of
walking, visually inspecting, and photographing the exposed ground surface of the project site using
standard archaeological procedures and techniques. On June 14, 2022 a segment of the project site
on the southwest corner consisting of approximately 25,600 square feet along Montgomery Avenue
was surveyed. The main body of the parcel consisting of approximately 272,800 square feet at the
southwest corner of Baseline Avenue and Sierra Avenues was surveyed on July 8, 2022. Both areas
of the project site were bordered with a chain-link fence; the smaller segment had a gate opening on
the south off of Montgomery Avenue that allowed access. The project parcel consists of open flat land
with no structures or hardscape. Survey of the ground surface was conducted in north-south
transects 10 meters apart, walking north/south lines.
The soil was fine grain brown soil without sand or gravel, but with numerous small (2-4 inches
diameter) rocks and some large rocks (6-9 inches diameter). The southwest segment had three
clusters of boulders that had been collected into the northwest and southwest corners. The parcel
had been plowed in north/south lines for weed control. Vegetation present consisted of widely
spaced non-native plants including tumble weeds (Russian thistle), bur clover, young mustard and
dried wild oats, mostly along the east side of the parcel; there was also a native sunflower (Helianthus
annus). Throughout the parcel were occasional burrows used by a medium-sized animal consistent
with rabbit dens (or even coyote); also, small burrows consistent with an animal the size of a large
lizard. The only direct evidence of animals was a single dog (Canis familiaris) skull, a small right jaw
fragment possibly of a small dog or fox; there was also a bird kill site indicating the preened of both
pigeons and raptors.
In the southeast area of the northeast quadrant of the parcel, relatively close to Sierra Avenue within
35 feet of the current street edge, four foundations of concrete were observed. The two to the north
consisted of a long rectangular concrete slab (Feature A) with a smaller L-shaped concrete slab
(Feature B) off the northeast corner (Figure 4.3-3 in Appendix D1). To the south of Features A and
B there is a larger (both in length and width) concrete foundation slab (Feature C) that also has an
accompanying smaller rectangular slab (Feature D) off of the southeast corner. Feature A is
approximately 25 feet by 125 feet (3,125 square feet), Feature B is approximately 17 feet by21.5 feet
(365.5 square feet), Feature C is approximately 25 feet by 195 feet (4,875 square feet) and Feature D
is approximately 13.5 by 26 feet (351 square feet) in size. (See Figures 4.3-3, 4.3-4 and Figure 4.3-
5 in Appendix D1.) Features A and B are the same as recorded by Richard Shepard during a 2002
survey of the parcel as CA-SBR-10660H (Shepard 2002; Chambers Group 2003), who suggested they
were associated with the orchard operations here in the 1940s through 1960s. Features C and D are
similar in configuration and materials as the other two. They also are believed to be associated with
the prior orchard operations at the site. The light scatter of historic trash and debris found
surrounding Features A and B by Shepard was also observed during this survey extending to the west
of Features C and D. This consisted of widely scattered concrete and red brick fragments, as well as
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.5-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
household items such as a glass window pane fragment, a white glass jar fragment, a plastic doll head,
and a small clear medicine bottle. These four features can be seen on the project location map
(Attachment A, Figure 2 in Appendix D1). A site record Continuation Sheet to CA-SBR-10660H is
being prepared for Features C and D.
Other structures seen on the current Fontana, California 7.5’ USGS topo map in the southwest corner
of the project were not present and no foundations or debris were observed in that location.
During the survey, the project site was carefully inspected for any indication of human activities
dating to the prehistoric or historic periods (i.e., 50 years or older). The project site has been
surficially disturbed by previous agricultural use as an orchard (see Section 2.2.3.3 in Appendix D1
on historic use). Photographs of the project site were taken during the cultural resources survey.
The result of the pedestrian survey was negative for prehistoric cultural resources. The survey did
observe the two previously recorded concrete foundations identified with CA-SBR-10660H. The
survey also observed and recorded two further concrete foundation slabs here identified as Features
C and D; they will be recorded as part of CA-SBR-10660H on a California Department of Parks and
Recreation (DPR) Continuation Sheet. Like CA-SBR-10660H (Chambers Group 2003:1), Features C
and D are not regarded as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) nor
the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR).
The cultural resources study’s findings suggest that there is a low potential for finding prehistoric
resources. However, concerns over the potential for prehistoric cultural resources to be present,
stated by the San Gabriel Band, expressed the wish that both archaeological and Native American
monitors be present at all ground-disturbing activities during project construction. The historic site
CA-SBR-10660H and two additional concrete foundations observed during the pedestrian survey are
present on the project parcel. It has been determined that these features are not regarded as eligible
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) nor the California Register of Historic
Resources (CRHR), and therefore their demolition during project construction would not result in an
adverse effect. However, their existence suggests the strong potential for the presence of intact
household trash deposits associated with the farm structures below the ground surface.
Mitigation Measure
MM CUL-1 If archaeological resources are discovered during construction activities, the
contractor will halt construction activities in the immediate area and notify the City
of Fontana. The project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology
(“Qualified Archaeologist") who will be notified and afforded the necessary time to
recover, analyze, and curate the find(s). The Qualified Archaeologist will recommend
the extent of archaeological monitoring necessary to ensure the protection of any
other resources that may be in the area. Any identified cultural resources shall be
recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 (A-L) form and filed with the South Central
Coastal Information Center. Construction activities may continue on other parts of the
project site while evaluation and treatment of prehistoric archaeological resources
takes place.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1 above, the project would result in less than
significant impacts to archeological resources.
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.5-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
As previously discussed in Section 4.5.b) above, the project would be built on relatively undisturbed
land except for four farm-related structures with relatively shallow foundations that has not been
previously graded. No human remains have been previously identified or recorded onsite or in the
immediate area.
The project proposes grading activities for the installation of infrastructure including water, sewer,
and utility lines, and for construction of the proposed buildings. Grading would involve new
subsurface disturbance and could result in the unanticipated discovery of unknown human remains,
including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. In the unlikely event of an unexpected
discovery, implementation of mitigation measure CUL-2 would ensure that impacts related to the
accidental discovery of human remains would be less than significant.
California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 specifies the procedures to follow during the unlikely
discovery of human remains. CEQA § 15064.5 describes determining the significance of impacts on
archeological and historical resources. California Public Resources Code § 5097.98 stipulates the
notification process during the discovery of Native American human remains, descendants,
disposition of human remains, and associated grave goods.
Mitigation Measure
MM CUL-2 If human remains are encountered during excavations associated with this project,
all work will stop within a 30-foot radius of the discovery and the San Bernardino
County Coroner will be notified (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The
Coroner will determine whether the remains are recent human origin or older Native
American ancestry. If the coroner, with the aid of the supervising archaeologist,
determines that the remains are prehistoric, they will contact the NAHC. The NAHC
will be responsible for designating the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD
(either an individual or sometimes a committee) will be responsible for the ultimate
disposition of the remains, as required by § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety
Code. The MLD will make recommendations within 24 hours of their notification by
the NAHC. These recommendations may include scientific removal and
nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native
American burials (§ 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code).
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With adherence to applicable codes and regulations protecting cultural resources and with
implementation of Mitigation Measure MM CUL-2 above, the proposed project would result in less
than significant impacts to human remains.
❖ SECTION 4.6 – ENERGY ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.6-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
4.6 Energy
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
X
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during
project construction or operation?
Less than Significant Impact
According to CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(d), “uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and
continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources
makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts
(such as highway improvement that provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally
commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental
accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated
to assure that such current consumption is justified.” Therefore, the purpose of this analysis is to
identify any significant irreversible environmental effects of project implementation that cannot be
avoided. Energy-efficient features, including insulated and glazed windows and Low-E coating on
windows, would be incorporated into building design to comply with the provisions of the California
Green Building Code, Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations.
Sustainability
Low Impact Development (LID) features such as vegetated swales, tree-based infiltration, and inert
bioswales are included throughout the project site to protect water quality. The project includes
environmentally sustainable design features that would result in a reduction in energy usage, water
usage, and waste generation and in doing so would also reduce project-related greenhouse gas
emissions,
The project proposes the use of following sustainability features:
• Will be used:
o Energy Star appliances.
o Occupancy sensing lighting controls.
o LED lighting – interior and exterior with sensors and/or timers.
o Low flow plumbing fixtures.
❖ SECTION 4.6 – ENERGY ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.6-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
o Smart HVAC Systems.
o Water efficient fixtures.
o Drought resistant landscaping, low flow irrigation system.
• Could be used
o Electrochromic glass – subject to final design.
o Variable frequency drives on fans and pumps – subject to final design.
o Structural insulated panels – subject to pricing and availability.
o low emitting materials – adhesives and sealants, paints and coatings, flooring
systems, composite wood, and/or agrifiber products – as required by code.
Construction
The following forms of energy are anticipated to be expended during project construction:
• Diesel fuel for off-road equipment, measured in gallons.
• Electricity to deliver water for use in dust control, measured in kilowatt-hours [kWh].
• Motor vehicle fuel for worker commuting, materials delivery and waste disposal, measured
in gallons.
Electricity
Electricity is supplied to the project site by Southern California Edison Company (SCE), which
provides electricity to the City of Fontana (Stantec, et al., 2018b, p. 10.9). SCE provides electricity to
the project site from existing electrical service lines.
During project construction, energy would be consumed in the form of electricity associated with the
conveyance and treatment of water used for dust control and, on a limited basis, powering lights,
electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power.
Due to the fact that electricity usage associated with lighting and construction equipment that utilizes
electricity is not easily quantifiable or readily available, the estimated electricity usage during project
construction is speculative.
Lighting used during project construction would comply with California Code of Regulations (CCR)
Title 24 standards/requirements, such as wattage limitations. This compliance would ensure that
electricity use during project construction would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary use of energy. Lighting would be used in compliance with applicable City of Fontana
Municipal Code requirements to create enough light for safety.
Transportation Energy
Project construction would consume energy in the form of petroleum-based fuels associated with the
use of offroad construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction workers’ travel
to and from the project site, and trucks hauling solid waste from and delivering building materials to
the project site.
❖ SECTION 4.6 – ENERGY ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.6-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
During project construction, trucks and construction equipment would be required to comply with
the ARB’s anti-idling regulations. ARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets regulation would also
apply (ARB, 2016). Vehicles driven to or from the project site (delivery trucks, construction employee
vehicles, etc.) are subject to fuel efficiency standards established by the federal government.
Therefore, project construction activities regarding fuel use would not result in wasteful, inefficient,
or unnecessary use of energy.
Operation
Energy would be consumed during project operations related to lighting and equipment operation,
space and water heating, water conveyance, solid waste disposal, and vehicle trips of employees and
customers. Project operation energy usage, which was estimated by CalEEMod as part of the
greenhouse gas emissions analysis (refer to Section 4.3), is shown in Table 4.6-1.
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimated by CalEEMod Version 2020.4.014 were used in calculating
consumption of transportation fuels during project operations. While a variety of factors govern the
relationship between VMT and fuel energy, in general, an increase in VMT results from an increase
in motor vehicle energy use.
The following forms of energy would be expended during project operation:
• Electricity for the proposed commercial uses, street lighting, space and water heating,
and conveyance and treatment of water.
• Gasoline and diesel fuel for onroad motor vehicles.
Estimated annual project fuel, natural gas and electricity use are shown in Table 4.6-1.
The project would be designed in compliance with the City of Fontana’s energy goals and policies,
state and federal energy standards. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact
in this regard.
Table 4.6-1
ESTIMATED PROJECT OPERATIONAL ENERGY USE
Energy Type Units Value
Onroad Motor
Vehicle Travel
(Fuel)a
Gallons gasoline/year 266,673
Gallons diesel/year 36,517
Natural Gas Use 1,000 BTU per year 2,544,507
Electricity Use Kilowatt-hours per year 843,226
aOnroad Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption calculated by UltraSystems using
EMFAC2021(v1.0.2) emissions inventory web platform tool (ARB, 2022) and
CalEEMod (2020.4.0) (CAPCOA, 2022); see Appendix B1.
14 See Section 4.3.7 for a description of the CalEEMod software.
❖ SECTION 4.6 – ENERGY ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.6-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Natural gas use and electricity use calculated by UltraSystems with
CalEEMod (2020.4.0).
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant Impact
Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6, of the
California Code of Regulations) were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to
reduce California's energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow
consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.
Compliance with Title 24 will result in decrease in GHG emissions.
The Title 24 standards are updated on a three-year schedule, with the most current 2022 standards
adopted on August 11, 2021. In December, 2021, it was approved by the California Building
Standards Commission for inclusion into the California Building Standards Code. The Building Energy
Efficiency Standards (Energy Code) apply to newly constructed buildings, additions, and alterations.
They are a vital pillar of California’s climate action plan. The 2022 Energy Code will produce benefits
to support the state’s public health, climate, and clean energy goals. The 2022 Energy Code
encourages efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electric-ready requirements for new homes,
expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, strengthens ventilation standards, and
more. Buildings whose permit applications are applied for on or after January 1, 2023, must comply
with the 2022 Energy Code. Public Resources Code §§ 25402 subdivisions (a)-(b) and 25402.1
emphasize the importance of building design and construction flexibility by requiring the CEC to
establish performance standards, in the form of an “energy budget” in terms of the energy
consumption per square foot of floor space (CEC, 2022).
The provisions of Title 24, Part 6 apply to all buildings for which an application for a building permit
or renewal of an existing permit is required by law. They regulate design and construction of the
building envelope, space-conditioning and water-heating systems, indoor and outdoor lighting
systems of buildings, and signs located either indoors or outdoors. Title 24, Part 6 specifies
mandatory, prescriptive and performance measures, all designed to optimize energy use in buildings
and decrease overall consumption of energy to construct and operate residential and nonresidential
buildings. Mandatory measures establish requirements for manufacturing, construction, and
installation of certain systems, equipment, and building components that are installed in buildings.
Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11 code) commonly referred to as the
CALGreen Code, is a statewide mandatory construction code developed and adopted by the California
Building Standards Commission and the Department of Housing and Community Development. The
CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply with mandatory
measures under the topics of planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency/conservation,
material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality. CALGreen also provides
❖ SECTION 4.6 – ENERGY ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.6-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
voluntary tiers and measures that local governments may adopt that encourage or require additional
measures in the five green building topics.
The proposed project would be designed with energy-efficient features, including insulated and
glazed windows and low-E coating on windows, and ENERGY STAR appliances in restaurants, and
will be built in compliance with the California Green Building Standards (CAL Green) Code (California
Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11).
City of Fontana General Plan
Chapter 12, Sustainability and Resilience, of the City of Fontana General Plan focuses on sustainability
and resilience on resource efficiency and planning for climate change. It includes policies for new
development promoting energy-efficient development in Fontana, meeting state energy efficiency
goals for new construction, promoting green building through guidelines, awards and nonfinancial
incentives, and continuing to promote and implement best practices to conserve water (Stantec, et
al., 2018b, p. 10.9, 12.5).
Further, the roadway network in the vicinity of the project site is served by Omnitrans, the public
transit agency serving the San Bernardino Valley. Omnitrans has 10 bus routes in the city (Stantec,
et al., 2018b, p. 9.7). Employees and visitors would be able to access the project site via the public
transit system, thereby reducing transportation-related fuel demand.
The proposed project would adhere to applicable federal, state, and local requirements for energy
efficiency, including Title 24 standards and General Plan Chapter 12, Sustainability and Resilience.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.7-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
4.7 Geology and Soils
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1 B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or
property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
X
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.7-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
Less than Significant Impact
The Alquist-Priolo Zones Special Studies Act defines active faults as those that have experienced
surface displacement or movement during the last 11,000 years. Although the project site is located
in the seismically active region of Southern California, the project site is not located within an Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Hazard Zone (refer to Figure 4.7-1 below). The nearest Alquist-
Priolo earthquake fault zone is located approximately five miles northeast of the project site.
However, the project site is located within an unnamed Quaternary fault. Refer to Figure 4.7-2
below). A Quaternary fault is one that has been recognized at the surface and that has moved in the
past 1.6 million years. That places fault movement within the Quaternary Period, which covers the
last 2.6 million years (USGS). The potential for damage due to surface rupture of a known active fault
is very unlikely. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be
required.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact
The project site is in a seismically active region. Known active faults in the region include the San
Jacinto Fault Zone, which is approximately two miles wide near the project site and approximately
five miles east of the project site, the Etiwanda Avenue Fault approximately five miles to the
northwest. and the San Andreas Fault approximately ten miles to the northeast. Strong ground
shaking is likely to occur during the design lifetime of the proposed project and could pose risks to
people onsite and to the buildings in the project.
The project applicant would have a geotechnical investigation conducted for the proposed project
before the preparation of project construction drawings and before the beginning of site grading.
Requirements for geotechnical investigations are included in California Building Code (CBC) § 1803,
Geotechnical Investigations. Testing of samples from subsurface investigations is required, such as
from borings or test pits. Studies must be done as needed to evaluate slope stability, soil strength,
position, and adequacy of load-bearing soils, the effect of moisture variation on load-bearing capacity,
compressibility, liquefaction, differential settlement, and expansiveness. Geotechnical reports are
required for the issuance of grading permits under CBC Appendix J, Grading, § J104. CBC § 1705.6
sets forth requirements for geotechnical inspection and observation during and after grading. The
CBC is updated on a three-year cycle; the 2019 CBC took effect on January 1, 2020. Compliance with
the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation report would be required as a condition of
the grading permit to be issued by the City of Fontana.
Structures for human occupancy must be designed to meet or exceed 2019 CBC standards for
earthquake resistance. The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including
occupancy type, the types of soil and rock on site, and the strength of ground motion with a specified
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.7-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.7-1
ALQUIST PRIOLO FAULT ZONES
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.7-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.7-2
REGIONALLY ACTIVE FAULTS
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.7-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
probability at the site. The geotechnical investigation for the project would calculate seismic design
parameters, pursuant to CBC requirements, that must be used in the design of the proposed building.
The proposed project would comply with applicable state and local regulations, including the current
California Building Standards Code (Title 24, CCR), which would minimize the potential risks
associated with strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and
no mitigation would be required.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than Significant Impact
Liquefaction is the sudden decrease in the strength of cohesionless soils due to dynamic or cyclic
shaking. Saturated soils behave temporarily as a viscous fluid (liquefaction) and consequently lose
their capacity to support the structures built on them. The potential for liquefaction decreases with
increasing clay and gravel content but increases as the ground acceleration and duration of shaking
increase. Liquefaction potential has been found to be the greatest where the groundwater level and
loose sands occur within 50 feet of the ground surface.
The project site is not in an area identified as susceptible to liquefaction by the City of Fontana Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP; Fontana, 2017). The geotechnical investigation report to be prepared
for the proposed project would assess liquefaction potential in soils under the project site and
provide any needed recommendations to minimize liquefaction hazards to the proposed building.
Project development would not exacerbate liquefaction hazards, and impacts would be less than
significant. No mitigation would be required.
iv) Landslides?
No Impact
Landslides occur when the stability of the slope changes from a stable to an unstable condition.
A change in the stability of a slope can be caused by several factors, acting together or alone. Natural
causes of landslides include groundwater (pore water) pressure acting to destabilize the slope, loss
of vegetative structure, erosion of the toe of a slope by rivers or ocean waves, weakening of a slope
through saturation by snow melt or heavy rains, earthquakes adding loads to barely stable slopes,
earthquake-caused liquefaction destabilizing slopes, and volcanic eruptions.
The project site is not located within or adjacent to an area identified as susceptible to landslides in
the City of Fontana LHMP (Fontana, 2018). Additionally, the topography within the project site is
relatively flat and there are no steep slopes or hills on the project site; the nearest hills are the San
Gabriel Mountains, the foothills of which begin approximately 2.5 miles north of the project site
(Google Earth Pro, 2021). Due to the relatively level nature of the site and surrounding areas, the
potential for landslides to occur at the project site is considered negligible. Therefore, project
development would not exacerbate landslide hazards and no impact would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.7-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than Significant Impact
Construction
The project site is currently undeveloped and construction on the project site could lead to
substantial soil erosion and loss of topsoil within and adjacent to the project site. Section 402 of the
federal Clean Water Act (CWA), as well as the state Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-
Cologne) requires construction projects that may potentially result in soil erosion to implement best
management practices (BMPs) to eliminate or reduce sediment and other pollutants in stormwater
runoff. If one or more acres of soil would be disturbed, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit is required to be obtained. NPDES permits establish enforceable limits on
discharges, require effluent monitoring, designate reporting requirements, and require construction
and post-construction BMPs to eliminate or reduce point and nonpoint source discharges of
pollutants, including soil (SWRCB, 2021).
As further detailed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project applicant would be
required to obtain coverage under the Statewide General Construction Permit, issued by the State
Water Resources Control Board, prior to project construction. The General Construction Permit
would require the Legally Responsible Person (LRP), such as the project owner, to prepare a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to ground-disturbing construction activities to
identify construction BMPs to eliminate or reduce soil erosion and pollutants in stormwater, and
non-stormwater discharges (including soil erosion by wind) to stormwater sewer systems and other
drainages. Prior to NPDES permit issuance, the LRP would upload Permit Registration Documents
(PRDs) to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) online Stormwater Multi-Application
and Report Tracking System (SMARTS). PRDs include a Notice of Intent (NOI), site map, risk
assessment, SWPPP, post-construction water balance, annual fee, and signed certification statement
by the LRP attesting to the validity of the information. These preventive measures during
construction are intended to eliminate or reduce soil erosion. Therefore, construction-related
impacts regarding soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
Operation
The project site is located within an area that is highly urbanized and has flat topography. Project
operation is not expected to generate substantial soil erosion because at project completion the
entire site would be developed with buildings, pavement and landscaped areas. The project applicant
would be required to have a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) developed for the proposed
project in accordance with Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. RB8-2010-
0036. The WQMP would specify source control BMPs and Low-Impact Development BMPs that the
project would use to minimize pollution affecting municipal storm drainage systems, including soil
erosion.
Structural source control BMPs reduce the potential for pollutants to enter runoff; examples include
roof runoff controls, efficient irrigation, and storm drain system signage. Low-impact development
BMPs that may apply to the proposed project include minimizing impervious areas; disconnecting
impervious areas; infiltration; stormwater harvest and use; and bioretention and biofiltration. As a
result, the potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.7-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than Significant Impact
The potential impact of landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse is
discussed below.
Landslides
Project development would not exacerbate hazards arising from landslides, as substantiated above
in Section 4.7.a.iv.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is the rapid downslope movement of surface sediment in a fluid-like flow, due to
liquefaction in a subsurface layer. The geotechnical investigation report will assess liquefaction
potential in subsurface site soils and provide any needed recommendations to minimize hazards
from both liquefaction and seismic ground failure consequent to liquefaction (lateral spreading).
Project design and project construction would implement any relevant recommendations. Therefore,
impacts from lateral spreading would be less than significant.
Subsidence
The major cause of ground subsidence is the excessive withdrawal of groundwater. Soils with high
silt or clay content are particularly susceptible to subsidence. The project site is in an area of land
subsidence mapped by the US Geological Survey (USGS, 2021). The project geotechnical investigation
would assess the potential for ground subsidence onsite and would provide any needed
recommendations. Project design and project construction would implement any relevant
recommendations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Liquefaction
As detailed above, the project site is not in an area identified in the City of Fontana LHMP as
susceptible to liquefaction. The project geotechnical investigation would assess liquefaction in soils
under the project site and provide any needed recommendations to minimize liquefaction hazards
to the proposed building. Impacts would be less than significant.
Collapse
Collapsible soils consist of loose, dry, low-density materials that collapse and compact with the
addition of water or excessive loading. These soils are distributed throughout the southwestern
United States, specifically in areas of young alluvial fans, debris flow sediments, and wind-blown
sediment deposits. Soil collapse occurs when the land surface is saturated at depths greater than
those reached by typical rain events. This saturation eliminates the clay bonds holding the soil grains
together. Similar to expansive soils, collapsible soils result in structural damage such as cracking of
the foundation, floors, and walls. The project geotechnical investigation will assess the suitability of
site soils for supporting the proposed building. The geotechnical investigation report is expected to
recommend the removal of soils unsuitable for supporting the building and replacement with
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.7-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
engineered, moistened, and compacted fill soils. Impacts would be less than significant after the
implementation of recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil as defined in Table 18-1 B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or
property?
Less than Significant Impact
Expansive soils shrink and swell with changes in soil moisture. Soil moisture may change from
landscape irrigation, rainfall, and utility leakage. Repeated changes in soil volume due to water
content fluctuations may compromise structure foundations. Expansive soils are commonly very
fine-grained with high to very high percentages of clay. Design provisions such as adequate
reinforcements, deeper foundations or other measures may help alleviate the effects of soil
expansion but may not completely eliminate the problem.
Expansive soils could be present under the project site, and project development could subject people
and the proposed building to hazards arising from expansive soils.
The proposed project would comply with applicable state and local regulations, including the current
California Building Standards Code (Title 24, CCR), which would minimize the potential risks
associated with expansive soils. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation
would be required.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
No Impact
The project site would connect to the City of Fontana’s existing sewer system; the project would not
use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. For this reason, no impacts associated
with septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
The project site boundary is underlain by alluvial gravel and sand of valley areas (Qa), composed of
boulder gravel near mountains, grading outward to finer gravel and sand (Dibblee and Minch, 2003).
Several fossil localities in the project region represented in the collection of the Los Angeles County
Natural History Museum are listed below in Table 4.7-1. Fossils could be present in site soils. Project
site preparation, grading, and construction could damage fossils, and this impact would be
significant. In the event of an unexpected discovery, implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1
would ensure that impacts to paleontological resources or unique geologic features are not
significantly affected.
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.7-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Table 4.7-1
FOSSIL LOCALITIES IN THE PROJECT REGION
Locality No. Location Depth Formation Taxa
LACM VP1 4619 Wineville Ave, Eastvale, CA 100 ft bgs3 Unknown Formation
(Pleistocene)
Mammoth
(Mammuthus)
LACM VP1 7811 W of Orchard Park, Chino
Valley
9-11 ft
bgs3
Unknown formation
(eolian, tan silt;
Pleistocene
Whip snake
(Masticophis)
LACM VP1 7268,
LACM VP1 7271
Sundance Condominiums, S
of Los Serranos Golf Course Unknown Unknown formation
(Pleistocene) Horse (Equus)
LACM VP1
Hill on the east side of
sewage disposal plant; 1
mile N-NW of Corona
Unknown Unknown formation
(Pleistocene) Bovidae
LACM VP1
Junction of Jackrabbit Trail
& Gilman Springs Road; San
Jacinto Valley
Unknown
Unnamed Formation
(Pleistocene, gravel
pit)
Horse Family
(Equidae)
Note: 1. VP, Vertebrate Paleontology; 2. IP, Invertebrate Paleontology; 3. bgs, below ground surface.
Source: Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLA)
Mitigation Measure
MM GEO-1 Before the beginning of project construction, the project applicant shall retain a
qualified paleontologist to remain on-call for the duration of project ground
disturbance activities. If paleontological resources are uncovered during project
construction, the contractor shall halt construction activities in the immediate area
and notify the City. The on-call paleontologist shall be notified and afforded the
necessary time and funds to recover and analyze the finds, and curate the find(s) with
an accredited repository for paleontological resources. Subsequently, the monitor
shall remain onsite for the duration of the ground disturbance to ensure the
protection of any other resources that are found during construction on the project
site.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With the implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1 above, potential impacts related to
paleontological resources would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.8-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X
4.8.1 Background Information on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Life on earth depends on energy coming from the sun. About half the light reaching Earth's
atmosphere passes through the air and clouds to the surface, where it is absorbed and then radiated
upward in the form of infrared heat. About 90 percent of this heat is then absorbed by carbon dioxide
(CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHG) and radiated back toward the surface, which is warmed to
a life-supporting average of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (NASA, 2018).
Human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century, the burning of fossil
fuels such as coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2. This happens because
the coal or oil burning process combines carbon in the fuel with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a
lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has increased
concentrations of GHGs (NASA, 2018).
GHGs are defined under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32) as
CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and
sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).15
Associated with each GHG species is a “global warming potential” (GWP), which is a value used to
compare the abilities of different GHGs to trap heat in the atmosphere. GWPs are based on the
heat-absorbing ability of each gas relative to that of CO2, as well as the decay rate of each gas (the
amount removed from the atmosphere over a given number of years). The GWPs of CH4 and N2O are
25 and 298, respectively (GMI, 2019). “Carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e) emissions are calculated
by weighting each GHG compound’s emissions by its GWP and then summing the products. HFCs,
PFCs, and SF6 would not be emitted in significant amounts project sources, so they are not discussed
further.
Worldwide, California is responsible for approximately two percent of the world’s CO2 emissions
(CEC, 2006a). The California Energy Commission (CEC) estimates that California is the second largest
emitter of GHG emissions in the United States. According to the California Air Resources Board
(ARB), in 2019, GHG emissions from statewide emitting activities were 418.2 million metric tons of
15 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_32_bill_20060927_chaptered.pdf.
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.8-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
CO2 equivalent (MMTCO2e, or million tons CO2e), 7.2 MMTCO2e lower than 2018 levels and almost 13
MMTCO2e below the 2020 GHG limit16 of 431 MMTCO2e. Since the peak level in 2004, California’s
GHG emissions have generally followed a decreasing trend. In 2016, statewide GHG emissions
dropped below the 2020 GHG limit and have remained below it since then (ARB, 2021).
Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas consisting of molecules made up
of two oxygen atoms and one carbon atom. CO2 is produced when an organic carbon compound (such
as wood) or fossilized organic matter (such as coal, oil, or natural gas) is burned in the presence of
oxygen. Since the industrial revolution began in the mid-1700s, industrial activities have increased
in scale and distribution. Prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 concentrations were stable at a range
of 275 to 285 parts per million (ppm) (IPCC, 2007a). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s Earth System Research Laboratory indicates that global concentration of CO2 was
413.67 ppm in March 2020 (ESRL, 2020). These concentrations of CO2 exceed by far the natural range
over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores.
Methane (CH4). Methane is a colorless, odorless non-toxic gas consisting of molecules made up of
four hydrogen atoms and one carbon atom. CH4 is combustible, and is the main constituent of natural
gas, a fossil fuel. CH4 is released when organic matter decomposes in low oxygen environments.
Natural sources include wetlands, swamps and marshes, termites, and oceans. Anthropogenic
sources include the mining of fossil fuels and transportation of natural gas, digestive processes in
ruminant animals such as cattle, rice paddies, and the buried waste in landfills. Over the last 50 years,
human activities such as growing rice, raising cattle, using natural gas, and mining coal have added
to the atmospheric concentration of CH4. Other anthropogenic sources include fossil-fuel combustion
and biomass burning.
Nitrous Oxide (N2O). Nitrous oxide is a colorless, non-flammable gas with a sweetish odor,
commonly known as “laughing gas,” and sometimes used as an anesthetic. N2O is naturally produced
in the oceans and in rainforests (USEPA, 2019b). Manmade sources of N2O include the use of
fertilizers in agriculture, nylon and nitric acid production, cars with catalytic converters and the
burning of organic matter. Concentrations of N2O also began to rise at the beginning of the industrial
revolution.
4.8.2 Regulatory Setting
GHGs are regulated at the national, state, and air basin level; each agency has a different degree of
control. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulates at the national level;
the California Air Resources Board (ARB) regulates at the state level; and the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) regulates at the air basin level in the project area.
4.8.2.1 Federal Regulations
The USEPA collects several types of GHG emissions data. These data help policy makers, businesses,
and the USEPA track GHG emissions trends and identify opportunities for reducing emissions and
increasing efficiency. The USEPA has been maintaining a national inventory of GHG emissions since
1990 and in 2009 established mandatory reporting of GHG emissions from large GHG emissions
sources.
16 A statewide limit set by executive order and statute; see Section 4.8.2.
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.8-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
EPA is also getting GHG reductions through partnerships and initiatives, evaluating policy options,
costs, and benefits, advancing the science, partnering internationally and with states, localities, and
tribes, and helping communities adapt.
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards
In May 2010, the USEPA finalized the first-ever national GHG emissions standards under the Clean
Air Act, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) finalized Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (USEPA,
2021a). The 2010 CAFE standards were for model year 2012 through 2016 light-duty vehicles. on
April 30, 2020, NHTSA and USEPA amended the CAFE and GHG emissions standards for passenger
cars and light trucks and established new less stringent standards, covering model years 2021
through 2026 (USEPA, 2021b). On April 1, 2022, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg unveiled
new CAFE standards for 2024-2026 model year passenger cars and light-duty trucks. These new
standards will require new vehicles sold in the US to average at least 40 miles per gallon.
Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule
On September 27, 2019, the USEPA and the NHTSA published the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient
(SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program (ARB, 2020a), revoked California’s authority
to set its own GHG emissions standards and set zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandates in California.
However, this regulation was repealed on December 21, 2021 by the Biden administration (NHTSA,
2021).
4.8.2.2 State Regulations
Executive Order (EO) S 3-05
On June 1, 2005, the governor issued EO S 3-05, which set the following GHG emission reduction
targets:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels;
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
To meet these targets, the Climate Action Team (CAT)17 prepared a report to the Governor in 2006
that contained recommendations and strategies to help ensure that the targets in EO S-3-05 are met.
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32)
In 2006, the California State Legislature enacted the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,
also known as AB 32. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHG emissions in California. GHGs, as defined under
AB 32, include CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. AB 32 requires that GHGs emitted in California be
reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The ARB is the state agency charged with monitoring and
regulating sources of emissions of GHGs that cause global warming. AB 32 also required that by
January 1, 2008, the ARB determine what the statewide GHG emissions level was in 1990, and it must
17 The Climate Action Team (CAT) members are state agency secretaries and the heads of agencies, boards, and
departments, led by the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). They coordinate
statewide efforts to implement global warming emission reduction programs and the state's Climate Adaptation
Strategy.
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.8-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
approve a statewide GHG emissions limit, so it may be applied to the 2020 benchmark. The ARB
approved a 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 million metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e), on December
6, 2007, in its Staff Report. Therefore, in 2020, emissions in California were required to be at or below
427 MMTCO2e.
Under the “business as usual or (BAU)” scenario established in 2008, statewide emissions were
increasing at a rate of approximately one percent per year, as noted below. It was estimated that the
2020 estimated BAU of 596 MMTCO2e would have required a 28 percent reduction to reach the 1990
level of 427 MMTCO2e.
Climate Change Scoping Plan
The Scoping Plan released by the ARB in 2008 (ARB, 2008) outlined the state’s strategy to achieve
the AB 32 goals. This Scoping Plan, developed by ARB in coordination with the CAT, proposed a
comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California, improve the
environment, reduce dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs,
and enhance public health. It was adopted by ARB at its December 2008 meeting. According to the
Scoping Plan, the 2020 target of 427 MMTCO2e required the reduction of 169 MMTCO2e, or
approximately 28.3 percent, from the state’s projected 2020 BAU emissions level of 596 MMTCO2e.
In August 2011, the Scoping Plan was re-approved by the Board and included the Final Supplement
to the Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document (ARB, 2011). This document includes expanded
analysis of project alternatives and updates the 2020 emission projections by considering updated
economic forecasts. The updated 2020 BAU estimate of 507 MMTCO2e yielded that only a 16 percent
reduction below the estimated new BAU levels would be necessary to return to 1990 levels by 2020.
The 2011 Scoping Plan expanded the list of nine Early Action Measures into a list of 39 Recommended
Actions contained in Appendices C and E of the Plan.
In May 2014, ARB developed, in collaboration with the CAT, the First Update to California’s Climate
Change Scoping Plan (Update) (ARB, 2014), which showed that California was on track to meet the
near-term 2020 GHG limit and was well positioned to maintain and continue reductions beyond 2020
as required by AB 32. In accordance with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, ARB has mostly transitioned to the use of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s
(IPCC’s) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)’s 100-year GWP (IPCC, 2007b) in its climate change
programs. ARB recalculated the 1990 GHG emissions level with the AR4 GWPs to be 431 MMTCO2e;
therefore the 2020 GHG emissions limit established in response to AB 32 is now slightly higher than
the 427 MMTCO2e in the initial Scoping Plan.
In November 2017, ARB published the 2017 Scoping Plan (ARB, 2017b) which builds upon the
former Scoping Plan and Update by outlining priorities and recommendations for the state to achieve
its target of a 40 percent reduction in GHGs by 2030, compared to 1990 levels. The major elements
of the framework proposed are enhancement of the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) and the
Low Carbon Fuel Standard; a Mobile Source Strategy, Sustainable Freight Action Plan, Short-Lived
Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, Sustainable Communities Strategies, and a Post-2020
Cap-and-Trade Program; a 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions from the refinery sector; and an
Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan.
In May, 2022, ARB released its draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update for public review (ARB, 2022). The
2022 Scoping Plan, once final, will be a major milestone, laying out how the fifth largest economy in
the world can get to carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier (Ibid., p. 16).
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.8-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) (Scoping Action E-3)
The California Energy Commission estimates that in 2000 about 12 percent of California’s retail
electric load was met with renewable resources. Renewable energy includes (but is not limited to)
wind, solar, geothermal, small hydroelectric, biomass, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas.
California’s current RPS is intended to increase that share to 33 percent by 2020. Increased use of
renewables will decrease California’s reliance on fossil fuels, thus reducing emissions of GHGs from
the electricity sector. Most recently, Governor Brown signed into legislation Senate Bill (SB) 350 in
October 2015, which requires retail sellers and publicly-owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their
electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2030.
Senate Bill 375 (SB 375)
SB 375 passed the Senate on August 30, 2008, and was signed by the Governor on September 30,
2008. Per SB 375, the transportation sector is the largest contributor of GHG emissions and
contributes approximately 45 percent of the GHG emissions in California, with automobiles and light
trucks alone contributing almost 30 percent. SB 375 indicates that GHGs from automobiles and light
trucks can be reduced by new vehicle technology. However, significant reductions from changed land
use patterns and improved transportation also are necessary. SB 375 states, “Without improved land
use and transportation policy, California will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32.” SB 375 does
the following: (1) requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable community
strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions; (2) aligns planning for
transportation and housing; and (3) creates specified incentives for the implementation of the
strategies.
Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, the Governor issued EO B-30-15, which added an interim target of GHG emissions
reductions to help ensure that the state meets its 80 percent reduction by 2050, as set in EO S-3-05.
The interim target is reducing GHG emissions by 40 percent by 2030. It also directs state agencies to
update the Scoping Plan, update the Adaptation Strategy every three years, and take climate change
into account in their planning and investment strategies. Additionally, it requires the state’s Five-
Year Infrastructure Plan to take current and future climate change impacts into account in all
infrastructure projects.
Title 24
Although not originally intended to reduce GHGs, California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6:
California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was
first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption.
The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new
energy efficient technologies and methods. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity;
therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions.
The latest 2022 standard became effective on January 1, 2023, and encourages efficient electric heat
pumps, establishes electric-ready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and
battery storage standards, strengthens ventilation standards, and more (CEC, 2022).
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.8-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
4.8.2.3 Regional and Local Regulations
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
In the process of fulfilling its mandate to reduce local air pollution, the SCAQMD has promoted a few
programs to combat climate change, including energy conservation, low-carbon fuel technologies,
renewable energy, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction programs, and market incentive
programs.
In 2011, the SCAQMD Board adopted an Air Quality-Related Energy Policy (SCAQMD, 2011) that
integrates air quality, energy, and climate change issues in a coordinated and consolidated manner.
The Energy Policy presents policies to guide and coordinate SCAQMD efforts and actions to support
the policies.
San Bernardino Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan
The County of San Bernardino is committed to planning sustainably for the future while ensuring a
livable, equitable, and economically vibrant community. Planning sustainably includes
acknowledging the local role in climate change and how the County can mitigate its greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions and prepare for (i.e., adapt to) anticipated climate-related changes. The County
adopted its first Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan (GHGRP) in September 2011 (County of
San Bernardino et al., 2011). The GHGRP provided the GHG emissions inventory for the year 2007,
and the target of reducing GHG emissions 15 percent below 2007 levels by 2020. The County has
implemented strategies to reduce its GHG emissions identified in the 2011 GHGRP, which has helped
the County meet its 2020 GHG reduction targets. Since the adoption of County’s GHGRP, the State has
enacted new climate change regulations, most notably Senate Bill (SB) 32, which provides statewide
targets to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (LSA Associates, Inc., 2021,
p. 7).
The State has set goals for reducing GHG emissions by 2020, 2030, and 2045 through AB 32, SB 32,
SB-100, EO-B-55-18. The State passed an executive order (EO-B-55-18), which mandates statewide
net carbon neutrality by 2045. In the interim, the State has also provided a target of 40 percent below
2020 levels by 2030. The County has identified this target as a 40 percent below 2020 emission levels
by 2030. The 2030 target will put the County on a path toward the State’s long-term goal to achieve
zero net carbon emissions by 2045 (LSA Associates, Inc., 2021, p. 22). As shown in Table 4.8-1, in
2030, San Bernardino County would need to reduce its emissions to 1,754,098 MTCO2e to meet the
GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 2020 levels.
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.8-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Table 4.8-1
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY GHG REDUCTION TARGETS FOR COUNTYWIDE EMISSIONS
Strategy Target
2020 Target 15 percent below 2007 baseline levels
2020 Emissions Goal (MTCO2e) 5,315,000
2030 Target 40 percent below 2020 BAU levels
2030 Emissions Goal (MTCO2e) 1,754,098
Source: San Bernardino County GHG Reduction Plan Update, (LSA Associates, Inc., 2021, p.22) MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Local Regulations
Table 4.8-2 shows 2016 and forecast future GHG Emissions from sources in Fontana. Primary
sources of GHG emissions in the city are onroad transportation (55 percent), building energy (34
percent), and waste (8 percent). Emissions are projected to increase by 15 percent from 2016 to
2030 and by 31 percent from 2016 to 2045 due to economic and population growth. In 2016, Fontana
had per capita emissions of 5.4 MTCO2e, which are lower than the region's average per capita
emissions of 7.5 MTCO2e (ICF International and LSA, 2021, p. 3-25).
Table 4.8-2
FONTANA 2016 COMMUNITY GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY (MTCO2e)
Sector 2016 Inventory 2030 Forecast 2045 Forecast
MTCO2e Percent MTCO2e Percent MTCO2e Percent
Residential Natural
Gas 86,355 8 107,599 8 130,362 9
Non-Residential
Natural Gas 68,268 6 81,745 6 96,186 6
Light-Medium Duty
Vehicles 480,465 42 518,076 40 560,186 38
Heavy-Duty
Vehicles 136,258 12 170,497 13 200,951 14
Off-Road
Equipment 23,220 2 32,595 3 48,700 3
Agriculture 1,016 <1 572 <1 309 <1
Residential
Electricity 96,888 9 113,518 9 131,643 9
Non-Residential
Electricity 134,422 12 155,516 12 178,072 12
Solid Waste
Management 86,844 8 101,750 8 117,932 8
Wastewater
Treatment 6,610 1 7,744 1 8,981 1
Water Transport,
Distribution, and
Treatment
10,581 1 11,893 1 13,792 1
Total Emissions 1,130,927 100 1,301,505 100 1,487,115 100
MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Source: ICF International and LSA, 2021, p. 3-25
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.8-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
4.8.3 Impact Analysis
4.8.3.1 Methodology
Short-term construction GHG emissions and long-term operational GHG emissions were assessed
using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 (CAPCOA, 2021). This
analysis focused upon emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O only. HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 would be emitted in
negligible quantities by the project and are not discussed further.
k) Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact
California has enacted several pieces of legislation that relate to GHG emissions and climate change,
much of which set aggressive goals for GHG reductions within the state. Per Senate Bill 97, the
California Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, which address
the specific obligations of public agencies when analyzing GHG emissions under CEQA to determine
a project’s effects on the environment. However, neither a threshold of significance nor any specific
mitigations are included or provided in these CEQA Guideline amendments.
GHG Significance Threshold
The City of Fontana does not have an adopted threshold of significance for GHG emissions, but for
CEQA purposes, it has discretion to select an appropriate significance criterion, based on substantial
evidence. To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions
in their CEQA documents, the SCAQMD Board proposed an Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold
of 3,000 MTCO2e per year (SCAQMD, 2008). The City has selected this value as a significance criterion
which has been supported by substantial evidence.
The 3,000-MTCO2e-per-year threshold is based on a 90 percent emission “capture” rate
methodology. Prior to its use by the SCAQMD, the 90 percent emissions capture approach was one of
the options suggested by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in its
CEQA & Climate Change white paper (2008). A 90 percent emission capture rate means that
unmitigated GHG emissions from the top 90 percent of all GHG-producing projects within a
geographic area – the SCAB in this instance – would be subject to a detailed analysis of potential
environmental impacts from GHG emissions, while the bottom 10 percent of all GHG-producing
projects would be excluded from detailed analysis. A GHG significance threshold based on a 90
percent emission capture rate is appropriate to address the long-term adverse impacts associated
with global climate change because medium and large projects will be required to implement
measures to reduce GHG emissions, while small projects, which are generally infill development
projects that are not the focus of the State’s GHG reduction targets, are allowed to proceed. Further,
a 90 percent emission capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial
proportion of future development projects and demonstrate that cumulative emissions reductions
are being achieved while setting it high enough to exclude small projects that will, in aggregate,
contribute approximate one percent of projected statewide GHG emissions in the Year 2050
(SCAQMD, 2008, p. 4).
In setting the threshold at 3,000 MTCO2e per year, SCAQMD researched a database of projects kept
by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). That database contained 798 projects, 87
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.8-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
of which were removed because they were very large and/or outliers that would skew emissions
values too high, leaving 711 as the sample population to use in determining the 90th-percentile
capture rate. The SCAQMD analysis of the 711 projects within the sample population combined
commercial, residential, and mixed-use projects. It should be noted that the sample of projects
included warehouses and other light industrial land uses but did not include industrial processes
(i.e., oil refineries, heavy manufacturing, electric generating stations, mining operations, etc.).
Emissions from each of these projects were calculated by the SCAQMD to provide a consistent
method of emissions calculations across the sample population and from projects within the sample
population. In calculating the emissions, the SCAQMD analysis determined that the 90th percentile
ranged between 2,983 to 3,143 MTCO2e per year. The SCAQMD set its significance threshold at the
low end of the range when rounded to the nearest hundred tons of emissions (i.e., 3,000 MTCO2e per
year) to define small projects that are considered less than significant and do not need to provide
further analysis.
The City understands that the 3,000-MTCO2e-per-year threshold for residential/commercial uses
was proposed by the SCAQMD a decade ago and was never formally adopted by the SCAQMD;
however, no permanent, superseding policy or threshold has since been adopted. The 3,000-MTCO2e-
per-year threshold was developed and recommended by the SCAQMD, an expert agency, based on
substantial evidence as provided in the Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas
Significance Threshold (2008) and subsequent Working Group meetings (the latest of which
occurred in 2010). The SCAQMD has not withdrawn its support of the interim threshold and all
documentation supporting the interim threshold remains on the SCAQMD website on a page that
provides guidance to CEQA practitioners for air quality analysis (and where all SCAQMD significance
thresholds for regional and local criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants also are listed).
Further, as stated by the SCAQMD, this threshold “uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal [80 percent
below 1990 levels by 2050] as the basis for deriving the screening level” and, thus, remains valid for
use in 2022 (SCAQMD, 2008, pp. 3-4). Lastly, this threshold has been used for hundreds, if not
thousands, of GHG analyses performed for projects located within the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction.
Thus, for purposes of analysis in this EIR, if project-related GHG emissions do not exceed the 3,000-
MTCO2e-per-year threshold, then project-related GHG emissions would clearly have a less-than-
significant impact pursuant to Threshold “a.” On the other hand, if project-related GHG emissions
exceed 3,000 MTCO2e per year, the project would be considered a substantial source of GHG
emissions, and further analysis would be required to determine whether the project would have a
significant impact related to GHG emissions.
Construction GHG Emissions
Construction is an episodic, temporary source of GHG emissions. Emissions are generally associated
with the operation of construction equipment and the disposal of construction waste. To be
consistent with the guidance from the SCAQMD for calculating criteria pollutants from construction
activities, only GHG emissions from onsite construction activities and offsite hauling and construction
worker commuting are considered as project-generated. As explained by the CAPCOA in its 2008
white paper (CAPCOA, 2008), the information needed to characterize GHG emissions from
manufacture, transport, and end-of-life of construction materials would be speculative at the CEQA
analysis level. CEQA does not require an evaluation of speculative impacts (CEQA Guidelines § 15145).
Therefore, the construction analysis does not consider such GHG emissions, but does consider
non-speculative onsite construction activities, and offsite hauling, and construction worker trips. All
GHG emissions are identified on an annual basis.
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.8-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Estimated GHG emissions from the project’s onsite and offsite project construction activities were
calculated using CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0. The results of this analysis are presented in
Table 4.8-3. The project construction is expected to begin around second or third quarter of 2023
with all construction completed and tenants in place by the end of 2025. The annual increase in GHG
emissions from the project construction activities would be 177 metric tons in 2023 and 362.3 metric
tons in 2024. Consistent with SCAQMD recommendations (SCAQMD, 2008, p. 3-10) and to ensure
that construction emissions are assessed in a quantitative sense, construction GHG emissions have
been amortized over a 30-year period. The amortized value, 17.97 MTCO2e, has been added to the
project’s annual operational GHG emissions. (See below.) Modeling results are in Appendix B.
Table 4.8-3
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION-RELATED GHG EMISSIONS
Year/Phase Annual Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
2023 174.3 0.0 0.0 177.0
2024 357.4 0.1 0.0 362.3
Total 531.7 0.1 0.0 539.3
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2020.4.0) (CAPCOA, 2022).
Operational GHG Emissions
For a reasonable maximum emissions case, it was assumed that GHG emissions from the project site
are currently zero. Operational GHG emissions calculated by CalEEMod are shown in Table 4.8-4.
Total annual unmitigated emissions from the project would be 2,931.04 MTCO2e per year. Energy
production and mobile sources account for about 96 percent of annual operational emissions.18 With
the addition of the amortized construction emissions, the total project GHG emissions would be
2,949.01 MTCO2e per year, which is below the significance threshold of 3,000 MT of CO2e per year.
Table 4.8-4
PROJECT OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
Emissions Source
Estimated Project Generated
CO2e Emissions
(Metric Tons per Year)
Area Sources 0.01
Energy Demand (Electricity & Natural Gas) 286.91
Mobile (Motor Vehicles) 2536.14
Solid Waste Generation 89.96
Water Demand 18.03
18 Calculations are provided in Appendix B.
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.8-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Emissions Source
Estimated Project Generated
CO2e Emissions
(Metric Tons per Year)
Construction Emissionsa 17.97
Total 2949.01
a Total construction GHG emissions were amortized over 30 years and added to those
resulting from the operation of the project.
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2020.4.0) (CAPCOA, 2022).
Therefore, under the first significance criterion, GHG emissions would be less than significant, and
no mitigation is necessary.
l) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG?
Less than Significant Impact
The City of Fontana, through its participation in the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Plan, has identified measures that it can take to reduce GHG emissions from City
operations and from development in its jurisdiction. The City of Fontana selected a goal to reduce its
community GHG emissions to a level that is 46 percent below its 2008 GHG emissions level by 2030.
The city will meet and exceed this goal subject to reduction measures that are technologically feasible
and cost-effective through a combination of state (~75 percent) and local (~25 percent) efforts
(County of San Bernardino County, 2021, p. 3-67).
Another approach to identifying potential conflict with GHG reduction plans, policies, or regulations
is to examine General Plan provisions that prescribe or enable GHG emissions control. The EIR for
the General Plan Update (City of Fontana, 2018, Table 5.6-7) lists policies in the General Plan Update
that reduce GHG emissions and help to quantify emissions reductions. However, the policies
prescribe actions to be taken by the City, and not measures to be implemented by a project
proponent. Nevertheless, the proposed project would not conflict with any of the GHG emission
reduction policies. Furthermore, the General Plan Update EIR determined that implementation of the
updated general plan will result in significantly lower GHG emissions from Fontana than would
continuation of the 2003 General Plan (City of Fontana, 2018, Table 5.6-6). As was demonstrated in
Section 4.11, the proposed project would have no impacts in relation to consistency with local land
use plans, policies, or regulations. Therefore, the project would not hinder the GHG emission
reductions of the General Plan Update.
Finally, as noted in Section 3.3.1, energy-efficient features, including insulated and glazed windows
and low E coating on windows, would be incorporated into building design to comply with the
provisions of the California Green Building Code, Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of
Regulations. These will help reduce GHG emissions.
❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARD AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.9-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the
project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
X
The analysis for this section refers to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) dated
September 9, 2014, by Titan Environmental Solutions, Inc. (Titan); (Appendix F1); the Phase I ESA
by PlaceWorks dated May 2018 (Appendix F2); and a Limited Phase II ESA Soils Sampling Letter
Report (Phase II ESA), also by PlaceWorks, dated August 6, 2018 (Appendix F3). A Phase I report
presents information conducted from a site reconnaissance of the project area, historical
developments of the project site, and a comprehensive database search to determine if the project
site contains potentially Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs). The Limited Phase II
❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARD AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.9-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
consisted of soil sampling using a shovel and scoop, and testing using EPA methods 8181A and
6010B. Method 8181A tests for 22 organochlorine pesticides, and Method 6010B for arsenic. Arsenic
is used in insecticides and weed killers (PlaceWorks; Phase II, 2018).
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact
Construction
The project site is divided into two areas, Area A consists of Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 0241-
051-16 and has the address 16835 Baseline Avenue. Area B consists of parcels adjacent to Area A
(APNs 0241-051-17, 0241-051-01, 0241-051-02, and 0241-051-32) and has the address 16844
Montgomery Avenue.
The PlaceWorks ESA Phase I implemented for Area A identified one REC for the Area A parcel. Area
A was used historically as an orchard with a residence from at least 1938 to approximately 1960
when the orchard was no longer present.
Area B was also used historically as an orchard with residences but included a chicken farm at one
point as well. The Titan ESA implemented for Area B identified persistent agricultural chemical
residues, which may potentially be found in the soil due to the historic use of the site as an orchard,
and petroleum residues and metals, which may potentially be found in the soil and/or soil vapor due
to the historic use of the Site for car repairs.
Both Areas A and B are currently vacant undeveloped disturbed land with no structures located
onsite. The site is bounded by Baseline Avenue to the north, Sierra Avenue to the east, and
Montgomery Avenue to the south. Surrounding the site is a mixture of vacant land, and residential
and commercial uses. New houses are located to the north across Baseline Avenue, a senior citizen
villa is located to the northeast, an Arco Service Station is located to the east across Sierra Avenue,
and adjacent land to the south and west is vacant. The nearest school is Kathy Binks Elementary
School, located approximately 0.5 miles to the west off Baseline Avenue (PlaceWorks; Phase II, 2018,
p. 1).
Agricultural Chemical Residues
The Phase II ESA tested samples of shallow site soils for organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and
arsenic. Soil samples were collected on July 23, 2018, within the approximately 6.59-acre project
area. Three soil samples were collected from the soil surface at 0.5 feet below ground surface (bgs)
in Area A and nine soil samples were collected at 0.5 feet bgs from Area B (PlaceWorks; Phase II,
2018, pp. 1-2).
Area A
One composite soil sample and one discrete soil sample were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides
by EPA Method 8081A in Area A to assess the historic use of pesticides related to the agricultural
land use of the site and also for residual termiticides from the historic structures. Two surface soil
samples were analyzed for arsenic to assess for potential residual arsenic-based pesticides and three
surface samples were analyzed for lead to assess potential lead-based paint impacts on soil from
❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARD AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.9-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
former structures by EPA Method 6010B. The soil samples were analyzed using A&R Laboratories, a
California State Certified Laboratory.
Two organochlorine pesticides were reported in the soil samples analyzed from Area A: 4,4`-DDE
and 4,4`- DDT. The concentrations were not elevated above health-based screening levels for
industrial land use exposure and residential land use exposure scenarios (PlaceWorks; Phase II,
2018, p. 2).
Arsenic was detected in two surface soil samples analyzed, ranging in concentration from 2.64 mg/kg
to 2.73 mg/kg. The arsenic concentrations are within background naturally occurring concentrations
in native soil and are below the DTSC’s screening level of 12 mg/kg for arsenic. (PlaceWorks; Phase
II, 2018, p. 3).
Lead was detected in the three surface soil samples analyzed from Area A ranging in concentrations
from 19.4 mg/kg to 56.8 mg/kg. The lead concentrations are below DTSC Screening Levels for both
residential and industrial land use exposure scenarios. (PlaceWorks; Phase II, 2018, p. 3).
Area B
Four composite samples and one discrete soil sample were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides
from Area B to assess the historic use of pesticides related to the agricultural land use of the site and
also for residual termiticides from the historic structures. Five surface soil samples were analyzed
for arsenic to assess the historical agricultural land use of Area B and nine soil samples were analyzed
for lead to assess historic structures.
Four organochlorine pesticides were reported in the soil samples analyzed from Area B: chlordane,
4,4`- DDE,4,4`-DDT, and dieldrin. The concentrations were not elevated above health-based
screening levels for industrial land use exposure and residential land use exposure scenarios
(PlaceWorks; Phase II, 2018, pp. 2-3).
Arsenic was detected in four surface soil samples analyzed ranging in concentration from 1.12 mg/kg
to 3.03 mg/kg. The arsenic concentrations are within background naturally occurring concentrations
in native soil and are below the DTSC’s screening level of 12 mg/kg for arsenic (PlaceWorks; Phase
II, 2018, p. 3).
Lead was detected in nine surface samples collected in Area B ranging in concentration from 10.6
mg/kg to 164 mg/kg. Two surface soil samples, B-7, and B-11 are above the DTSC’s health-based
screening level of 80 mg/kg for lead for residential land use; however, the average lead concentration
for the site was 48 mg/kg which is below the DTSC screening level for residential exposure. The DTSC
screening level for industrial exposure is 320 mg/kg which was not exceeded for the site
(PlaceWorks; Phase II, 2018, p. 4).
The analytical results for organochlorine pesticides, lead, and arsenic indicate that no potential
health-based risks were identified based on the historic land use at the site of agricultural use.
Therefore, hazardous materials impact from project operation would be less than significant.
Operation
The project would require the transport, storage, use and disposal of certain chemicals typically used
for cleaning and landscaping purposes, such as commercial cleansers, paints, and lubricants for
❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARD AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.9-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
maintenance and upkeep of the proposed buildings and landscaping. These materials would be
stored, handled, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. The proposed project
would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of quantities of hazardous materials that
may create a significant hazard to the public or environment. Therefore, hazardous materials impact
from project operation would be less than significant.
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact
Construction
Project construction would involve the transport, storage and use of chemical agents, solvents,
paints, and other hazardous materials commonly associated with construction activities. Chemical
transport, storage and use would comply with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), California hazardous waste control law (California Health
and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Hazardous Waste Control), California Division of Safety
and Health (DOSH), SCAQMD, and the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (SBPD)
requirements. The construction contractor would maintain equipment and supplies onsite for
containing and cleaning up small spills of hazardous materials and would train construction workers
on such containment and cleanup. In the event of a release of hazardous materials of quantity and/or
toxicity that onsite construction workers could not safely contain and clean up, the project proponent
would notify the SBPD19 immediately. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant during
construction.
Operation
Project operation would involve the handling and storage of materials such as commercial cleaners,
solvents, and other janitorial or industrial-use materials, paints, and landscape fertilizers/pesticides
during project operations. However, these materials would be stored, handled, and disposed of in
accordance with applicable regulations and would not be stored in amounts that would create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment through accidental release. The project would
have a less than significant impact in this regard.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
No Impact
The nearest school is Kathy Binks Elementary School located approximately 0.5 miles to the west off
Baseline Avenue. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. (Google, 2022)
19 The San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (SBPD) is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for San
Bernardino including the City of Fontana; the CUPA program is designed to consolidate, coordinate, and uniformly and
consistently administer permits, inspection activities, and enforcement activities throughout San Bernardino County
(sbcfire.org/hazmatcupa).
❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARD AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.9-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact
Government Code § 65962.5 requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to compile
and update, at least annually, lists of the following:
• Hazardous waste and substance sites from the DTSC EnviroStor database.
• Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites by county and fiscal year in the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database.
• Solid waste disposal sites identified by SWRCB with waste constituents above hazardous
waste levels outside waste management units.
• SWRCB Cease and Desist Orders (CDOs), and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAOs).
• Hazardous waste facilities are subject to corrective action pursuant to § 25187.5 of the Health
and Safety Code, identified by DTSC.
These lists are collectively referred to as the “Cortese List”. The project site is not included on the
Cortese List.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in
the project area?
No Impact
The nearest public-use airports to the project are Ontario International Airport (ONT) which is 10.25
miles to the southwest and San Bernardino International Airport (SBD) which is 11 miles to the east
(Google Earth Pro, 2022). As shown in Figure 4.9-2, the project site is outside of both airport zones
where land uses are regulated to minimize aviation-related hazards to persons on the ground, and
outside of noise compatibility contours for the airport. Project development would not cause airport-
related hazards, or excessive noise, to persons at the project site. No impact would occur and no
mitigation is required.
❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARD AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.9-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.9-1
AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREAS
❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARD AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.9-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Construction
The project would comply with applicable City regulations, such as the City Fire Code in regard to
providing adequate emergency access, as well as the California Building Standards Code. Prior to the
issuance of building permits, the City of Fontana would review project site plans, including location
of all buildings, fences, access driveways and other features that may affect emergency access. Fire
lanes would be provided for adequate emergency access. The site design for the proposed project
includes access and fire lanes that would accommodate emergency ingress and egress by fire trucks,
police units, and ambulance/paramedic vehicles. All onsite access and sight-distance requirements
would be in accordance with city and Caltrans design requirements. The City’s review process and
compliance with applicable regulations and standards would ensure that adequate emergency access
would be provided at the project site at all times.
Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.17, Transportation and Traffic, the City requires preparation
and implementation of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for all projects that require construction in
the public right-of-way (ROW). The TMP must be reviewed and approved by the City’s Traffic
Engineer prior to the start of construction activity in the public ROW. The typical TMP requires such
things as the installation of K-rail between the construction area and open traffic lanes, the use of
flagmen and directional signage to direct traffic where only one travel lane is available or when
equipment movement creates temporary hazards, and the installation of steel plates to cover
trenches under construction. Emergency access must be maintained. Therefore, the proposed project
would implement mitigation measure TRANS-1. With implementation of mitigation measure
TRANS-1, impacts in regard to emergency access during construction would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Refer to mitigation measure TRANS-1 in Section 4.17.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
After implementation of mitigation measure TRANS-1 above, the project would have less than
significant construction phase impacts on emergency access.
Operation
City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The purpose of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) is to provide a plan for reducing and/or
eliminating risk in the city of Fontana. The goals of the LHMP are to: protect life, property, and the
environment; improve public awareness; protect the continuity of government; and improve
emergency management preparedness, collaboration and outreach. The LHMP states that interstates
would serve as major emergency response and evacuation routes (City of Fontana, 2017a, p. 124).
The proposed project would not be adjacent to any interstates; therefore, the proposed project would
not interfere with the City of Fontana’s major emergency response and evacuation routes.
Additionally, as mentioned above, the proposed project design would undergo a site design review
❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARD AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.9-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
to ensure that there would be adequate emergency ingress and egress within the project site.
Therefore, project development would have less than significant impacts on emergency and
evacuation plans.
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) developed Fire Hazard
Severity Zones (FHSZ) for State Responsibility Areas (SRA) and Local Responsibility Areas (LRA).
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) designation refers to either:
a) wildland areas supporting high-to-extreme fire behavior resulting from climax fuels
typified by well-developed surface fuel profiles (e.g., mature chaparral) or forested
systems where the crown fire is likely. Additional site elements include steep and
mixed topography and climate/fire weather patterns that include seasonal extreme
weather conditions of strong winds and dry fuel moistures. Burn frequency is typically
high and should be evidenced by numerous historical large fires in the area.
Firebrands from both short- (<200 yards) and long-range sources are often abundant.
OR
b) developed/urban areas typically with high vegetation density (>70 percent cover) and
associated high fuel continuity, allowing for frontal flame spread over much of the area
to progress impeded by only isolated nonburnable fractions. Often where tree cover is
abundant, these areas look very similar to adjacent wildland areas. Developed areas
may have less vegetation cover and still be in this class when in the immediate vicinity
(0.25 mile) of wildland areas zoned as Very High (see above).
The project site is not in or near a fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) mapped by CAL FIRE within a
within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or Local Responsibility Area (LRA, that is, where cities and
counties are responsible for the costs of wildfire prevention and suppression) (see Figures 4.9-2 and
4.9-3, respectively). The project site is bounded on three sides by urban development; the nearest
FHSZ to the site is in LRA approximately 1.3 miles to the north. Project development would not
expose people or structures to substantial hazards from wildfire, and impacts would be less than
significant.
❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARD AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.9-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.9-2
FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE – STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREA
❖ SECTION 4.9 – HAZARD AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.9-10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.9-3
FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES – LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.10-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
X
i) result in substantial erosion or
siltation on or offsite; X
ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
offsite;
X
iii) create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
X
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation? X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan?
X
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact
The California State Water Resources Control Board requires its nine Regional Water Quality Control
Boards (RWQCBs) to develop water quality control plans (Basin Plans) designed to preserve and
enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. Specifically, Basin Plans
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.10-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
designate beneficial uses for surface waters and groundwater, set narrative and numerical objectives
that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the
State antidegradation policy, and describe implementation programs to protect all waters in the
Regions (RWQCB 1995). In addition, Basin Plans incorporate by reference all applicable State and
Regional Board plans and policies, and other pertinent water quality policies and regulations. The
proposed project is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana (Region 8) RWQCB.
As shown in Figure 10.4-1, USGS Surface Waters and Watersheds, the project site is located within
the USGS East Etiwanda Creek - Santa Ana River Hydrologic Unit (HUC 12; HU Code 180702030804).
The project is located within the lower Lytle Creek watershed, which forms the northwest portion of
the Santa Ana River Watershed (USGS HUC 18070203). The Santa Ana River Watershed drains the
eastern area portion of the San Gabriel Mountains, spanning approximately 2,650 square miles. The
Santa Ana River, which flows a distance exceeding 100 miles, discharges into the Pacific Ocean at the
City of Huntington Beach (USEPA, 2022). Existing drainage from the site is minimal, and sheet flows
southward to Montgomery Avenue, which has no formal drainage system and minimal longitudinal
slope to convey stormwater. Stormwater from the proposed conditions will be collected in catch
basins and conveyed via pipes to hydrodynamic separators for pre-treatment prior to soil infiltration
via underground infiltration chambers. The design capture volume (DCV) will be managed onsite,
including system oversizing for the new pavement and sidewalk areas within Montgomery Avenue
right-of-way, which will drain to the onsite treatment and retention system via the under-sidewalk
drain proposed along Montgomery Avenue, which also functions as an emergency overflow.20
Overflow from the proposed site will be directed to its natural discharge location, which is to
Montgomery Avenue, south of the site. Discharge to Montgomery Avenue will be only for storm
events that overflow the onsite infiltration system. Discharge will be via a piped conveyance to an
under-sidewalk drain, per City standard drawing #3001.The storm drain at Montgomery Avenue is
a tributary to the West Fontana Channel system (Barghausen Consulting Engineers, 2022a; p. 1-1).
Development of the project has the potential to result in two types of water quality impacts:
(1) short-term impacts due to construction-related discharges; and (2) long-term impacts from
operation. Temporary soil disturbance would occur during project construction, due to earth-moving
activities such as excavation and trenching for foundations and utilities, soil compaction and moving,
cut and fill activities, and grading. Disturbed soils are susceptible to high rates of erosion from wind
and rain, resulting in sediment transport via stormwater runoff from the project area. Erosion and
sedimentation affect water quality of receiving waters through interference with photosynthesis,
oxygen exchange and respiration, growth, and reproduction of aquatic species. Runoff from
construction sites may include sediments and contaminants such as oils, fuels, paints, and solvents.
Additionally, other pollutants such as nutrients, trace metals, and hydrocarbons can attach to
sediment and be carried by stormwater into storm drains which discharge eventually to the Pacific
Ocean.
Spills and mishandling of construction materials and waste may also potentially leave the project site
and negatively impact water quality. The use of construction equipment and machinery may
potentially result in contamination from petroleum products, hydraulic fluids, and heavy metals.
Contamination from building preparation materials such as paints and solvents, and landscaping
materials such as fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides may also potentially degrade water quality
during project construction. Trash and demolition debris may also be carried into storm drains and
discharged into receiving waters.
20 This system oversizing was per direction from Henry Pham of the City of Fontana via an email confirmation on
February 17, 2022.
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.10-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.10-1
USGS SURFACE WATERS AND WATERSHEDS
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.10-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Construction Pollutants Control
The project proponent is required by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
to obtain coverage under a General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with
Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ, as authorized by
§ 402 Clean Water Act, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] for projects which
will disturb one or more acres of soil during construction). The Construction General Permit requires
potential dischargers of pollutants into Waters of the United States (WOUS) to prepare a site-specific
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which establishes enforceable limits on discharges,
requires effluent monitoring, designates reporting requirements, and requires construction BMPs to
reduce or eliminate point and non-point source discharges of pollutants. Additionally, BMPs must be
maintained, inspected before and after each precipitation event, and repaired or replaced as
necessary. Because the project is required by the SWRCB to comply with all applicable conditions of
Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ, potential violations of water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements during project construction would be less than significant.
Operational Pollutant Controls
The San Bernardino County NPDES Permit (NPDES No. CAS618036) and Waste Discharge
Requirements Area Wide Urban Storm Water Runoff Management Program regulates, through Order
No. R8 2010 0036, the discharge of pollutants into WOUS through stormwater and urban runoff
conveyance systems, including flood control facilities. These conveyance systems are commonly
referred to as municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), or storm drains. In this context, the
NPDES Permit is also referred to as an MS4 Permit.
Pursuant to the MS4 Permit, Principal Permittees (i.e., the San Bernardino County Flood Control
District) and Co-Permittees (the City of Fontana is a Co-Permittee) must regulate discharges of
pollutants in urban runoff from man-made sources into storm water conveyance systems within their
jurisdiction.
New development and redevelopment can significantly increase pollutant loads in stormwater and
urban runoff, because increased population density results in proportionately higher levels of vehicle
emissions, vehicle maintenance wastes, municipal sewage wastes, household hazardous wastes,
fertilizers, pet waste, trash, and other pollutants (RWQCB, 2010). The San Bernardino County MS4
Permit requires new development and significant redevelopment projects to incorporate post
construction low impact development BMPs into project design to comply with the local Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to reduce or eliminate the quantity, and improve the quality of,
stormwater being discharged from the project site.
A preliminary WQMP (Barghausen Consulting Engineers, 2022a; for details, refer to the grading and
WQMP included in Appendix I of this document) has been prepared for the proposed project site and
is included herein as Appendix I. The MS4 and the associated WQMP require the implementation of
Low Impact Development (LID) features to ensure that most stormwater runoff is treated and
retained onsite.
The project WQMP includes structural source control BMPs, such as: stenciling and signage for the
storm drain system; design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution
introduction; implement efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, water conservation,
smart controllers, and source control; and finish grade of landscaped areas at a minimum of one to
two inches below top of curb, sidewalk, or pavement. Additionally, the proposed project would
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.10-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
include LIDs such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing infiltration capacity, and preserving
the existing drainage patterns to mitigate the impacts of runoff and stormwater pollution as close to
the source as possible. These facilities are highly effective at removing water pollutants such as
sediment, nutrients, trash, metals, bacteria, oil and grease, and organic compounds while reducing
the volume and intensity of stormwater flow leaving a site. (Barghausen Consulting Engineers,
2022a; p 4-4, 4-5).
The WQMP may also include non-structural source control BMPs including BMP maintenance, local
water quality ordinances, spill contingency plan, litter/debris control program, employee training,
catch basin inspection program, vacuum sweeping of private streets and parking lots, and complying
with all applicable NPDES permits (Barghausen Consulting Engineers, 2022a; p. 4-2).
With implementation of construction and operational BMPs, potential impacts to water quality
would be less than significant and mitigation is not proposed.
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than Significant Impact
The project site is in the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin ID 8-002), within the
Chino subbasin (Subbasin ID 8-002.01). The Basin covers approximately 240 square miles and is
bounded on the east by the Rialto-Colton fault and on the southeast by the contact with impermeable
rocks forming the Jurupa Mountains and low connecting divides. On the south, the subbasin is
bounded by contact with impermeable rocks of the Puente Hills and by the Chino fault. On the
northwest, the subbasin is bound by the San Jose fault, and on the north by impermeable rocks of the
San Gabriel Mountains and by the Cucamonga fault. The surface of the subbasin is drained by San
Antonio Creek and Cucamonga Creek southward to meet the Santa Ana River. Average annual
precipitation is approximately 17 inches, and typically ranges from 13 to 29 inches across the surface
of the subbasin (Koehler 1983; DWR, 2003; Google Earth Pro, 2022).
The proposed project is within the service area of the Chino Basin Water Conservation District
(CBWCD). The water supply for the CBWCD service area is from a variety of sources, but most of the
supply consists of groundwater from the Chino Basin. Water from other basins including the
Cucamonga, Rialto, Lytle Creek, Colton, and the Six Basins are also utilized to provide water to this
district’s service areas. (CBWCD, 2022).
Based on Western Municipal Water District’s analysis and as detailed in Section 4.19, Utilities and
Service Systems, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or result in a
substantial net deficit in the aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table. The project
would have a less than significant impact in this regard and mitigation is not required.
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.10-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite;
Less Than Significant Impact
The project site is relatively flat, with elevations ranging from approximately 1,402 to 1,414 feet
above mean sea level (amsl) [Google Earth Pro, 2022]. The project site generally slopes in a southeast
direction; the northwest segment of the project site lies at a slightly higher elevation than the
southeast segment of the project site. There is no evidence of ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial
streams or rivers that occur in the BSA. As detailed in Section 4.10 a), the project owner would be
required to develop a SWPPP by a certified qualified SWPPP developer. The required SWPPP would
be project-specific and would prescribe site-specific stormwater BMPs which would be intended to
minimize or avoid having soil leave the project site through either stormwater or wind, and thus
minimize or avoid soil erosion onsite and siltation in receiving waters.
With implementation of a project-specific SWPPP and proper maintenance and replacement of
required stormwater BMPs (as necessary), potential impacts resulting in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or offsite would be minimized or avoided, and impacts would be less than significant. No
mitigation is proposed.
Construction
As described in Section 4.10 a), temporary soil disturbance would occur during project construction,
due to earth-moving activities such as excavation and trenching for foundations and utilities, soil
compaction and moving, cut and fill activities, and grading. Disturbed soils are susceptible to high
rates of erosion from wind and rain, resulting in sediment transport via stormwater runoff from the
project area.
Implementation of the required SWPPP and Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan (JRMP) BMPs,
including installation, maintenance, and replacement of BMPs, as discussed in Section 4.10 a) would
minimize or avoid potential impacts resulting from on- or offsite erosion and siltation to a level that
is less than significant.
Operation
As detailed in Section 4.10 a), the LID BMPs proposed as part of project design would minimize or
avoid on- or offsite erosion and siltation by a combination of maintaining drainage patterns,
installation of landscaping, and installation of LID BMPs which would prevent erosion and prevent
siltation-laden stormwater from leaving the site. Applicable regulations (e.g., the MS4 permit, and
installation of LID BMPs, including site design, infiltration and pre-treatment BMPs, etc.), would limit
pollutant discharges from development of the project. The project’s adherence to existing
requirements would reduce erosion and siltation during operation; therefore, impacts resulting from
operation of the project would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.10-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Less than Significant Impact
The project Preliminary WQMP (Barghausen Consulting Engineers, 2022a), included as Appendix G
to this document, provides calculations and exhibits to estimate the values for the existing and
proposed condition stormwater flows.
The WQMP determined that the proposed drainage design for this project meets the applicable
standards and requirements of the Santa Ana Region. The drainage plan proposed in the Preliminary
WQMP is consistent with the historical drainage patterns for the proposed project site. The LID BMPs
proposed by the Preliminary WQMP would mitigate the post-construction increase in peak flow of
runoff from the site for the 2-, 5-, and 10-year storm events.
As discussed in the project’s preliminary WQMP, the project would not substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite, create or
contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than
significant.
As detailed in the proposed project’s WQMP and in Section 4.10 a) above, the proposed project
would incorporate operational LID BMPs in compliance with City of Fontana Standard Urban Storm
Water Mitigation Plan permit requirements. The proposed onsite stormwater facilities will include
installation of an infiltration/retention chamber system (MC-7200 Stormtech Chamber), catch basins
with filter for pre-treatment, ribbon-gutter, grate inlets that would convey stormwater to the
proposed infiltration/retention chamber system., roof drains, conveyance piping, hydrodynamic
separator pre-treatment, and an underground infiltration facility. During heavy storm periods,
overflow from the site will be directed to its natural discharge location, which is to Montgomery
Avenue, south of the site. Discharge to Montgomery Avenue will be only for storm events that
overflow the onsite infiltration system. (Barghausen Consulting Engineers, 2022a; p. 1-1, 3-1 – 3-3).
The MS4 and the project WQMP would require the implementation of water quality features to
ensure that runoff is treated prior to discharge into native soils (infiltration), storm drains or other
regional conveyance facilities, as described above. Therefore, upon adherence to existing state water
quality requirements, including MS4 requirements, the proposed project would minimize or avoid
causing a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would: (1)
result in flooding on- or offsite; (2) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or (3) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is proposed.
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.10-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact
The project site is located on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM) for San Bernardino County, California and Incorporated Areas (Map Number
06071C7915H, effective August 27, 2008); the site is in Flood Hazard Zone X, defined on this FIRM
as Areas of minimal flood hazard (FEMA, 2008). The areas of minimal flood hazard, such as Zone X,
are outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and higher than the elevation of the 0.2 percent-
annual-chance flood areas. The floodplain (i.e., flood hazard zone) nearest to the project site is the
100-year floodplain associated with East Etiwanda Creek (FEMA, 2022; USEPA, 2022). The project
site is located outside the nearest floodplain and the proposed project would not impede or redirect
flood flows. No impact would occur.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants
due to project inundation?
No Impact
Four dams or reservoirs are within a 5-mile radius of the project site: Hickory Basin; San Sevaine
Basin #5; Cactus Basin #3; and Etiwanda Debris Basin. The project would not be located within the
dam breach inundation areas of the dams or reservoirs (DWR, 2022) and would not be at risk of flood
hazards due to dam breaches. As discussed previously, the project site is located outside the 500-
year floodplain and the project site would not be at risk of inundation by flood hazards.
The tsunami inundation area nearest to the project site is the City of Huntington Beach, located
approximately 42 miles southwest of the BSA (Google Earth Pro, 2022; CEMA, CGS, and USC, 2009),
and therefore would not be at risk of inundation by tsunami.
A seiche is an oscillating wave, formed by earthquakes or winds, in an enclosed or partially enclosed
waterbody. The nearest waterbodies to the project site in which a seiche could form are Lake
Arrowhead and Big Bear Lake, over 15 miles to the northeast. The project site is not within the dam
breach inundation areas mapped for these waterbodies (DWR, 2022), and the project would not be
at risk of inundation by seiche.
The proposed project would not be at risk of inundation by flood hazards, tsunami, or seiche, and
would therefore not be at risk of release of pollutants due to inundation. No impact would occur.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control
plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact
The nearest water well (State Well Number 01S05W06J001S) is located approximately 0.43 miles
south of the project site. This inactive well is designated for residential use and is drilled to a depth
of 884 feet (CASGEM 2022).
As discussed in Section 4.10 a), the proposed project would comply with the Construction General
Permit and the JRMP by developing and implementing a site-specific SWPPP and construction
stormwater BMPs throughout the construction phase. The proposed project would also comply with
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.10-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
the MS4 Permit by incorporating LID BMPs into project design, which would avoid or minimize the
amount and type of pollutants leaving the project, entering receiving waters, and impacting water
quality and beneficial uses defined for these waters by the Basin Plan (RWQCB, 2016). In addition,
the LID BMPs would allow stormwater infiltration into the local aquifer, similar to existing
conditions, and minimize or avoid impacts to groundwater quality and beneficial uses of the Upper
Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin (RWQCB, 1995). The proposed project would not conflict with
or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan. No impact would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.11 – LAND USE AND PLANNING ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.11-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
4.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
X
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
No Impact
The project site is located at the intersection of two major streets, Baseline Avenue (designated a
Major Divided Highway on the San Bernardino County Land Use Plan General Plan Circulation and
Transportation map) and Sierra Avenue (designated a Major Highway). To the west, the site is
adjacent to currently vacant land, and the land to the south across from the site on Montgomery is
also vacant at present. To the north, across Baseline Avenue, is the recently-opened Arrowhead
Family Health Center, while an ARCO gas station and single-family homes are to the east across Sierra.
The site is fenced and is not used for access between residential areas. Project development would
not physically divide an established community, and no impact would occur.
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any
land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
No Impact
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (CG; Fontana, 2021a)
(refer to Figure 4.11-1 below). The project site is zoned General Commercial (C-2; Fontana, 2021b)
(see Figures 4.11-2 below). The proposed project would conform to General Plan and zoning
designations for the project site.
❖ SECTION 4.11 – LAND USE AND PLANNING ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.11-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.11-1
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION
❖ SECTION 4.11 – LAND USE AND PLANNING ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.11-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.11-2
ZONING DESIGNATION
❖ SECTION 4.11 – LAND USE AND PLANNING ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.11-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
A consistency analysis of the proposed project respecting relevant Fontana General Plan Land Use,
Zoning, and Urban Design Element goals and policies is provided below in Table 4.11-1. No adverse
impact would occur.
Table 4.11-1
CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS: PROPOSED PROJECT COMPARED TO RELEVANT CITY OF FONTANA
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE, ZONING, AND URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT GOALS AND ACTIONS
Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis
Goal 4: Compact, walkable, mixed-use centers are located at key locations along corridors to be
served by public transit in the future and at intersections where neighborhood retail and diverse
housing options can succeed.
Action 4A: Design neighborhood centers along the
corridors for access by pedestrians and bicyclists
directly from adjoining neighborhoods, in addition
to motorists from the neighborhood and from the
corridor.
Consistent: The project site is on a major traffic
corridor and adjacent to existing and planned
residential neighborhood.
Action 4B: Coordinate the location of new and
expanding neighborhood centers with active
transportation and transit planning to facilitate new
jobs and housing near transit stops.
Consistent: The project is on a major street and
adjacent to transit stops.
Action 4C: Encourage all new development along
corridors to front the street rather than parking lots.
Consistent: Major elements of the site plan front on
surrounding streets.
Goal 7: Public and private development meets high standards of design.
Action 7A: Support high-quality development in
design standards and in land use decisions
Consistent: The project proposes high-quality
design standards and materials.
Sources: Goals and Policies: City of Fontana, 2018.
❖ SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.12-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
4.12 Mineral Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
X
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
and
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
No Impact
The project site is mapped Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2) by the California Geological Survey
(CGS), as shown on Figure 4.12-1, meaning that geologic data indicate that significant Portland
cement concrete (PCC)-grade aggregate resources are present or are likely present (CGS, 2008a).
The nearest mine to the project site mapped by the Division of Mines Reclamation (DMR) is Mid-
Valley Sanitary Landfill location at 2390 Alder Avenue in the City of Rialto approximately 2 miles to
the northeast (DMR, 2022). This is an operational and permitted (36-AA-0055) solid waste facility.
The only mine mapped by DMR within the City of Fontana is the Old Henshaw Quarry on the
southeast City boundary; the mine is closed and formerly produced decomposed granite and fill dirt
(DMR, 2022). No mineral resources in the City of Fontana are identified in its General Plan (City of
Fontana, 2021a). The nearest oil or gas well to the project site is a plugged well approximately 1.8
miles to the southwest, and the nearest geothermal well to the project site is an active well
approximately 8.5 miles to the southeast (see Figure 4.12-2, Figure 4.12-3).
The project site is surrounded by vacant land to the south and west; vacant land and single-family
residences to the north opposite Baseline Avenue; and a gas station and single-family residences
opposite Sierra Avenue. Thus, the site is unavailable for mining. Project development would not cause
a loss of availability of known mineral resources valuable to the region, and no impact would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.12-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.12-1
DESIGNATED MINERAL RESOURCE ZONE
❖ SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.12-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.12-2
OIL AND GAS
❖ SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.12-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.12-3
GEOTHERMAL WELLS
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.13-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
4.13 Noise
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? X
c) For a project located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip or an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
X
4.13.1 Characteristics of Sound
Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. It is described in terms of loudness or
amplitude (measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in hertz or cycles per second), and
duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The decibel (dB) scale is a logarithmic scale that
describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the
sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Because the human ear is not equally
sensitive to all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale is used to relate noise to
human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating
against upper and lower frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. The
scale is based on a reference pressure level of 20 micro pascals (zero dBA). The scale ranges from
zero (for the average least perceptible sound) to about 130 (for the average human pain level).
4.13.2 Noise Measurement Scales
Several rating scales have been developed to analyze adverse effects of community noise on people.
Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise on
people depends largely upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of
day when the noise occurs. Those that are applicable to this analysis are as follows:
• Leq, the equivalent noise level, is an average of sound level over a defined time period (such
as 1 minute, 15 minutes, 1 hour or 24 hours). Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of
a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during
exposure.
• L90 is a noise level that is exceeded 90 percent of the time at a given location; it is often used
as a measure of “background” noise.
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.13-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
• Lmax is the root mean square (RMS) maximum noise level during the measurement interval.
This measurement is calculated by taking the RMS of all peak noise levels within the sampling
interval. Lmax is distinct from the peak noise level, which only includes the single highest
measurement within a measurement interval.
• CNEL, the Community Noise Equivalent Level, is a 24-hour average Leq with a 4.77-dBA
“penalty” added to noise during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and a 10-dBA penalty
added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in
the evening and nighttime (Hendriks, 2013). The logarithmic effect of these additions is that
a 60-dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a calculation of 66.7 dBA CNEL.
• Ldn, the day-night average noise, is a 24-hour average Leq with an additional 10-dBA “penalty”
added to noise that occurs between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The Ldn metric yields values
within 1 dBA of the CNEL metric. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered
to be equivalent and are treated as such in this assessment.
4.13.3 Existing Noise
The principal source of noise in the project area is traffic on local roadways. The City of Fontana
General Plan Noise and Safety element defines “noise sensitive” land uses as residential uses,
hospitals, rest homes, long term care facilities, mental care facilities, schools, libraries, places of
worship and passive recreation uses (City of Fontana, 2018, p.11-9). As seen in Figure 4.13-1, the
only existing sensitive receivers near the project are single-family and multifamily residences, and
two churches. Table 4.13-1 summarizes information about selected nearby sensitive receivers.
Table 4.13-1
SENSITIVE RECEIVERS IN PROJECT AREA
Description Location Distance From
Site
Boundary (feet)a
Nearest Ambient
Sampling Pointb
Single-Family Residential 7279 Turnstone Court 163 1
Church 7347 Juniper Avenue 604 2
Single-Family Residence 16772 Montgomery
Avenue 263 3
Single-Family Residence 16817 Montgomery
Avenue 75 4
Single Family Residence 7370 Sleepy Creek
Avenue 156 5
Medical Facility 16888 Baseline Avenue 160 6
aThese distances were not used for the noise exposure calculations; see Section 4.13-7.
bSee Figure 4.13-2 for locations of ambient noise sampling points.
On June 16, 2022, UltraSystems conducted 15-minute noise measurements near sensitive receivers
residing surrounding the project site. Figure 4.13-2 shows the measurement points and Table 4.13-
2 summarizes the results of this noise study. Measured Leq values ranged from about 45 to 68 dBA.
The highest measured average and maximum levels were at measurement point 5, which is across
Sierra Avenue from the project site.
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.13-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.13-1
SENSITIVE RECEIVERS MAP
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.13-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Figure 4.13-2
AMBIENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.13-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Table 4.13-2
AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
Point Data
Set
Sampling
Time Address Sound Level (dBA) Notes Leq Lmax L90
1 S007 0844 -0859 7279 Turnstone Court 64.9 80.9 46.8
Behind a single-family
residence northwest
of project site
2 S010 1019 - 1034 7347 Juniper Avenue 48.6 67.2 42.4
In front of Seventh-
Day Adventist Church,
west of the project
site
3 S011 1057 - 1112 16772 Montgomery
Avenue 44.9 62.0 40.5
East of single-family
residence southwest
of the project site
4 S012 1143 - 1158 16817 Montgomery
Avenue 46.6 65.8 41.9
In front of a single-
family residence south
of the project site
5 S013 1307 - 1322 7370 Sleepy Creek
Avenue 67.7 80.6 58.6
In front of a single-
family residence east
of the project site
6 S008 0923 - 0938 16888 Baseline Avenue 65.9 85.3 54.5
In front of Arrowhead
Regional Medical
Center south of
project site
Source: UltraSystems, 2022.
4.13.4 Regulatory Setting
State of California
The California Department of Health Services (DHS) Office of Noise Control has studied the
correlation of noise levels with effects on various land uses. (The Office of Noise Control no longer
exists.) The most current guidelines prepared by the state noise officer are contained in the “General
Plan Guidelines” issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research in 2003 and reissued in
2017 (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2017). These guidelines establish four categories
for judging the severity of noise intrusion on specified land uses:
• Normally Acceptable: Is generally acceptable, with no mitigation necessary.
• Conditionally Acceptable: May require some mitigation, as established through a noise
study.
• Normally Unacceptable: Requires substantial mitigation.
• Clearly Unacceptable: Probably cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
The types of land uses addressed by the state standards, and the acceptable noise categories for each,
are presented in Table 4.13-4. There is some overlap between categories, which indicates that some
judgment is required in determining the applicability of the numbers in a given situation.
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.13-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Table 4.13-4
CALIFORNIA LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE SOURCES
Land Use Category Noise Exposure (dBA, CNEL)
55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential – Low-Density Single-Family, Duplex,
Mobile Homes
Residential – Multiple Family
Transient Lodging – Motel, Hotels
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters
Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation,
Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture
Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements.
Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply system or air conditioning will normally suffice.
Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2017.
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.13-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
City of Fontana General Plan Noise Element
The City of Fontana General Plan EIR Noise and Safety Element (Stantec, 2018b) has the following
goals, policies and actions that apply to proposed project:
Goal 8: The City of Fontana protects sensitive land uses from excessive noise by diligent planning
through 2035 (Stantec, 2018b, p.11.9).
Policies
• New sensitive land uses shall be prohibited in incompatible areas.
• Where sensitive uses are to be placed along transportation routes, mitigation
shall be provided to ensure compliance with state-mandated noise levels.
• Noise spillover or encroachment from commercial, industrial and educational
land uses shall be minimized into adjoining residential neighborhoods or noise-
sensitive uses.
Actions
A. The following uses shall be considered noise-sensitive and discouraged in areas in excess of
65 dBA CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level): Residential Uses; Hospitals; Rest Homes;
Long Term Care Facilities; and Mental Care Facilities.
B. The following uses shall be considered noise-sensitive and discouraged in areas in excess of
65 [dBA] Leq (12) (Equivalent Continuous Sound Level): Schools; Libraries; Places of
Worship; and Passive Recreation Uses.
C. The State of California Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines shall be
followed with respect to acoustical study requirements.
Goal 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 (Stantec, 2018b,
p.11.10).
Actions
A. On-road trucking activities shall continue to be regulated in the City to ensure noise impacts
are minimized, including the implementation of truck-routes based on traffic studies.
B. Development that generates increased traffic and subsequent increases in the ambient noise
level adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses shall provide appropriate mitigation measures.
Goal 10: The City of Fontana’s residents are protected from the negative effects of “spillover”
noise (Stantec, 2018b, p.11.10).
Policy
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.13-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
o Residential land uses and areas identified as noise-sensitive shall be protected from
excessive noise from non-transportation sources including industrial, commercial,
and residential activities and equipment.
Actions
A. Projects located in commercial areas shall not exceed stationary-source noise standards at
the property line of proximate residential or commercial uses.
B. Industrial uses shall not exceed commercial or residential stationary source noise standards
at the most proximate land uses.
C. Non-transportation noise shall be considered in land use planning decisions.
D. Construction shall be performed as quietly as feasible when performed in proximity to
residential or other noise sensitive land uses.
The City of Fontana’s Municipal Code (City of Fontana Municipal Code, 2022) contains several
provisions potentially related to construction and operation of the proposed project. Prohibited
noises enumerated in Chapter 18 (Nuisances), Article II. - Noise include:
o Construction or repairing of buildings or structures. The erection (including excavating),
demolition, alteration or repair of any building or structure other than between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
on Saturdays, except in case of urgent necessity in the interest of public health and safety,
and then only with a permit from the building inspector, which permit may be granted
for a period not to exceed three days or less while the emergency continues and which
permit may be renewed for periods of three days or less while the emergency continues.
If the building inspector should determine that the public health and safety will not be
impaired by the erection, demolition, alteration or repair of any building or structure or
the excavation of streets and highways within the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and if
he shall further determine that loss or inconvenience would result to any party in interest,
he may grant permission for such work to be done on weekdays within the hours of 6:00
p.m. and 7:00 a.m., upon application being made at the time the permit for the work is
awarded or during the progress of the work.1
o Noise near schools, courts, place of worship or hospitals. The creation of any loud,
excessive, impulsive or intrusive noise on any street adjacent to any school, institution of
learning, places of worship or court while the premises are in use, or adjacent to any
hospital which unreasonably interferes with the workings of such institution or which
disturbs or unduly annoys patients in the hospital; provided conspicuous signs are
displayed in such streets indicating that the street is a school, hospital or court street.21
o Blowers. The operation of any noise-creating blower or power fan or any internal
combustion engine other than from the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on a weekday
and the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on a Saturday, the operation of which causes
noise due to the explosion of operating gases or fluids, unless the noise from such blower
1 Fontana Municipal Code § 18-63(b)(7).
21 Fontana Municipal Code § 18-63(b)(8).
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.13-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
or fan is muffled and such engine is equipped with a muffler device sufficient to deaden
such noise.22
o Piledrivers, hammers, etc. The operation between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of
any piledriver, steam shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, steam or electric hoist or other
appliance, the use of which is attended by loud, excessive, impulsive or intrusive noise.23
City of Fontana Conditions of Approval
The construction contractor shall use the following source controls at all times:
a. Construction shall be limited to 7:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on
Saturdays, and no construction on Sundays and Holidays unless it is approved by the
building inspector for cases that are considered urgently necessary as defined in Section
18-63(b)(7) of the Municipal Code.
b. For all noise-producing equipment, use types and models that have the lowest
horsepower and the lowest noise generating potential practical for their intended use.
c. The construction contractor will ensure that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile,
is properly operating (tuned-up) and lubricated, and that mufflers are working
adequately.
d. Have only necessary equipment onsite.
e. Use manually-adjustable or ambient-sensitive backup alarms. When working adjacent to
residential use(s), the construction contractor will also use the following path controls,
except where not physically feasible, when necessary:
f. Install portable noise barriers, including solid structures and noise blankets, between the
active noise sources and the nearest noise receivers.
g. Temporarily enclose localized and stationary noise sources.
h. Store and maintain equipment, building materials, and waste materials as far as practical
from as many sensitive receivers as practical.
4.13.5 Significance Thresholds
The City of Fontana has not published explicit thresholds for use in determining significance of noise
impacts under CEQA. In keeping with standard practice, two criteria were used for judging noise
impacts. First, noise levels generated by the proposed project must comply with all relevant federal,
state, and local standards and regulations. Noise impacts on the surrounding community are limited
by local noise ordinances, which are implemented through investigations in response to nuisance
complaints. It is assumed that all existing applicable regulations for the construction and operation
of the proposed project would be enforced. In addition, the proposed project should not produce
noise levels that are incompatible with adjacent noise sensitive land uses.
22 Fontana Municipal Code § 18-63(b)(11).
23 Fontana Municipal Code § 18-63(b)(10).
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.13-10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
The second measure of impact used in this analysis is a significant increase in noise levels above
existing ambient noise levels as a result of the introduction of a new noise source. An increase in
noise level due to a new noise source has a potential to adversely impact people. The proposed
project would have a significant noise impact if it would do any of the following:
• Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards recommended in the City
of Fontana General Plan Noise Element.
• Include construction activities in or within 500 feet of residential areas between 6:00 p.m. of
one day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day, without a permit.
• Expose offsite sensitive receivers during construction to 80 dBA Leq or more, as
recommended by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA, 2018, p. 179).
• Contribute, with other local construction projects, to a significant cumulative noise impact.
• Increase operational exposures at sensitive receivers (mainly because of an increase in traffic
flow) by 5 dBA Leq or more.
4.13.6 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in generation of substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
Less than Significant Impact
Construction activities, especially with heavy equipment operation, would create noise effects on and
adjacent to the construction site. Long-term noise impacts include project-generated onsite and
offsite operational noise sources. Onsite noise sources from the operation of the commercial facilities
would include the use of mechanical equipment such as air conditioners and landscaping and
building maintenance activities. Offsite noise would be attributable to project induced traffic, which
would cause an incremental increase in noise levels within and near the project vicinity. Each is
described below.
Construction
Noise impacts from construction activities are a function of the noise generated by the operation of
construction equipment and on-road delivery and worker commuter vehicles, the location of
equipment, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities. Using calculation methods
published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA, 2018), UltraSystems estimated the average
hourly exposures at six sensitive receiver locations near the project site. The distances used for the
calculation were measured from the residence to the approximate center of activity of each
construction phase, since that would be the average location of construction equipment most of the
time. For the purpose of this analysis, it was estimated that the construction of the proposed project
would begin in September 2023 and end in October 2024.
The types and numbers of pieces of equipment anticipated in each phase of construction and
development were estimated by running the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod),
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.13-11
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Version 2020.4.0, and having the model generate land use-based default values. The CalEEMod
equipment default values are based on a construction survey performed by the SCAQMD (BREEZE
Software, 2021). Table 4.13-5 lists the equipment expected to be used. For each equipment type, the
table shows an average noise emission level (in dB at 50 feet, unless otherwise specified) and a “usage
factor,” which is an estimated fraction of operating time that the equipment would be producing noise
at the stated level. Equipment use was matched to phases of the construction schedule. Note that
attenuation by existing walls near Receivers 1 and 5 was not estimated, because the unattenuated
exposures at those locations would be less than significant. (See below.)
Table 4.13-5
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT CHARACTERISTICS
Construction Phase Equipment Type Number
of
Pieces
Maximum
Sound
Level
(dBA @
50 feet)
Usage
Factor
Composite
Noise
(dBA @ 50
feet)
Grading
Excavators 1 80 0.4
87.42 Graders 1 85 0.41
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 79 0.4
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 85 0.37
Building
Construction
Crane 1 83 0.08
85.94
Forklift 3 67 0.3
Generator Sets 1 73 0.5
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 3 85 0.37
Welders 1 74 0.45
Paving
Paving Equipment 2 85 0.5
85.70 Pavers 2 77 0.5
Rollers 2 74 0.1
Architectural Coating Air Compressor 1 81 0.48 78.56
Source: FHWA, 2006.
Table 4.13-6 summarizes the results of the construction noise analysis. For all sensitive receivers,
the greatest exposures would occur during building construction. The highest total short-term noise
exposure (ambient plus construction-related) would be 73.8 dBA Leq, at residences on Montgomery
Avenue. This is below the 80-dBA Leq threshold for significance. Although this project has no
significance criteria for increases in short-term exposure that do not exceed 80 dBA Leq, it is worth
noting that for sensitive receivers 2, 3 and 4, the increase would exceed 5 dBA without the
incorporation of the standard conditions of approval presented in Section 4.13.4. This increase
would be noticeable to most people. With the incorporation of the standard conditions, the increases
would be reduced.
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.13-12
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Table 4.13-6
ESTIMATED ONE-HOUR CONSTRUCTION NOISE EXPOSURES AT NEAREST SENSITIVE
RECEIVERS
Sensitive Receiver Ambient
dBA Leq
Construction
Contribution
dBA Leq
New Total
dBA Leq
Increase
dBA Leq
1 - 7279 Turnstone Court 64.9 66.5 68.8 3.9
2 - 7347 Juniper Avenue 48.6 57.8 58.3 9.7
3 - 16772 Montgomery Avenue 44.9 63.5 63.6 18.7
4 - 16817 Montgomery Avenue 46.6 73.8 73.8 27.2
5 - 7370 Sleepy Creek 67.7 65.7 69.8 2,1
6 - 16888 Baseline Avenue 65.9 66.7 69.3 3.4
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems, 2022.
Operational Noise
Onsite
On-site noise sources from the proposed development would include operation of air conditioners,
parking lot activities, and truck deliveries and departures. Noise levels from these sources are
generally lower than from the traffic on streets bordering the project site. Furthermore, § 18-63 of
the City of Fontana Development Code limits onsite noise impacts of the operation of any noise-
creating blower or power fan or any internal combustion engine other than from the hours of 7:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on a weekday and the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on a Saturday, the operation of
which causes noise due to the explosion of operating gases or fluids, unless the noise from such
blower or fan is muffled and such engine is equipped with a muffler device sufficient to deaden such
noise. The operational noise levels would be within both the City’s daytime and nighttime residential
noise standards of 70 dBA and 65 dBA, respectively.
Finally, the analysis included noise from motor vehicles entering and leaving the facility. Average,
unadjusted24 average daily traffic (ADT) values for each land use were obtained from the project
traffic study (Tucker and Lee, 2023, Table 4-2). UltraSystems apportioned total ADT to weekdays,
Saturdays and Sundays according to CalEEMod’s default distribution fractions for each land use. For
each land use, the ADT for the type of day with the highest traffic level was used. Finally, daily trips
were allocated to hours of the day through use of temporal distributions provided online by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE, 2022). The maximum number of vehicles traveling onsite
per hour would be 789.
The average hourly noise exposure for a given number of individual arrivals is:25
Leq = SEL + 10 log(V) + 40 log(S/50) - 10 log(S/50)– 35.6
where
24 The traffic study started with trip generation calculated with factors from the Institute of Transportation Engineers
and then adjusted the ADT values by subtracting internal trip capture and pass-by trips. UltraSystems did not make
the adjustments; hence, the ADT values used in this operational noise analysis represent the “worst case.”
25 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and
Environment, Washington, DC, FTA Report No. 0123. September 2018. Internet:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-
impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf.
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.13-13
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
SEL = sound exposure level of one vehicle26
V = number of vehicles per hour
S = average vehicle speed, miles per hour
The Federal Transit Administration recommends using a SEL of 74 dBA for automobiles. Therefore,
for 789 vehicles per hour, and an assumed onsite travel speed of five miles per hour, Leq would be
37.4 dBA Leq at 50 feet.
Since this would be a long-term repeating exposure, we calculated the day-night average exposure
(Ldn) at the closest sensitive receiver, assuming that the L90 measured in our ambient sampling
represented nighttime exposure.27 The current (without project) 24-hour average exposure at the
nearest sensitive receiver would be 63.2 dBA Ldn. With the project, the exposures would be nearly
the same. The increase would be 0.0001 dBA Ldn, which would not be detectable by the average
person. Long-term noise exposures from onsite sources would therefore be less than significant.
On-road Mobile Sources
The principal noise source in the project area is traffic on local roadways. The project may contribute
to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity due to project-generated
vehicle traffic on nearby roadways and at major intersections.
As discussed above, the total unadjusted (ADT) generated by the project would be 11,679 vehicle
trips per day. According to the project traffic report (Tucker and Lee, 2023, Exhibits 4-2 and 4-3),
about 15 percent of the project-generated inbound and outbound ADT near the project site will be
on Baseline Avenue and about 40 percent will be on Sierra Avenue. According to the City of Fontana
General Plan Community Mobility and Circulation Element (City of Fontana, 2018c, Exhibit 9.5), the
ADT values for Baseline Avenue and Sierra Avenue in the same road segments are 9,700 trips per day
and 23,500 trips per day, respectively. The corresponding increases in traffic are 18 and 20 percent.
Given the logarithmic nature of the decibel, traffic volume needs to be doubled in order for the noise
level to increase by 3 dBA (Hendricks et al., 2013, pp. 6-5 and 8-9), the minimum level perceived by
the average human ear. A doubling is equivalent to a 100% increase. Because the maximum increase
in traffic is far below 100%, the increase in roadway noise experienced at sensitive receivers would
not be perceptible to the human ear. Therefore, roadway noise associated with project operation
would not expose a land use to noise levels that are considered incompatible with or in excess of
adopted standards, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact
Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. Vibration can result from a source (e.g., subway
operations, vehicles, machinery equipment, etc.) causing the adjacent ground to move, thereby
creating vibration waves that propagate through the soil to the foundations of nearby buildings. This
26 The sound exposure level (SEL) is equivalent to the total sound energy experienced during a measurement period, as
if it had all occurred in one second.
27 It would have been preferable to estimate the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), which has a separate
weighting for 7:00 p.m. to 10 p.m., but we had no noise levels for those hours. The difference between CNEL and Ldn
values is negligible.
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.13-14
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
effect is referred to as groundborne vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) or the RMS velocity is
usually used to describe vibration levels. PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the
vibration level, while RMS is defined as the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of
the level. PPV is typically used for evaluating potential building damage, while RMS velocity in dB is
typically more suitable for evaluating human response.
The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually around 50 vibration decibels
(VdB). The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A
vibration velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and
distinctly perceptible levels for most people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources
within buildings such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming
of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment,
steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration
from traffic is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB to 100 VdB,
which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings.
Construction Vibration
Construction activities for the project have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne
vibration. The operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that propagate though the
ground and diminishes in intensity with distance from the source. Vibration impacts can range from
no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration
at moderate levels, to slight damage of buildings at the highest levels. The construction activities
associated with the project could have an adverse impact on both sensitive structures (i.e., building
damage) and populations (i.e., annoyance).
The construction vibration analysis used formulas published by the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) (FTA, 2018, p. 185). For a standard reference distance of 25 feet, peak particle velocity is found
from:
PPV = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
where
PPVref = Reference source vibration at 25 feet
D = Distance from source to receiver
The vibration level (VdB) for a standard reference distance of 25 feet is found from:
VdB = Lvref – 30 log(D/25)
where
Lvref = Reference source vibration level at 25 feet
D = Distance from source to receiver
The FTA has published standard vibration levels for construction equipment operations, at a distance
of 25 feet (FTA, 2018, p. 185). The smallest distance from onsite project construction activity to a
residential receiver would be about 98 feet, and the smallest distance from a loaded truck would be
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.13-15
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
70 feet. The calculated vibration levels expressed in VdB and PPV for selected types of construction
equipment at distances of 25, 98, and 70 feet are listed in Table 4.13-6.
As shown in Table 4.13-6, the maximum estimated vibration levels of construction equipment at a
sensitive receiver would be 0.02449 inch per second, which is less than the FTA damage threshold of
0.12 inch per second PPV for fragile historic buildings, and 73 VdB, which is below the FTA threshold
for human annoyance of 80 VdB. Construction vibration impacts would therefore be less than
significant.
Table 4.13-6
VIBRATION LEVELS OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Equipment
PPV
at 25 feet
(in/sec)
Vibration
Decibels
at 25 feet
(VdB)
PPV
at 98 feet
(in/sec)a
Vibration
Decibels
at 98 feet
(VdB)a
Loaded trucks 0.076 86 0.02449 73
Large bulldozer 0.089 87 0.01981 69
Small bulldozer 0.003 58 0.00067 40
Source: FTA, 2018 and UltraSystems, 2022.
aDistance for loaded trucks is 70 feet.
Operational Vibration
Operation of the proposed project would not involve significant sources of ground-borne vibration
or ground-borne noise. Thus, operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant
impact.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact
The closest public airport to the project site is the Ontario International Airport, located
approximately 9.3 miles to the southwest. No portion of the project site lies within the 65-dBA CNEL
noise contours of that airport (City of Ontario, 2011). Therefore, the project would not expose people
residing or working in the project area to a safety hazard or excessive noise levels associated with
airports and no impact would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.14 – POPULATION AND HOUSING ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.14-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
4.14 Population and Housing
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned growth in an area either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact
Existing and forecasted demographic data for the City of Fontana for 2021 and 2045 are shown below
in Table 4.14-1. The population in the city is forecast to increase by approximately 34 percent and
the number of households by 47 percent, and employment is forecast to increase by 29 percent
during that period (CDF, 2022; SCAG, 2020; USCB, 2022). The estimated total number of housing
units in the city in 2021 was 55,909, consisting of 44,676 (80 percent of total) single-family detached,
1,337 (2 percent) single-family attached, 8,348 (15 percent) multifamily, and 1,548 (3 percent)
mobile homes (CDF, 2021).
Table 4.14-1
CITY OF FONTANA DEMOGRAPHIC FORECAST
2021 2045 Difference
(2045 – 2020)
Percent Difference
(2045 – 2020)
Population 212,809 286,700 73,891 34.7 percent
Households1 53,073 77,800 24,727 46.6 percent
Employment 58,173 75,100 16,927 29.1 percent
1 A household is equivalent to an occupied housing unit
Sources: CDF, 2021; SCAG, 2020; US Census Bureau, 2021
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has established a Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (2021 RHNA) for the City of Fontana for the period 2021 to 2029, as enumerated
in Table 4.14-2 below. Note that the total RHNA for Fontana for the 2021-2029 period is 17,519
units (2,190 per year average over eight years), which is a considerably faster increase than the
24,727 households forecast to be added over the 24-year period 2021-2045 (1,030 average per year).
❖ SECTION 4.14 – POPULATION AND HOUSING ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.14-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Table 4.14-2
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT, CITY OF FONTANA, 2021-2029
Income Category Percent of San Bernardino
County Median Income
Units
Very Low Income <50 5,109
Low Income 50-80 2,950
Moderate Income 80-120 3,035
Above Moderate Income >120 6,425
Total Not applicable 17,519
Sources: SCAG 2021a; SCAG 2021b
The proposed project is a commercial development that has no residential component, and there are
no housing units existing on the project site.
An adverse population and housing impact is one exceeding the regional forecast for the relevant
jurisdiction. No additional housing units will be added to the city’s housing stock, and there will be
no additional population added directly as a result of the project. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact
No housing exists onsite and no one currently resides on the project site. Therefore, the project would
not displace any housing or people and the project would not necessitate the construction of
replacement housing. No impact would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.15 – PUBLIC SERVICES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.15-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
4.15 Public Services
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
a) Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact
Fontana Fire and Rescue (FFR) provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the City
of Fontana. FFR operates seven fire stations. The nearest existing fire station to the project site is
Station 78 at 7110 Citrus Avenue, approximately one mile to the northwest. Station 78 has daily
staffing of five and is equipped with one medic engine and one squad vehicle (Fontana, 2022).
Project development is expected to generate a small increase in calls for fire protection and
emergency medical service. The project would pay fire facilities fees required by the City of Fontana.
The city charges Fire Facilities Fees of $0.25 per commercial land use square foot (Fontana, 2021).
The project has 47,361 square feet of building area, resulting in an impact fee of $11,840.
Project operation would increase property tax and sales tax revenues to the City, some of which are
expected to be allocated to FFR. The addition of 47,361square feet of commercial development would
not require the City to build a new or expanded fire station. Impacts related to construction of new
or expanded fire station would be less than significant.
b) Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact
The Fontana Police Department (FPD) provides police protection to the City. The FPD station is
17005 Upland Avenue, about 1.2 miles south of the project site. FPD consists of Divisions which
includes Administrative Services, Field Services and Special Operations such as Field Evidence Unit,
Fugitive Apprehension Team, Inland Valley SWAT, Investigations Unit, K-9 Unit, Patrol Unit, Air
Support, Communications Center, Personnel & Training, Property Unit, Records Unit, Animal Services
Team, COPE Community Outreach and Public Engagement, Explorer Program, Fontana Leadership
Intervention Program, Multiple Enforcement Team, Press Information Office, Traffic Unit,
❖ SECTION 4.15 – PUBLIC SERVICES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.15-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Community Outreach And Support Team C.O.A.S.T., Homeless Outreach Support Team H.O.S.T., Social
Work Action Group S.W.A.G. (FPD, 2022).
FPD target response times for Priority 1 is 3:52 (Emergency calls like subject not breathing, shots
fired, and other immediate risk to life/safety) (City of Fontana, 2021).
FPD operations are funded mostly through property taxes and sales taxes (City of Fontana, 2019).
The City of Fontana charges commercial development a Police Facilities impact fee of $26.52 per
1,000 gross square feet of building. With 47,361 square feet of building area, the Police Facilities
impact fee would be $1,256.
The project would pay development impact fees required by the City of Fontana. Project impacts on
police services would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
c) Schools?
No Impact
The project site is in the Fontana Unified School District (FUSD), which spans most of the City of
Fontana, FUSD operates 30 elementary schools (K-5), seven middle schools (6-8), five high schools,
two alternative education school, and one adult/community education program (FUSD, 2022a).
FUSD schools nearest to the project site include Mango Elementary School (grades K-5), Alder Middle
School (grades 6-8), and A.B. Miller High School (grades 9-12). Demand for school facilities is
generated by the number of households in the schools’ attendance boundaries. The project does not
propose development of new housing. Therefore, no impact on schools would occur.
d) Parks?
Less than Significant Impact
Recreational services in the city of Fontana are provided by the City’s Department of Facilities and
Parks, which maintains over 40 parks, sports facilities, and community centers (City of Fontana,
2022a). The City’s park acreage standard is five acres of public park land per 1,000 residents. The
City currently has approximately 1,359 acres total in parks and land for public use, enough to meet
this performance standard (Stantec, 2018, p. 7.10). Bill Martin Park, located at 7881 Juniper Avenue,
is approximately 0.5 mile southwest of the project site. The park includes facilities such as a tennis
courts, ball fields and a playground (City of Fontana, 2020f). The project would not include
development of residences. While it is possible that employees at the project site may visit nearby
parks, the potential impact of these visits on parks would be less than significant.
e) Other Public Facilities?
No Impact
Library
Fontana Lewis Library & Technology Center is at is at 8437 Sierra Avenue, approximately one mile
south of the project site. Demand for libraries is generated by the populations in the libraries’ service
areas. Project development would not increase population in the City of Fontana. Therefore, the
project would have no impact on other public facilities.
❖ SECTION 4.16 – RECREATION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.16-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
4.16 Recreation
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
X
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
Less than Significant Impact
Recreational services in the city of Fontana are provided by the City’s Department of Facilities and
Parks, which maintains over 40 parks, sports facilities, and community centers (City of Fontana,
2022a). The City’s park acreage standard is 5.7 acres of park and recreation land per 1,000 residents.
The City currently has approximately 1,196.3 acres total in parks and land for public use, enough to
meet this performance standard (Stantec, 2018, p. 7.10). Existing parks within one mile of the project
site are:
• Bill Martin Park at 7792 Juniper Ave., .73 mile to the south, which spans 11.39 acres;
facilities include ball fields, barbecue areas, basketball, picnic shelters and tables, playground,
snack bar, tennis courts and restrooms.
• Cambria Park / Walnut Village at 17160 Cambria Ave., 0.92 mile to the northeast;
encompasses 2.17 acres; facilities include a playground, open space and trails.
• Gabriella Park at 16943 San Jacinto Ave., 0.31 mile to the south, which spans 1.4 acres;
facilities include playground, picnic shelter, barbeque areas, and dog park (City of Fontana,
2022c).
Demand for parks is generated by the population in the parks’ service areas. The project involves
development of a Mixed Commercial Development of 284,280 square feet (6.53 acres) currently on
undeveloped fallow land. At buildout, the project would include a car wash, gas station with
convenience store, a quick service restaurant (QSR), full-service restaurant, pharmacy, and two
commercial retail buildings. Therefore, project development would be considered a commercial
center with no additional demand of park space anticipated.
❖ SECTION 4.16 – RECREATION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.16-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Less than Significant Impact
Project development may require future development of park facilities financed in part by project
development impact fees. The sites of such potential future parks are currently unknown, and thus
any attempt at assessing impacts of such development would be speculative. Such development
would be subject to separate CEQA review. Therefore, project impacts would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.17-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
4.17 Transportation
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to
a geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access? X
The analysis below is based on the Midland Plaza Project Traffic Impact Study, a trip generation
assessment for the proposed project that was conducted by RK Engineering Group, Inc. (RKE, 2022;
refer to Appendix F). The trip generation assessment estimates the combination of existing and
future vehicular trips from the project site based on implementation of the proposed project. The
study was conducted pursuant to the City of Fontana Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines
for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment, adopted October 21, 2020, and CEQA
requirements.
a) Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact
Sierra Avenue and Baseline Avenue are both 132-foot right-of-way roadways (8 lanes) designated as
Major Highways in the City of Fontana General Plan; Sierra Avenue runs north-south and Baseline
Avenue runs east-west. (City of Fontana, 2018). The intersection of Sierra and Baseline currently is
signalized. Sidewalks run along the boundaries of the project along both Sierra and Baseline. A major
program to improve Sierra Avenue between Baseline Avenue and Foothill Boulevard will begin
construction in Fall 2022 (City of Fontana, 2022). An existing Class II bike lane passes the northern
edge of the project along Baseline Avenue, and a proposed Class II bike lane will run north from
Baseline along Sierra Avenue. Omnitrans provides public transit bus service in Fontana. The nearest
transit route to the project site is Route 67, which travels along Sierra Avenue on its way to the
Fontana Metrolink Station but makes no stops along Sierra Avenue (Omnitrans, 2022).
The following City and County plans, ordinances and policies would apply to the project.
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.17-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
San Bernardino Congestion Management Program (CMP)
The San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) defines a network of state highways
and arterials, level of service standards and related procedures, a process for mitigation of the
impacts of new development on the transportation system, and technical justification for the
approach. The project would not conflict with the San Bernardino County Congestion Management
Plan.
City of Fontana Active Transportation Plan (ATP)
The 2017 Fontana ATP is used to implement infrastructure improvements for better connectivity
throughout Fontana, to surrounding cities, and the region by providing safe and comfortable walking
and bicycling linkages (City of Fontana, 2017). The proposed project would not interfere with the
creation of walking or bicycling linkages, and therefore the proposed project would not conflict with
the ATP.
City of Fontana Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program
The City’s DIF program was adopted pursuant to Government Code §§ 66000 et seq. Fontana’s
Development Services Department oversees the use of the DIF fees, which fund projects in the City’s
capital improvement program (Stantec, 2018). The proposed project is not part of the DIF program,
and therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the DIF program.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
The City of Fontana Municipal Code has a set of transportation management requirements for
development projects within the city. The requirements apply to office/commercial projects with a
minimum of 125,000 square feet of floor area. The proposed project, with 47,361 square feet, is under
that threshold and not subject to this provision. (City of Fontana, 2022x)
Given that the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of the City Municipal Code,
the City’s ATP, and San Bernardino’s CMP, or interfere with public transit or bicycle transportation,
project impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Less than Significant Impact
§ 15064.3, Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts, of the CEQA Guidelines describes
specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. § 15064.3(b) includes
criteria for analyzing transportation impacts. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) which focuses on the
overall miles traveled by vehicles within a region, is the new metric for transportation analysis and
replaces automobile delay (Level of Service -LOS), which is no longer used as a criterion for
determining a significant environmental effect under CEQA (City of Fontana, October 2020). For land
use projects, “Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may
indicate a significant impact.”
On June 9, 2020, the City of Fontana adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Thresholds for
determining transportation impacts pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. This adoption was required by
Senate Bill (SB) 743 and the recent changes to § 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines. For the purpose of
CEQA analysis of VMT and traffic impacts associated with projects proposed in the City of Fontana,
in October 2020 the City also adopted Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.17-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
(VMT) and Level of Service Assessment. The City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for VMT
Assessment provides project screening criteria and guidance for analysis of VMT assessments. The
following VMT screening criterion was utilized for the proposed project.
Project Type Screening: Local-serving retail projects of less than 50,000 square feet may be
presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. Local
serving retail generally improves the convenience of shopping close to home and has the effect of
reducing vehicle travel. The total building area equates to 47,361 square feet, which is less than the
50,000 square feet threshold. Thus, the project is assumed to have a less than significant impact and
no further additional VMT analysis would typically be required. However, a more detailed VMT
assessment has been conducted utilizing the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model
(SBTAM). Based on that analysis, the baseline link-level boundary VMT per service population does
not increase under the 2016 Baseline With Project condition compared to the 2016 Baseline Without
Project Conditions, and the project’s effect on VMT would be considered less than significant. (See
Appendix I, Traffic Impact Study, p. 7-3).
Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact regarding conflict or inconsistency
with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3.
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Less than Significant Impact
The proposed project would not alter the surrounding roadways. Access to the project site is
proposed via one right-turn in/right-turn out unsignalized driveway located along Baseline Avenue,
one right-turn in only unsignalized driveway along Baseline Avenue, one full ingress/right-turn out
only unsignalized driveway located along Sierra Avenue, and two full-access unsignalized driveways
located along Montgomery Avenue. The intersections of the two driveways would be perpendicular
to the roadways and would not cause hazards due to a geometric design feature. The project’s
circulation system, including driveways and parking areas, would be designed to meet the
development standards of the city and would not result in uses or design features that would create
traffic hazards. Therefore, impacts regarding increases in hazards due to geometric design features
or incompatible uses would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Construction
During the project construction phase, lanes and sidewalks may be temporarily closed off. To ensure
that circulation and emergency access during construction is adequate, the City requires preparation
and implementation of a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) for all projects that require
construction in the public ROW. Therefore, the proposed project would implement mitigation
measure TRANS-1. With implementation of mitigation measure TRANS-1, impacts in regard to
emergency access during construction would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.17-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Operation
The project would comply with applicable City regulations, such as the requirement to comply with
the City’s Fire Code with regard to providing adequate emergency access. Prior to the issuance of
building permits, the City of Fontana would review project site plans, including location of all
buildings, fences, access driveways and other features that may affect emergency access. The project
site plan provides fire lanes for adequate emergency access. Onsite access and sight-distance
requirements would be in accordance with City design requirements. The City’s review process and
compliance with applicable regulations and standards would ensure that adequate emergency access
would be provided at the project site at all times. Therefore, the proposed project would not result
in inadequate emergency access and there would be no impacts in this regard.
Mitigation Measures
MM TRANS-1 The Transportation Management Plan (TMP) must be reviewed and approved by the
City’s Traffic Engineer prior to the start of construction activity in the public right-of-
way (ROW). The typical TMP requires items such as the installation of K-rail between
the construction area and open traffic lanes, the use of flagmen and directional
signage to direct traffic where only one travel lane is available or when equipment
movement creates temporary hazards, and the installation of steel plates to cover
trenches under construction. The TMP must provide that emergency access must be
maintained at all times.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
After implementation of mitigation measure TRANS-1 described above, the project would have less
than significant construction-phase impacts on emergency access.
❖ SECTION 4.18 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.18-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource that is listed or eligible for
listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources or in a local
register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code
§ 5020.1(k)?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource that is determined to be a
significant resource to a California
Native American tribe pursuant to
the criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resource Code
§ 5024.1(c)?
X
Information from UltraSystems’ Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory for the proposed project, dated
September 29, 2022, (refer to Appendix C) is included in the analysis below.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code § 5020.1(k)?
No Impact
No traditional cultural sites within the project area are documented in the Native American Heritage
Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) search. No resources as defined by Public Resources
Code § 21074 have been identified (refer to Attachment C: “Native American Heritage Commission
Records Search and Native American Contacts” in Appendix C to this IS/MND). Additionally, the
project site has not been recommended for historic designation for prehistoric and Tribal Cultural
Resources (TCRs). No specific tribal resources have been identified by local tribes responding to
inquiries for the Cultural Resources Inventory, including the SLF site.
No prehistoric archaeological resources were observed during the archaeological field survey
conducted June14, 2022 and July 8, 2022 by Stephen O’Neil, M.A., RPA as part of the cultural resources
investigation (Section 4.3, Appendix C). The results of the pedestrian assessment indicate that it is
unlikely that prehistoric resources will be adversely affected by construction of the project. Cultural
resource study findings at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) (the local California
Historic Resources Information System facility) indicate that there are no prehistoric resources and
one historic resource within the project parcel’s boundary. (Refer to Appendix C).
❖ SECTION 4.18 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.18-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
No tribal cultural resources onsite are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code
§ 5020.1(k). Therefore, the project would have no impact in this regard.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource that is determined to be a significant resource to a California Native
American tribe pursuant to the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code § 5024.1(c)?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 requires meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes on
potential impacts on TCRs, as defined in Public Resources Code § 21074. TCRs are sites, features,
places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe that are either eligible or listed in the California Register of Historical Resources or
local register of historical resources (CNRA, 2007).
As part of the AB 52 process, Native American tribes must submit a written request to the lead agency
to be notified of projects within their traditionally and culturally affiliated area. The lead agency must
provide written, formal notification to those tribes within 14 days of deciding to undertake a project.
The tribe must respond to the lead agency within 30 days of receiving this notification if they want
to engage in consultation on the project, and the lead agency must begin the consultation process
within 30 days of receiving the tribe’s request. Consultation concludes when either (1) the parties
agree to mitigation measures to avoid a significant effect on a tribal cultural resource, or (2) a party,
acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes mutual agreement cannot be reached.
The City of Fontana (the lead agency) initiated AB 52 outreach to local tribes for the Midland Plaza
project. Letters were sent by the City of Fontana’s Public Works Department (City) to all applicable
Native American Tribes. Cecily Session-Goins, Associate Planner, City of Fontana, is the lead for this
process (Cecily Session-Goins, personal communication, 2022a). The letters convey that the recipient
has 30 days from the receipt of the letter to request AB 52 consultation.
The letters were sent via certified mail the week of August 18, 2022 and by email the same day to the
following tribes:
• Reid Milanovich, Chairperson/Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director/Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Andrew Salas, Chairperson/ Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation
• Anthony Morales, Chairperson/ Gabrieleno Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
• Sandonne Goad, Chairperson/ Gabrielino Tongva Nation
• Robert Dorame, Chairperson/ Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council
• Christina Conley, Tribal Consultant & Administrator/Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
• Charles Alvarez, Councilmember/ Gabrielino Tongva Tribe
• Ann Brierty, THPO/Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• Robert Martin, Chairperson/Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• Jill McCormick, Historic Preservation Officer/Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
• Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman/ Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
❖ SECTION 4.18 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.18-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
• Jessica Mauck, Director of Cultural Resources / San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
• Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair/Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Mark Cochrane, Co-Chairperson/ Serrano Nation of Mission Indians
• Wayne Walker, Co-Chairperson/ Serrano Nation of Mission Indians
• Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson/Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
• Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resource Department/Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation responded to the City’s email on September 27, 2022 stating
that the project lies within Serrano ancestral territory and therefore is of interest to the Tribe. They
included a set of three cultural and two tribal suggested mitigation measures (Session-Goins 2022b).
The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation also responded to the City and requested
consultation. A consultation meeting took place on October 27, 2022 (Session-Goins 2022b). Ms.
Session-Goins indicated that she presented to the Tribe the standard conditions that the city uses for
every project and the Tribe agreed that these were acceptable.
No traditional cultural resources were documented in the Native American Heritage Commission’s
SLF search. No resources as defined by Public Resources Code § 21074 have been identified (refer to
Attachment C: “Native American Heritage Commission Records Search and Native American
Contacts” in Appendix C to this IS/MND). Additionally, the project site has not been recommended
for historic designation for prehistoric and TCRs. No specific tribal resources have been identified.
No prehistoric resources were observed during the field survey; one mid-twentieth century historic
resource – remnants of several farm-related structures – was observed and recorded, and
determined to be associated with the previously recorded CA-SBR-10660H. Another, similar historic
resource, CA-SBR-10909H is located outside the project boundary one block to the west.
Land at the project site has remained relatively undisturbed due to use for farming into the late 20th
century. The immediate area has shifted from agriculture and rural farm to commercial and broadly
spaced residential since the 1970s due to suburban expansion along the adjacent Baseline Avenue.
No human remains have been previously identified or recorded onsite. Therefore, while the potential
for subsurface prehistoric cultural deposits is considered to be low, the relatively undisturbed nature
of the land suggests there remains a continued potential for the presence of cultural resource
material (see Section 2.2.3 in Appendix C).
The project proposes grading. Grading activities associated with development of the project would
involve new subsurface disturbance and could result in the unanticipated discovery of TCRs as well
as unknown human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. In the unlikely
event of an unexpected discovery, implementation of mitigation measures TCR-1, TCR-2, TCR-3,
and/or TCR-4 would be required, as applicable.
Mitigation Measures
MM TCR-1: Upon discovery of any cultural tribal cultural or archaeological resources,
cease construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find
can be assessed. All cultural tribal and archaeological resources unearthed by
project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist
meeting the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Archaeology (“Qualified
Archaeologist”) and tribal monitor/consultant from an affiliated requesting
❖ SECTION 4.18 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.18-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
tribe. 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 in other parts of the project while evaluation takes place.
MM TCR-2: 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.
MM TCR-3: 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.
MM TCR-4: As specified by California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5, if human remains
are found on the project site during construction or during archaeological
work, the San Bernardino County Coroner’s office shall be immediately
notified and no further excavation or disturbance of the discovery or any
nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur
until the Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition
pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. The Coroner would determine
within two working days of being notified, if the remains are subject to his or
her authority. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American,
he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
within 24 hours. The NAHC would make a determination as to the Most Likely
Descendent.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of MM TCR-1, MM TCR-2, MM-TCR-3 and MM-TCR-4, potential project
impacts on TCRs would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.19-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in excess
of the capacity of local infrastructure,
or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid
waste?
X
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact
As discussed in Section 3.0, the proposed project would require offsite improvements including
sewer, domestic water, fire water, irrigation, and dry utilities connections to existing utility
infrastructure in the Sierra Avenue project. All overhead utilities will be undergrounded.
Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance – The Fontana Water Company (FWC) operates and
maintains sewers in parts of Fontana including the project site vicinity. Municipal wastewater
treatment services are provided by Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), which serves
❖ SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.19-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
approximately 875,000 people over 242 square miles in Western San Bernardino County.
Wastewater from Fontana Water Company’s service area is treated outside of the service area. IEUA’s
Regional Water Recycling Plant 4 (RP 4) is located near the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and 6th
Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and treats local wastewater generated by the City of Fontana.
RP-4 treats an average flow of 10 MGD of wastewater and was expanded to a capacity of 14 MGD in
2009. The project’s sewer main line will come from the intersection of Sierra Avenue and
Montgomery Avenue across Montgomery Avenue to the westerly property line of the project. All
sewer line sizes and connections are subject to review by the city.
Wastewater generation is estimated as 100 percent of indoor water use. While specific tenants are
unknown at this time, it is estimated that, when the center is fully occupied, water usage will total an
average of 9,000 gallons per day, although it could be as high as 12,000 gallons, depending on the
tenant roster. The carwash will recycle about 75 to 80 percent of the water it uses; the balance will
be mist, carry off and sludge moisture.
The project applicant will work with the City’s Public Works Department for necessary approvals and
ensure compliance with applicable requirements. Sufficient wastewater treatment capacity is
available in the region for project wastewater generation, and project development would not
require construction of a new or expanded wastewater treatment facility. Impacts would be less than
significant.
Domestic Water – As detailed in Threshold 4.19 b) below, the project site is in the Fontana Water
Company service area. Water supplies for the Fontana Service Area consist of imported water from
Lytle Creek surface flow, and from wells in the Lytle Basin, Rialto Basin, Chino Basin, and another
groundwater basin known as No Man's Land. (FWC, 2022). Currently here is no main on the same
side of the street of either Sierra Avenue or Baseline Avenue. The concrete main on Baseline Avenue
on the north side of the property may be impacted by construction. The project will require main
extension from the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Baseline Avenue to either the south property
line or west property line, depending on the location of the proposed connection point.
As analyzed in Threshold 4.19 b), the project would result in a nominal increase in water demand
compared to existing conditions and therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact
regarding domestic water supplies.
Fire Water - The project proposes construction of a new fire water line to the project site. Final
design of water facilities will be determined based on the approved Fire Department plan to assess
what size of main is adequate to provide the needed fire flow.
As analyzed in Threshold 4.19 b), the project would result in a nominal increase in water demand
compared to existing conditions and therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact
regarding fire water supplies.
Water Treatment – Water purchased from FWC is treated at FWC’s Sandhill Water Treatment Plant
– A 29 million-gallon-per-day (MGD) treatment plant that is comprised of a 12 MGD Conventional
filtration treatment facility and 17 MGD Diatomaceous Earth filtration treatment facility. The source
water for this treatment plant is local Lytle Creek surface water and State Water Project supplies
from Northern California (FWC, 2022).
Stormwater - Stormwater from the proposed conditions will be collected in catch basins and
conveyed via pipes to hydrodynamic separators for pre-treatment prior to soil infiltration via
❖ SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.19-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
underground infiltration chambers. The design capture volume (DCV) will be managed onsite,
including system oversizing for the new pavement and sidewalk areas within Montgomery Ave ROW,
which will drain to the onsite treatment and retention system via the under sidewalk drain proposed
along Montgomery Avenue, which also functions as an emergency overflow. Overflow from the
proposed site will be directed to its natural discharge location, which is to Montgomery Avenue,
south of the site. Discharge to Montgomery Avenue will be only for storm events that overflow the
onsite infiltration system. Discharge will be via a piped conveyance to an under sidewalk drain, per
City standard drawing #3001.
Electric Power: Electric power for the City of Fontana is provided by Southern California Edison
(SCE) (City of Fontana, 2022x). The proposed project is in a developed area, and infrastructure for
providing electric power to the area is well established. SCE typically utilizes existing utility corridors
to reduce environmental impacts and has energy-efficiency programs to reduce energy usage and
maintain reliable service throughout the year (Southern California Edison, 2018, p. 45). Total
electricity consumption in SCE’s service area is forecast to be 111,672GWh in 2022 and 122,931 GWh
in 2030 (CEC, 2020, Form 1.2); one GWH is equivalent to one million kilowatt-hours.
Southern California Edison (SCE) would provide electricity to the project site. Electrical utilities
would be undergrounded. An existing overhead power line next to the south site boundary along
Montgomery Avenue would be removed and undergrounded. Construction would need to occur in
the public right-of-way during installation of a new utility connections to the project site. The project
would be constructed in accordance with applicable Title 24 regulations and would not necessitate
the construction or relocation of electric power facilities. Therefore, a less than significant impact
would occur.
Natural Gas: Natural gas service will be provided to the site by Southern California Gas Company.
Only certain businesses in the commercial center are expected to require natural gas service, and
thus impacts on natural gas supplies or natural gas distribution infrastructure would be less than
significant.
Telecommunications Facilities: AT&T, Charter Communications and Ziply Fiber will provide
telecommunications services to the site It is expected that facilities of one or both
telecommunications providers would be extended into the project site from existing lines in adjacent
roadways. The proposed project would not interfere with operation of telecommunications facilities,
and therefore a less than significant impact would occur.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
Less than Significant Impact
Water Supplies and Demands
The Fontana Water Company (FWC) supplies water to most of the City of Fontana, including the
project site. FWC is both a water wholesaler and water retailer; it serves three retail service areas,
including the Fontana Service Area.
FWC’s water supply is produced from Lytle Creek surface flow, and from wells in the Lytle Basin,
Rialto Basin, Chino Basin, and another groundwater basin known as No Man’s Land. Water from the
❖ SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.19-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
California State Water Project is purchased from the IEUA and San Bernardino Valley Municipal
Water District. A portion of the water supply can be purchased from Cucamonga Valley Water District
during water shortages or under emergency situations.
The Project would not result in additional demand on water supplies as future development has been
previously accounted for and analyzed in the General Plan EIR and SGVWC planning documents.
Because the Project is consistent with FWC’s water supply projections that indicate there are
sufficient water supplies to serve the project and region, and because the development/connection
fees required for Project implementation would help mitigate future new or expanded infrastructure
that potentially may be needed with future regional growth, Project impacts would not result in the
need for new or expanded water supplies.
Water Treatment
Water purchased from FWC is treated at FWC’s Sandhill Water Treatment Plant, which is a 29 million-
gallon-per-day (MGD) treatment plant that is comprised of a 12 MGD Conventional filtration
treatment facility and 17 MGD Diatomaceous Earth filtration treatment facility. The source water for
this treatment plant is local Lytle Creek surface water and State Water Project supplies from
Northern. Therefore, based on the information above, sufficient water treatment capacity is available
in the region for project water demands, and thus project impacts regarding water demand would be
less than significant.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact
FWC area surface water is treated at FWC’s Sandhill Water Treatment Plant, which is a 29 million-
gallon-per-day (MGD) treatment plant that is comprised of a 12 MGD Conventional filtration
treatment facility and 17 MGD Diatomaceous Earth filtration treatment facility. The source water for
this treatment plant is local Lytle Creek surface water and State Water Project supplies from
Northern California. Therefore, based on the information above, sufficient water treatment capacity
is available in the region for project water demands, and thus project impacts regarding water
demand would be less than significant.
d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
Less than Significant Impact
Solid Waste
The city contracts with Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc., for collection and disposal of the city’s solid
waste. The Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill serves the City. Mid-Valley contains 498 acres with a
maximum permit capacity of 101,300,000 cubic yards, over 61 million of which remain unfilled.
Table 4.19-3 provides additional information about the landfill’s capacity.
❖ SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.19-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Table 4.19-3
LANDFILLS SERVING FONTANA
Facility and
Nearest
City/Community
Remaining
Capacity,
cubic yards
Daily
Permitted
Disposal
Capacity, tons
Actual Daily
Disposal,
tons1
Residual Daily
Disposal
Capacity, tons
Estimated
Closing Date
Mid-Valley
Sanitary Landfill
61,219,377 7,500 2,955 1,845 2045
1 Daily disposal calculated based on annual disposal tonnage assuming 300 operating days per year: that is, six days per
week less certain holidays.
Sources: CalRecycle. 2021a.
Construction
Project construction would generate solid waste requiring disposal at local landfills. Fontana-
generated solid waste is disposed of at Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill, which has remaining disposal
capacity of 1,845 tons per day or 673,425 tons per year. Materials generated during construction of
the project would include paper, cardboard, metal, plastics, glass, concrete, lumber scraps and other
materials. Section 4.408 of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; California
Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11) requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous
construction and demolition waste from residential construction operations be recycled and/or
salvaged for reuse. Project construction would include recycling and/or salvaging at least 65 percent
of construction and demolition waste in accordance with the 2019 CALGreen. Sufficient disposal
capacity would remain at the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill for solid waste generated by project
construction. Impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
Shopping centers and general retail facilities generate an average of approximately 2.5 pounds of
solid waste per day per 100 square feet, according to data collected by CalRecycle. Thus, the
proposed 47,363 square foot project is estimated to generate 1,185 pounds of solid waste per day or
216 tons per year, as shown below in Table 4.19-4. As noted earlier, the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill
has remaining disposal capacity of 1,845 tons per day or 673,425 tons per year. Estimated project
operational solid waste disposal of 68 tons per year is approximately 0.01 percent of remaining
disposal capacity at Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill. Sufficient landfill capacity is available in the region
for estimated project solid waste generation, and project impacts on solid waste disposal capacity
would be less than significant.
Table 4.19-4
ESTIMATED PROJECT-GENERATED SOLID WASTE
Land Use Generation Rate*
Approximate Waste
(pounds/year)
Approximate
Waste
(tons/year)
General Retail 2.5 pounds per 100
square feet per day 432,525 216
*(CalRecycle, 2022).
❖ SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.19-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact
In 1989, the California Legislature enacted the California Integrated Waste Management Act
(AB 939), in an effort to address solid waste problems and capacities in a comprehensive manner.
The law required each city and county to divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills by the year
2000. The city developed a SRRE in 1997 that aims at recycling, composting, special waste disposal,
and education and public information programs.
Assembly Bill 341 (AB 341; Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) increases the statewide waste diversion
goal to 75 percent by 2020, and mandates recycling for commercial and multi-family residential land
uses. The project would include storage areas for recyclable materials in accordance with AB 341.
Assembly Bill 1826 (AB 1826; California Public Resources Code Sections 42649.8 et seq.) requires
recycling of organic matter by businesses, and multifamily residences of five of more units,
generating such wastes in amounts over certain thresholds. Organic waste means food waste, green
waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is
mixed in with food waste. Multifamily residences are not required to have a food waste diversion
program. The project would include recycling of organic wastes as required for multifamily
residences under AB 1826. The proposed project would comply with applicable local, state and
federal solid waste disposal standards; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Burrtec is implementing Senate Bill 1383 (SB 1383), Short Lived Climate Pollutants, in collaboration
with the City. The collection program implemented by Burrtec is considered to be the foundational
pillar in achieving the organic waste reduction targets established by SB 1383. SB 1383 requires
recycling containers to be blue, organics containers green, food waste containers brown, and refuse
containers to be either gray or black. (City of Fontana, 2022)
❖ SECTION 4.20 – WILDFIRE ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.20-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
4.20 Wildfire
If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified
as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X
a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact
As shown in Figure 4.9-2 in Section 4.9 of this IS/MND, the project site is not located in a State
Responsibility Area (SRA) (i.e., where the State is responsible for the costs of wildfire prevention and
suppression). The nearest SRA to the project site is in the City of Fontana approximately 3.4 miles to
the north-northwest. In addition, as shown in Figure 4.9-3 the project site is not located in a Very
High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA), (i.e., where cities
or counties are responsible for the costs of wildfire prevention and suppression). The nearest
VHFHSZ in LRA to the project site is about 1.8 miles to the north in the City of Fontana. Therefore, the
proposed project would not “substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan” and as such would have no impact.
b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
❖ SECTION 4.20 – WILDFIRE ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.20-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact
As indicated under item a) above the project site is not located in or near a SRA or a VHFHSZ within
a LRA. Therefore, the proposed project would not, "due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire” and as such would have no impact.
c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact
As indicated under item a) above the project site is not located in or near a SRA or a VHFHSZs within
a LRA. Therefore, the proposed project would not, "require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment” and as such would have no impact.
d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact
As indicated under item a) above the project site is not located in or near a SRA or a VHFHSZs within
a LRA. Therefore, the proposed project would not, "expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes” and as such would have no impact.
❖ SECTION 4.21 – MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.21-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Would the project have:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
a) Would the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Section 4.4 of this document addresses impacts on biological resources. The project site is located
in an urbanized area and provides a generally low-value habitat for special-status plant and wildlife
species identified in the BSA. Based on a literature review and query from publicly available
databases, for reported occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project site, there were 19 listed
and 35 sensitive wildlife species identified. Of the total of 54 species, one candidate was listed as
endangered and 17 sensitive wildlife species were determined to have at least a low potential to
occur. The project site lacks suitable habitat or is outside the elevation or geographic range of all
❖ SECTION 4.21 – MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.21-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
special-status plant species documented in the plant inventory. No special-status plant species were
observed during the surveys; it is anticipated that the construction of the project will have less than
a significant impact on special-status plant species within the BSA.
Section 4.4 also discusses reported occurrences within a 10-mile radius of the project site, there
were 19 listed and 35 sensitive wildlife species identified. Of those 54 total species, 18 special-status
wildlife species were determined to have at least a low potential to occur, no listed species were
determined to have the potential to occur onsite, and no special-status wildlife species were observed
during the surveys. Considering that none of the special-status wildlife species were determined to
have at least a low potential to occur within the BSA were observed, it is anticipated that the
construction of the project will have a less than significant impact on special-status species within
the BSA. Eighteen of the 54 special-status wildlife species in the wildlife inventory were determined
to have at least a low potential to occur in the BSA. It is anticipated that the construction of the project
will have a less than significant impact on all of those special-status species. Neither these special-
status species nor their signs were observed during surveys.
With the implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 the proposed project would have
less than significant impacts, either directly or through habitat modifications, on special-status
wildlife species.
Section 4.5 of this document addresses potential impacts on cultural resources. A cultural resources
inventory was requested on March 3, 2021, for the Midland Plaza project that included a California
Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) records and literature search at the South Central
Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton. According to the records
at the SCCIC, there was one previous survey report that included a portion of the project site (SB-
02621). This was a general survey of the northern portion of the City of Fontana and did not record
any cultural features in the project area. The pedestrian field surveys undertaken for this project
noted the presence of four concrete structure foundation slabs and light debris but were negative for
prehistoric resources.
With the implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 the proposed project would have
less than a significant impact on cultural resources.
b) Would the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than Significant Impact
The proposed project would be consistent with regional plans and programs that address
environmental factors such as air quality, water quality, and other applicable regulations that have
been adopted by public agencies with jurisdiction over the project for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating environmental effects.
Sections 4.3 and 4.13 of this Initial Study address potential impacts related to Air Quality and Noise,
respectively. As detailed in Section 4.3, air quality impacts associated with project construction and
operation would be less than significant and do not warrant mitigation. As detailed in Section 4.13,
construction and operational noise impacts associated with the project site were found to be less
than significant and do not warrant mitigation.
❖ SECTION 4.21 – MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 4.21-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
The project would create employment opportunities (both during the construction and operational
phases); employees from the local workforce would be hired during both the construction and
operational phases of the project. The project is not of the scope or scale to induce people to move
from outside of the project area to work on the proposed project. The project does not include a
housing component or otherwise support an increase in the resident population of the City and
would utilize existing infrastructure for its operation. Therefore, indirect population growth
resulting solely from the project is expected to be less than significant.
Because the project would not increase environmental impacts after mitigation measures are
incorporated, the incremental contribution to cumulative impacts is anticipated to be less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
c) Would the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Construction lighting impacts on surrounding residences were determined to be significant without
mitigation. Implementation of mitigation measure AES-1 would reduce this impact to less than
significant.
Archaeological resources may be buried in site soils and could be damaged by project ground-
disturbing activities. This impact would be significant without mitigation. Implementation of
mitigation measure CUL-1 would reduce this impact to less than significant. Impacts on human
remains that may be buried in site soils were determined to be significant without mitigation.
Implementation of mitigation measure CUL-2 would reduce that impact to less than significant.
Fossils could be buried in site soils. Project ground-disturbing activities could damage fossils.
Implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1 would reduce this impact to less than significant.
Tribal cultural resources could be buried in site soils. Project site grading and project construction
could damage such resources. Implementation of mitigation measures TCR-1 through TCR-3 would
reduce these impacts to less than significant. ADDITIONAL MMS MAY BE HERE DEPENDING ON THE
OUTCOME OF THE CITY’S AB 52 PROCESS WITH THE NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES. AS OF THE TIME
THIS SECTION WAS WRITTEN, THE AB 52 PROCESS WAS STILL IN PROGRESS.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 5-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
5.0 REFERENCES
ARB (California Air Resources Board). 2011. Final Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan Functional
Equivalent Document. California Air Resources Board. August 19, 2011.
ARB, 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, Building on the Framework. California
Air Resources Board. May 2014.
ARB, 2016. Changes to California's Commercial Vehicle Idling Regulation. Accessed online at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
12/commercial_vehicle_idling_requirements_July%202016.pdf, accessed on September 28,
2022.
ARB, 2017a. Letter from ARB (Richard Corey) to USEPA (Alexis Strauss) regarding submittal of South
Coast 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. California Air Resources Board. March 10, 2017.
ARB, 2017b. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. California Air Resources Board.
November 2017. URL: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.
ARB, 2019. Ambient Air Quality Standards. California Air Resources Board.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed November 2019.
ARB, 2021. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019. Accessed online at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2019/ghg_inventory_trends_00-
19.pdf on October 14, 2022.
ARB, 2022a. State and Federal Attainment Status. Accessed online at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-
work/programs/state-and-federal-area-designations, on October 12, 2022.
ARB, 2022b. iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics. California Air Resources Board.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam. Accessed on October 12, 2022.
ARB, 2020a. Advanced Clean Cars Program. Accessed online at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-
work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/about on October 14, 2022.
ARB, 2020b. GHG Emission Inventory Graphs. Available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-
graphs. Accessed August 16, 2020.
Baldwin, R. A. 2019. Pest Notes: Pocket Gophers. UC ANR Publication 7433, revised July 2019.
University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. Statewide Integrated Pest
Management Program. Available at http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7433.html.
Accessed on July 19, 2022.
Barghausen Consulting Engineers, 2022. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for the
Midland Commercial Development Project. Accessed on July 10, 2022.
BREEZE Software, 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0.
Developed by BREEZE Software, a Division of Trinity Consultants. in collaboration with South
Coast Air Quality Management District and other California Air Districts. Prepared for the
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. May 2022. Accessed online at
http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download-model in June 2022.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 5-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
CAL FIRE, 2019. Accessed online at https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ , accessed on December 9, 2019.
Calflora, 2022. Information on California plants for education, research and conservation.
Observation Search. Available at https://www.calflora.org/entry/observ.html. Accessed on
July 6, 2022.
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 11. CALGreen Code. 2022. Accessed online at:
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/CALGreen on October 13, 2022.
California Department of Finance (CDF). 2021 - 2022. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for
Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021-2022, with 2020 Benchmark. Accessed online
at: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-
estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/ on June 15, 2022.
California Department of Housing and Community Development (CDHC). 2021. California Green
Building Standards Code—CALGreen. Accessed online at:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/building-standards/calgreen/index.shtml on August 5, 2021.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2009. Technical Noise Supplement. Division of
Environmental Analysis, Sacramento, California (November),
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/tens_complete.pdf.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the
Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Division of Environmental Analysis, Sacramento,
California (September). http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013A.pdf.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2021a. California State Scenic Highway System
Map. Accessed online at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e921695c43643b
1aaf7000dfcc19983, on March 26, 2021.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2021b. Public Airports. Accessed online at:
https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/6a152cc396434c989adb89fb3132bc41_0, on March 22, 2021.
California Gas and Electric Utilities, 2018. Accessed online at
https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/documents/cgr/2018_California_Gas_Report.pdf,
accessed on August 25, 2020.
California Geological Survey (CGS). 2008a. Updated Mineral Land Classification Map for Portland
Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the San Bernardino Production-Consumption Region,
San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. Special Report 206, Plate 1. Accessed
online at: https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=SR_206, on June 17, 2022.
California Geological Survey (CGS). 2008b. Update of Mineral Land Classification for Portland Cement
Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the San Bernardino Production-Consumption Region, San
Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. Accessed online at:
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_206/SR_206_Text.pdf, on March 22, 2022.
California Geological Survey (CGS). 2008c. Updated Aggregate Resource Sector Map for Portland
Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the San Bernardino Production-Consumption Region,
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 5-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. Special report 206, Plate 2. Accessed
online at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_206/SR206_Plate2.pdf, on March
22, 2022.
California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), 2007. The California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. As
amended 2018. Accessed online at
http://files.resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/update2018/proposed-regulatory-text.pdf;
accessed on October 14, 2022.
CalRecycle, 2021a. SWIS Facility Detail: Mid- Valley Sanitary Landfill. Accessed online at
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662, on
March 30, 2022.
Caltrans, 2015. California Department of Transportation, California Scenic Highway Mapping System,
Available online at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/.
Accessed: April 14, 2020.
CEC (California Energy Commission). 2006a. Accessed online at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/about/core-responsibility-fact-sheets-new/about-california-
energy-commission on October 14, 2022.
CEC (California Energy Commission), 2021. California Energy Demand 2020-2030 Revised Forecast.
CED 2019 Forecast - SCE Mid Demand Case. Form 1.2: SCE Planning Area. Accessed online
at: https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=231520, on March 8, 2021.
CEC, 2022. 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6). Adopted August 11, 2021.
Accessed online at
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=243997&DocumentContentId=77865
, on October 14, 2022.
California Geological Survey (CGS). 2020 Data Viewer. Accessed online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/DataViewer/ on July 23, 2020.
California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), 2007. The California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Electronic document.
Cal-IPC (California Invasive Plant Council), 2006. California Invasive Plant Inventory. Cal-IPC
Publication 2006-02. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA. Accessed online at:
https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/inventory/ Accessed on April 6, 2021.
CalRecycle, 2019. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Accessed online at
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates, accessed on
March 24, 2022.
CAPCOA, 2008. CEQA & Climate Change. Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association, January. https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CAPCOA-
1000-2008-010/CAPCOA-1000-2008-010.pdf.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 5-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
CAPCOA, 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model®, Version 2020.4.0. California Air Pollution
Control Officers Association.
CASGEM (California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program). 2022. Well Details for
State Well Number 01N05W32N001S. Available at https://www.casgem.water.ca.gov/.
Accessed on March 8, 2022.
CBSC (California Building Standards Commission), 2019. California Building Standards Code (Code
of Regulations, Title 24): 2019 Triennial Edition (effective January 1, 2020). Available at
http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Codes.aspx. Accessed on March 11, 2021.
CBWCD (Chino Basin Water Conservation District) 2022. Where Does Our Water Come From?
https://www.cbwcd.org/386/Where-Does-Our-Water-Come-From
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2014. CDFW California Interagency Wildlife Task
Group. CWHR version 9.0 personal computer program. Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range. Retrieved on July 12, 2022.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife) 2022a. BIOS Habitat Connectivity Viewer.
Accessed at ftp://ftp.dfg.ca.gov/BDB/GIS/BIOS/Habitat_Connectivity/. Accessed on July
20, 2022.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Game). 2022b. California Natural Community List.
Retrieved from https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities.
CEMA, CGS, and USC (California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, and
University of Southern California). 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning:
County of Los Angeles, California. Scale 1:24,000. Available at
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps.
Chambers Group, Inc. 2003. Continuation Sheet (CA-SBR-10660H). On file at South Central Coastal
Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Chico, T. and Koizumi, J., 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. South Coast Air
Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, California. Accessed online at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-
thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2, on October 12, 2022.
City of Fontana. 1993. Code of Ordinances. Chapter 28, Article III. Available at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH28V
E_ARTIIIPRHESISPTR.
City of Fontana, 2017, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Accessed at:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-
Plan. Accessed on 10/16/2022.
City of Fontana. 2018. General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. Accessed online at:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-
Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update on October 14, 2022. City of Fontana. 2021.
Development Fees. Accessed online at:
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 5-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/2271/Planning-Cases-and-Application-
Fee, on June 1, 2022.
City of Fontana. 2021. Development Fees. Accessed online at:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/34727/February-2021-Crime-
Statistics, on June 1, 2022.
City of Fontana, 2021a. General Plan Land Use Map. Accessed online at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28163/General-Plan-Land-Use-Map-3-
2-2021?bidId=, on June 17, 2022.
City of Fontana, 2021b. Zoning Map. Accessed online at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/30623/Zoning-District-Map-3-2-
21?bidId=, on June 1, 2022.
City of Fontana, 2022. Municipal Code Article XIV. Available at
library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/zoning_and_development_code
City of Fontana, 2022. Trash and Recycling Services. Accessed online at:
https://www.fontana.org/541/Trash-and-Recycling-Services, on June 17, 2022.
City of Fontana. 2022. Stations and Equipment. Accessed online at:
https://www.fontana.org/639/Stations-Equipment, on June 1, 2022.
City of Fontana, 2022. Fire Department. Accessed online at https://www.fontana.org/634/Fire-
Protection-District on October 10, 2022.
City of Fontana, 2022. Sierra Avenue Improvement. Accessed online at
https://www.fontana.org/2740/Sierra-Avenue-Street-Improvement-Project on
September 19, 2022.
City of Fontana, 2022. Active Transportation Plan (ATP). Accessed online at
www.fontana.org/3143/Active-Transportation-Plan-ATP on September 19, 2022.
City of Fontana. 2022a. Facilities & Parks. Accessed online at:
https://www.fontana.org/156/Facilities-Parks, on June 1, 2022.
City of Fontana. 2022b. Bill Martin Park. Accessed online at: https://www.fontana.org/697/Bill-
Martin-Park, on April 8, 2022.
City of Fontana, May 2, 2022. Municipal Code. Zoning and Development Code, Division 6 –
Performance Standards, Sec. 30-544 – Light and Glare. Accessed online at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/zoning_and_development_code?nodeId=
CH30ZODECO_ARTVIIINZODI_DIV6PEST_S30-544LIGL, on June 17, 2022.
City of Fontana, May 2, 2022. Municipal Code. Zoning and Development Code, Division 6 –
Performance Standards, Sec. 30-671, Commercial districts landscaping requirements.
Accessed online at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/zoning_and_development_code?nodeId=
CH30ZODECO_ARTXGELARE_S30-671CODILARE on July 3, 2022.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 5-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
City of Fontana, May 2, 2022. Municipal Code. Zoning and Development Code, Division 3 – Design
Standards for Parking Facility, Sec. 30-697, Lighting. Accessed at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/zoning_and_development_code?nodeId=
CH30ZODECO_ARTXITEPALORE_DIV3DESTPAFA_S30-697LI. On July 3, 2022.
City of Fontana, 2022. Utilities. Accessed online at: https://www.fontana.org/3032/Utilities, on June
17, 2022.
City of Fontana, 2022. Trash and Recycling Services. Accessed online at
https://www.fontana.org/541/Trash-and-Recycling-Services on October 12, 2022
City of Fontana Municipal Code, 2022. Chapter 18 – Nuisances. Article II. – Noise. Accessed online at
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH18N
U_ARTIINO, on October 20, 2022.
CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database). 2022. RareFind 5 (Internet). California Department
of Fish and Wildlife (5.2.14). Available at
https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx. Accessed on July 8, 2022.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2022a. Rare Plant Program. Inventory of Rare and
Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Retrieved from:
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed on June 21, 2022.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2022b. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition.
California Native Plant Society, CA. 1300 pp. Retrieved from:
http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/. Accessed on June 21, 2022.
Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2022. All About Birds. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New
York. Available at https://www.allaboutbirds.org Accessed on April 20, 2021.
County of San Bernardino. 2021. Williamson Act Contracts and Agricultural Preserves. Available at
https://salc-grant-data-sbcounty.hub.arcgis.com/documents/williamson-act-contracts-
and-agricultural-preserves/explore Accessed on June 17,2022.
Department of Conservation (DOC), 1995. SMARA Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map for
Orange County Accessed online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/mlc/ accessed on May 14,
2020
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2021. Glossary of Environmental Terms. Accessed
online at: https://dtsc.ca.gov/glossary-of-environmental-terms/, on March 17, 2021.
Digalert.com. 2022. Utilities contact lookup. Accessed online at:
https://newtinb.digalert.org/direct/, on March 24, 2022.
Division of Land Resource Protection (DLRP). 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed
online at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/, on June 13, 2022.
Division of Mine Reclamation (DMR). 2020. Mines Online. Accessed online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html, on June 17, 2022.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 5-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
DOC, 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed in March 21,2022.
DOC, 2022. Accessed online at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-
Farmland-Categories.aspx on June 14, 2022.
Division of Mine Reclamation (DMR). 2022. Mines Online. Accessed online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html, on March 22, 2022.
DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2003. Bulletin 118: California’s Groundwater,
Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin (Groundwater Basin Number 8-002). Available
at https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin-118. Accessed on
March 9, 2022.
DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2022. Division of Safety of Dams, California Dam
Breach Inundation Maps. Available at https://fmds.water.ca.gov/maps/damim/. Accessed
on March 11, 2022.
EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute), 2000. Light Trespass Research (TR-114914). April 2000.
FPD (The Fontana Police Department),2022. Accessed online at
https://www.fontana.org/3073/Welcome-to-the-Fontana-Police-Department, accessed on
June 6, 2022.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for San
Bernardino County, California and Incorporated Areas (Map Number 06071C7915H).
Effective August 28, 2008. Available at
https://msc.fema.gov/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisjobs/nfhl_print/mscprintb_gpserver/
j5e486b983b834f49bf87174541ccfcba/scratch/FIRMETTE_6acd0502-4dd3-4eb2-8e38-
f1db24e29be5.pdf, accessed on July 3, 2022.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) 2022. National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer.
Available at: https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/national-flood-hazard-layer, Accessed on
July 3, 2022.
FTA (Federal Transit Administration), 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, Washington, DC, FTA
Report No. 0123. September. Accessed online at:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-
innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-
no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed on February 10, 2023.
FUSD (Fontana Unified School District), 2022a. Developer Fee Justification Study for Residential &
Commercial/Industrial Development June 22, 2022 (Public Review May 18, 2022 through
June 22, 2022). Accessed online at,
https://www.fusd.net/cms/lib/CA50000190/Centricity/Domain/4/Fontana%20Unified
%20Developer%20Fee%20Justification%20Study%202022.pdf on May 27, 2022.
FWC (Fontana Water Company), 2022. Accessed online at https://www.fontanawater.com/water-
quality-supply/water-sources/ on October 12, 2022
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 5-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Google Earth Pro V 7.3.2.5491 (March 5, 2022). City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California,
U.S.A. 34.°07’57.12”N-117°27’08.31”W. Eye alt 4765 ft. Available at
https://earth.google.com/web/. Accessed on October 1, 2022.
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2017. General Plan Guidelines. Appendix D. Noise
Element Guidelines. Sacramento, California.
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_Appendix_D_final.pdf.
Hendriks, R., Rymer, B., Buehler, D., And Andrews, J., 2013. Technical Supplement to the Caltrans
Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Division of Environmental Analysis, Sacramento, CA.
Available at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-
analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.
State of California, The Resources Agency, Nongame Heritage Program, California
Department of Fish & Game, Sacramento, Calif. 156 pp.
ILE (Institution of Lighting Engineers), 2005. Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light.
Accessed online at: https://www.theilp.org.uk/documents/obtrusive-light/. Accessed on
June 15, 2022.
IPCC, 2007a. Historical Overview of Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M.
Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
IPCC, 2007b. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team; Pachauri, R.K; Reisinger,
A., eds., 2007. ISBN 92-9169-122-4.
ICF International and LSA, 2021. San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan -
Appendices. Page no. 3-25. Accessed online at: https://www.gosbcta.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/09/San_Bernardino_Regional_GHG_Reduction_Plan_Appendices_
Mar_2021.pdf, on October 14, 2022.
Koehler, J. H. 1983. Artificial Recharge in the Northern Part of Chino Ground-Water Basin, Upper
Santa Ana Valley, California. United States Geological Survey (USGS). Water Resources
Investigations Report 832-4122. Available at:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1982/4122/report.pdf Accessed on July 6, 2022.
LSA Associates, Inc., 2021. San Bernardino County Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update. June
2021. LSA Project No. SBE2002. Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 21,
2021. Accessed online at:
http://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/LUS/GreenhouseGas/GHG_2021/GHG%20Reduction
%20Plan%20Update-Greenhouse%20Gas%20Reduction%20Plan%20Update%20-
%20Adopted%209-21-2021.pdf on October 14, 2022
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 5-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Mastair, D. (2020, June 4). Conservation Plan Boundaries, HCP and NCCP (ds760). Calif. Dept. of Fish
and Wildlife. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Available at
http://bios.dfg.ca.gov. Accessed July 15, 2020.
Morton, Douglas M., and Fred K. Miller, Compiled by. 2006. Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and
Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ Quadrangles, California. United States Geological Survey, U. S.
Department of the Interior.
NASA, 2018. Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. National Air and Space Administration.
Accessed online at: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/. Accessed in August 2020.
Omnitrans, 2022. Route 67. Accessed online at http://Omnitrans.org/routes-67 on September 19,
2022.
OSHPD (Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development). 2021. Facility Finder. Accessed
online at: https://oshpd.ca.gov/facility-finder/, on March 25, 2021.
PlaceWorks. 2018a. “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment”. May 2018.
PlaceWorks. 2018b. "Limited Phase II ESA Soils Sampling Letter Report”. August 6, 2018.
Quinn, N. M. et al. 2018. Pest Notes: Ground Squirrels. UC ANR Publication 7438, revised December
2018. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. Statewide Integrated Pest
Management Program. Available at http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7438.html
Accessed on August 9, 2021.
Rustigian-Romsos, H. (2017, October 4). Natural Landscape Blocks – California Essential Habitat
Connectivity (CEHC) [ds621]. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Biogeographic Information
and Observation System (BIOS). Available at http://bios.dfg.ca.gov. Accessed July 15, 2020.
RWQCB (Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board). 1995. Water Quality Control Plan for the
Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan), with amendments effective 2016. Available at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/
Accessed on May 12, 2022. .
RWQCB (Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2013, as amended. National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for
Discharges from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) Draining the
Watersheds Within the San Diego Region (Order No. R9-2013-0001, which was amended in
2015 by Orders No. R9-2015-0001 and R9-2015-0100 [NPDES No. CAS0109266]).
Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/programs/stormwater/sd_stor
mwater.html Downloaded on March 15, 2021.
Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, J.M. Evens, 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition.
California Native Plant Society Press. Sacramento, CA.
SCAQMD, 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Diamond Bar, CA. Accessed online at
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-
handbook/ceqa-air-quality-handbook-(1993) on October 12, 2022
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 5-10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
SCAQMD, 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance
Threshold. South Coast Air Quality Management District. October 2008.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-
ceqa-significance-thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf.
SCAQMD, 2010. Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.
September 28, 2010. South Coast Air Quality Management Board. September 28, 2010.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-
ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-
minutes.pdf).
SCAQMD, 2011. Final AQMD Air Quality-Related Energy Policy. September 9, 2011. Internet URL:
http://www.aqmd.gov/nav/about/policies/aqmd-air-quality-related-energy-policy.
Accessed March 2020.
SCAQMD, 2017a. Letter from Wayne Nastri, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management
District, Diamond Bar, CA to Richard Corey, Executive Officer, California Air Resources
Board, Sacramento, California re: Submittal of 2016 Air Quality Management Plan.
SCAQMD, 2017. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. South Coast Air Quality Management
District. Accessed online at http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-
quality-mgt-plan/final-2016-aqmp, on October 12, 2022.
SCAQMD, 2018. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Draft Guidance Document – Interim
CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. October 2008. Internet URL:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-
ceqa-significance-thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed December 2018.
SCAQMD, 2022. South Coast AQMD. Site Survey Report for Fontana. Accessed online at
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-monitoring-
network-plan/aaqmnp-fontana.pdf?sfvrsn=11, on October 12, 2022.
SCAQMD, 2019. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. South Coast Air Quality Management
District. Accessed online at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2, on
October 12, 2022.
SCAG, 2001. Southern California Association of Governments. Employment Density for the SCAG
Region. Accessed at http://mwcog.org/uploads/committee-
documents/bl5ax1pa20091008155406.pdf
SCEC, 2013. Southern California Earthquake Center. March 19, 2013, Hazards and Threats
Earthquakes – List of Major Active Surface Faults in Southern California. Accessed online at
https://ceo.lacounty.gov/wp-
content/uploads/OEM/HazardsandThreats/Earthquakes/LIST%20OF%20MAJOR%20SO
UTHERN%20CALIFORNIA%20EARTHQUAKE%20FAULTS.pdf. Accessed August 4, 2022.
Session-Goins, Cecily. 2022a. Personal communication from Session-Goins, Associate Planner,
Planning Department, City of Fontana, to Stephen O’Neil, Cultural Resources Manager,
UltraSystems Environmental; August 18, 2022; concerning AB 52 and SB 18 consultation.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 5-11
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Session-Goins, Cecily. 2022b.—Personal communication from Session-Goins, Associate Planner,
Planning Department, City of Fontana, to Stephen O’Neil, Cultural Resources Manager,
UltraSystems Environmental; October 12, 2022; concerning AB 52 and SB 18 consultation.
Shepard, Richard. 2002. Primary Record, CA-SBR-10660H (CG/SB-3). On file at South Central
Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
2021c. Web Soil Survey. Available at http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Last accessed
on March 30, 2021.
Southern California Edison (SCE). 2021. Facility Map: MT-8012-B. March 24, 2021.
SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2020. Demographics and Growth Forecast.
Accessed online at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579, on
March 8, 2021.
Stantec. 2018a. Fontana General Plan Update Background Report. Accessed online at:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26739/Appendix-One---Background-
Report, on April 8, 2022.
Stantec et al, 2018b. Fontana Forward: General Plan Update 2015 – 2035. Adopted on November 13,
2018. Accessed online at: Complete-Document---Approved-General-Plan-Documents-11-
13-2018 (fontana.org), on October 20, 2022.
SWRCB (California State Water Resources Control Board). 2013. Waste Discharge Requirements for
Stormwater Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. Available at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/phsii2012_
5th/order_final.pdf. Accessed on June 11, 2022.
SWRCB (California State Water Resources Control Board). 2019. State Wetland Definition and
Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Adopted April
2, 2019, revised April 6, 2021. Available at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/wrapp.html.
SWRCB (California State Water Resources Control Board). 2018. 2014 and 2016 California Integrated
Report (Clean Water Act Section 303[d] List and 303[b] Report). Available at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2014_2016.sh
tml. Downloaded on March 9, 2021.
Titan Environmental. 2014. Phase 1 ESA Report. September 9, 2014.
Tran, Han. 2023. Personal communication from Han Tran, Senior Supervisor, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, Compliance & Enforcement, Diamond Bar, CA to Amir Ayati,
UltraSystems Environmental Inc., Irvine, CA. February 3, 2023.
US Census Bureau (USCB). 2021. Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD). OnTheMap.
Accessed online at: http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/, on June 10, 2022.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 5-12
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2022. WATERS GeoViewer. Available at
https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-geoviewer. Accessed on March 9, 2022.
USEPA, 2011. Air Quality Guide for Nitrogen Dioxide. Office of Air and Radiation. EPA-456/F-11-003.
Accessed online at https://www3.epa.gov/airnow/no2.pdf, on October 12, 2022.
USEPA, 2017a. What EPA Is Doing about Climate Change. EPA’s Web Archive. United States
Environmental Protection Agency. https://archive.epa.gov/epa/climatechange/what-epa-
doing-about-climate-change.html. January 19, 2017.
USEPA, 2017b. News Release: EPA Kicks Off Website Updates. United States Environmental
Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-kicks-website-updates. April
28, 2017.
USEPA, 2019a - Nitrogen Dioxide (1971) Maintenance Area (Redesignated from Nonattainment)
State/Area/County Report.: Green Book. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Current
[https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/nmcs.html]. Data as of September 30, 2019.
Accessed October 2019.
USEPA, 2019b. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases. Accessed October 2019.
USEPA, 2020. WATERS KMZ, version 1.10 (January 19, 2020). Available at
https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/viewing-waters-data-using-google-earth. Downloaded
on August 25, 2020.
USEPA, 2021a. Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. Accessed online at:
https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-model-year-
2012-2016-light-duty-vehicle on October 14, 2022.
USEPA, 2021b. Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Final Rule for Model Years 2021-2026.
Accessed online at: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-
engines/safer-affordable-fuel-efficient-safe-vehicles-final-rule on October 14, 2022.
USEPA, 2022a. What is CO? Accessed online at https://www.epa.gov/co-pollution/basic-
information-about-carbon-monoxide-co-outdoor-air-pollution, on October 12, 2022.
USEPA, 2022b. Particulate matter (PM). Accessed online at https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution, on
October 12, 2022.
USEPA, 2022c. 8-Hour Ozone (2015) Nonattainment Area State/Area/County Report: Green Book.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed online at
https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/jncs.html#CA, on October 12, 2022..
USEPA, 2022d. PM-10 (1987) Maintenance Area (Redesignated from Nonattainment)
State/Area/County Report: Green Book. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Current
[https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/pmcs.html#CA]. Accessed on October 12,
2022.
USEPA, 2022e. PM-2.5 (2012) Designated Area State/Area/County Report: Green Book. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Current Data as of June 30, 2022.
[https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/kbcs.html#CA]. Accessed October 12, 2022.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 5-13
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
USEPA, 2022f. Carbon Monoxide (1971) Maintenance Area (Redesignated from Nonattainment)
State/Area/County Report: Green Book. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Current
[https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/cmcs.html#CA]. Accessed on October 12,
2022.
USEPA, 2022g. Nitrogen Dioxide (1971) Maintenance Area (Redesignated from Nonattainment)
State/Area/County Report.: Green Book. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Current
https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/nmcs.html Accessed on October 12, 2022.
USEPA, 2020f. Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants. Center
for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/R-20/012. April.
URL: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=348522
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2022a. Information for Planning, and Consultation
(IPaC), IPaC Resource List. July 18, 2022. Retrieved from http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
Accessed on July 3, 2022.
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2022b. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. Official
Species List: Project Code: 2022-0064941. Carlsbad, California. Retrieved from
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed on March 19, 2022.
USFWS, 2020f. HCP/NCCP Planning Areas, Southern California. Available at
www.fws.gov/carlsbad/HCPs/documents/CFWO_HCPMapPlanning10_08.pdf Accessed on
July 14, 2020.
USGS, 2018. U.S. Geological Survey, Areas of Land Subsidence in California. Accessed at:
https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html Accessed on
10/16/2022.
USGS, (US Geological Survey) (USGS) 7.5-Minute Topographic Map Fontana Quadrangle (USGS,
2022) and current aerial imagery (Google Earth Pro, 2022).
USGS, 2022. National Hydrography Dataset (ver. USGS National Hydrography Dataset Best Resolution
(NHD) for Hydrologic Unit (HU) 12. Available at https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-
systems/ngp/national-hydrography/access-national-hydrography-products. Downloaded
on July 14, 2020.
USGS, 2022b. Earthquake glossary. Accessed online at
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/glossary/?term=magnitude/,Accessed on August 4,
2022.
USGS, 2021. Mineral Resource Data System. Accessed online at: https://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/map-
graded.html#home, on March 16, 2021.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2003. Compilation of Quaternary Surficial Deposits. Accessed online
at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/QSD/, on July 3, 2022.
WBWG (Western Bat Working Group), 2022. Species Matrix. Available at
http://wbwg.org/matrices/species-matrix/, Accessed on July 14, 2022.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 5-14
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
WRCC, 2022. Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries, Western Regional Climate Center.
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climsum.html
WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center), 2022. San Bernardino F S 226, California (047723).
Accessed online at https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7723, on October 12, 2022.
Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988-1990., California's Wildlife.
Vol. I-III. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.
❖ SECTION 6.0 – LIST OF PREPARERS ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 6-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
6.1 CEQA Lead Agency
Cecily Session-Goins, Associate Planner
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Ave
Fontana, CA 92335
Phone Number: (909) 350-6723
Email Address: CSGoins@fontana.org
6.2 Project Applicant
Paul Dhaliwal, Owner
Midland Investments, LLC
18215 72nd Avenue So.
Kent, WA 98032
Phone: (425) 251-6222
6.3 UltraSystems Environmental, Inc.
6.3.1 Environmental Planning Team
Betsy Lindsay, MURP, Project Director
Robert Reicher, MBA, B.S., Project Manager
Billye Breckenridge, BA, Deputy Project Manager
6.3.2 Technical Team
Amir Ayati, B.S., Staff Scientist
Megan Black, M.A., Archaeological Technician
Stephen Chesterman, B.Eng., Principal GIS Consultant
Gulben Kaplan, M.S., B.S., GIS Analyst
Swarnalatha Kumaresan, M.S., BEng, Environmental Engineer
Brandie Metcalf, M.S., M.A., Senior Marketing Specialist
Michael Milroy, M.S., Senior Planner
Stephen O’Neil, M.A., RPA, Cultural Resources Manager
Michael Rogozen, D. Env, Senior Principal Engineer
Bhavik Shah, BEng, Environmental Engineer
Andrew Soto, B.A., Word Processing/Technical Editing
Matthew Sutton, M.S., B.A., ISA, Staff Biologist
6.3.3 Other Firms
RK Engineering Group, Inc. – VMT Analysis
Bryan Estrada, AICP, Principal
❖ SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 7-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in conformance with
§ 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and § 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines, which requires all state
and local agencies to establish monitoring or reporting programs whenever approval of a project
relies upon an MND or an EIR. The MMRP ensures the implementation of the measures being imposed
to mitigate or avoid the significant adverse environmental impacts identified through the use of
monitoring and reporting. Monitoring is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project
oversight; reporting generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the
decision-making body or authorized staff person.
It is the intent of the MMRP to (1) provide a framework for document implementation of the required
mitigation; (2) identify monitoring/reporting responsibility; (3) provide a record of the
monitoring/reporting, and (4) ensure compliance with those MM that are within the responsibility
of the City and/or Applicant to implement.
The following table lists impacts, mitigation measures adopted by the City of Fontana in connection
with the approval of the proposed project, level of significance after mitigation, responsible and
monitoring parties, and the project phase in which the measures are to be implemented.
Only those environmental topics for which mitigation is required are listed in this Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program.
❖ SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 7-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
Table 7.0-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT PROJECT DESIGN FEATURE (PDF) OR MITIGATION MEASURE (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
ACTION
1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY
2. MONITORING
AGENCY
3. MONITORING
PHASE
4.1 Aesthetics
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
MM AES-1: During project construction, the project applicant shall place construction staging areas as far away as possible from adjacent
residences to minimize, to the maximum extent possible, any potential lighting impacts to nearby residences. The lighting used during
project construction shall consist of the minimum amount of light necessary for safety and security on the project site.
Project Applicant Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
2. City of Fontana
3. During Construction
4.4 Biological Resources
a) Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
MM BIO-1: Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Surveys
Although BUOW was not detected on-site during the focused surveys, the BSA contains suitable habitats to potentially support BUOW
in the future. Therefore, a 30-day pre-construction BUOW survey is required by the MSHCP. A qualified biologist would conduct a pre-
construction BUOW survey in accordance with the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan Area (MSHCP Survey Guidelines; Riverside County TLMA, 2006) within 30 days prior to ground disturbance.
• Following the completion of the pre-construction BUOW survey, the biologist would prepare a letter report in accordance with
the MSHCP Survey Guidelines summarizing the results of the survey. The report would be submitted to the City of Murrieta
prior to initiating any ground disturbance activities.
• If no BUOWs or signs of BUOW are observed during the survey and concurrence is received from EPD and CDFW, project
activities may begin and no further mitigation would be required.
• If BUOW or signs of BUOW are observed during the survey, the site would be considered occupied. The biologist would
implement mitigation measure BIO-2 and contact the City of Murrieta, EPD, and CDFW to assist in the development of avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation measures, prior to commencing project activities. The list of potential measures to avoid and
minimize impacts to BUOWs described in the above section would be implemented.
Project Applicant
and Qualified
Biologist
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
2. City of Fontana
3. Before Construction
If BUOWs or signs of BUOW are observed during the survey, then the site would be considered occupied and the biologist shall contact
the City of Murrieta, EPD, and CDFW to assist in the development of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures discussed below,
prior to commencing project activities (Riverside County TLMA, 2006).
Planning BUOW Protection Measures
Grading, construction, and other project activities on all grassland habitats will be delayed until the qualified biologist has implemented
burrow exclusion and closure. No ground-disturbing activities within 50 meters (165 feet) of an active BUOW burrow will be permitted
until burrow exclusion and closure have been implemented. No destruction of foraging habitat will be permitted until burrow exclusion
and closure have been implemented.
Preconstruction BUOW Protection Measures
Prior to the initiation of grading and construction activities, the biologist shall implement passive relocation of an active BUOW burrow
by installing a one-way door and then permanently excluding the BUOW from returning once it is confirmed that no BUOW individuals
remain in the burrow. A biological monitor will visit the site daily to verify that the burrow is empty by monitoring and scoping the
burrow.
Considering that there is not adequate BUOW habitat of at least 6.6 acres to which an excluded BUOW pair can relocate, the project
applicant shall pay a Local Development Mitigation Fee to the County of Riverside to offset the impacts to the BUOW pair and the loss of
5.75 acres of suitable BUOW habitat within the project site. All surveys and reporting required by the MSHCP will be complied with
including a 30-day pre-construction BUOW survey.
Construction BUOW Protection Measures
A biological monitor will be onsite to monitor any BUOW or signs of BUOW. If any BUOW is observed then the biologist will consult with
the County EPD and CDFW to determine the appropriate measures.
Project Applicant
and Qualified
Biologist
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
2. City of Fontana
3. Before Construction
MM BIO-2: Pre-Construction Breeding Bird Survey
To be in compliance with the MBTA and Fish and Game Code, and to avoid impacts or take of migratory non-game breeding birds, their
nests, young, and eggs, the following measures will be implemented. The measures below will help to reduce direct and indirect impacts
caused by construction on migratory non-game breeding birds to less than significant levels.
Project Applicant
and Qualified
Biologist
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
2. City of Fontana
3. Before and During
Construction
❖ SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 7-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT PROJECT DESIGN FEATURE (PDF) OR MITIGATION MEASURE (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
ACTION
1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY
2. MONITORING
AGENCY
3. MONITORING
PHASE
• Project activities that will remove or disturb potential nest sites, such as open ground, trees, shrubs, grasses, or burrows, during the
breeding season would be a potentially significant impact if migratory non-game breeding birds are present. Project activities that
will remove or disturb potential nest sites will be scheduled outside the breeding bird season to avoid potential direct impacts on
migratory non-game breeding birds protected by the MBTA and Fish and Game Code. The breeding bird nesting season is typically
from February 15 through September 15 but can vary slightly from year to year, usually depending on weather conditions. Removing
all physical features that could potentially serve as nest sites will also help to prevent birds from nesting within the project site
during the breeding season and construction activities.
• If project activities cannot be avoided from February 15 through September 15, a qualified biologist will conduct a pre-construction
breeding bird survey for breeding birds and active nests or potential nesting sites within the limits of project disturbance. The
survey will be conducted at least seven days prior to the onset of scheduled activities, such as mobilization and staging. It will end
no more than three days prior to vegetation, substrate, and structure removal and/or disturbance.
• If no breeding birds or active nests are observed during the pre-construction survey or they are observed and will not be impacted,
project activities may begin and no further mitigation will be required.
• If a breeding bird territory or an active bird nest is located during the pre-construction survey and will potentially be impacted, the
site will be mapped on engineering drawings, and a no-activity buffer zone will be marked (fencing, stakes, flagging, orange snow
fencing, etc.) a minimum of 100 feet in all directions or 500 feet in all directions for listed bird species and all raptors. The biologist
will determine the appropriate buffer size based on the type of activities planned near the nest and the type of bird that created the
nest. Some bird species are more tolerant than others of noise and activities occurring near their nest. This no-activity buffer zone
will not be disturbed until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is inactive, the young have fledged, the young are no
longer being fed by the parents, the young have left the area, or the young will no longer be impacted by project activities. Periodic
monitoring by a biologist will be performed to determine when nesting is complete. Once the nesting cycle has finished, project
activities may begin within the buffer zone.
• If listed bird species, such as the LBV, are observed within the project site during the pre-construction survey, the biologist will
immediately map the area and notify the appropriate resource agency to determine suitable protection measures and/or mitigation
measures and to determine if additional surveys or focused protocol surveys are necessary. Project activities may begin within the
area only when concurrence is received from the appropriate resource agency.
• Birds or their active nests will not be disturbed, captured, handled, or moved. Active nests cannot be removed or disturbed; however,
nests can be removed or disturbed if determined inactive by a qualified biologist.
4.5 Cultural Resources
Threshold 4.5 b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §
15064.5.
MM CUL 1: If archaeological resources are discovered during construction activities, the contractor will halt construction activities in
the immediate area and notify the City of Fontana. The project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary
of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology (“Qualified Archaeologist”) and who will be notified and afforded
the necessary time to recover, analyze, and curate the find(s). The qualified archaeologist will recommend the extent of archaeological
monitoring necessary to ensure the protection of any other resources that may be in the area. Any identified cultural resources shall be
recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 (A-L) form and filed with the South Central Coastal Information Center. Construction activities
may continue on other parts of the project site while the evaluation and treatment of prehistoric archaeological resources take place.
Qualified
Archaeologist and
Project Contractor
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
Planning Dept.
2. City of Fontana
Planning Dept.
3. During Construction
Threshold 4.5 c): Disturb any human
remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries.
MM CUL 2: If human remains are encountered during excavations associated with this project, all work will stop within a 30-foot radius
of the discovery, and the San Bernardino County Coroner will be notified (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The Coroner will
determine whether the remains are of recent human origin or older Native American ancestry. If the coroner, with the aid of the
supervising archaeologist, determines that the remains are prehistoric, they will contact the NAHC. The NAHC will be responsible for
designating the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD (either an individual or sometimes a committee) will be responsible for the
ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The MLD will make
recommendations within 24 hours of their notification by the NAHC. These recommendations may include scientific removal and
nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials (§ 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code).
Project
Construction
Contractor
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
Planning Dept,
2. City of Fontana
Planning Dept.
3. During Construction
4.7 Geology and Soils
❖ SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 7-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT PROJECT DESIGN FEATURE (PDF) OR MITIGATION MEASURE (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
ACTION
1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY
2. MONITORING
AGENCY
3. MONITORING
PHASE
Threshold 4.7 f): Would the project directly
or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
MM GEO-1: Before the beginning of project construction, the project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to remain on-call
for the duration of project ground disturbance activities. If paleontological resources are uncovered during project construction, the
contractor shall halt construction activities in the immediate area and notify the City. The on-call paleontologist shall be notified and
afforded the necessary time and funds to recover and analyze the finds, and curate the find(s) with an accredited repository for
paleontological resources. Subsequently, the monitor shall remain onsite for the duration of the ground disturbance to ensure the
protection of any other resources that are found during construction on the project site.
Project Applicant,
Qualified
Paleontologist, and
Construction
Contractor
Monitoring,
Assessment,
Recovery, and
Curation
1. City of Fontana
Planning Dept.
2. City of Fontana
Planning Dept.
3. During Construction
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Design Features to Reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
PDF GHG-1: OPERATING HOURS LIMITATIONS
To reduce on-road motor vehicle trip generation (and therefore vehicle miles traveled and consequent emissions), leasing agreements
will contain the following restrictions on the hours of operation:
Land Use ITE
Code Operating Hours Trip Generation
Reduction (%)a
Convenience Store/Gas Station 945 24 hours/day 0.0
Pharmacy 881 10 a.m. – 10 p.m. 14.7
Retail Building 822 10 a.m. – 8 p.m. 28.1
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Through 934 5 a.m. - 9 p.m. 10.4
High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant 932 11 a.m. – 9 p.m. 11.1
Retail Store 815 9 a.m. – 8 p.m. 5.0
Car Wash 948b 8 a.m. - 8 p.m. 3.8
a Calculated by UltraSystems from hourly trip distributions in ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
b As no data on average hourly trip distribution data were available for ITE 948, data for ITE 949 (Car Wash and
Detail Center) were used.
Project Applicant Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
2. City of Fontana
3. During Operation
PDF GHG-2: VEHICLE FUELING STATIONS
Instead of having 16 gasoline vehicle fueling positions (VFPs), the convenience market with gas pumps will have 12 gasoline VFPs and
four hydrogen fuel VFPs. This will reduce visits by gasoline-fueled vehicles by 33%. The vehicles that will replace the gasoline-fueled
ones will have no criteria pollutant or greenhouse gas emissions.
Project Applicant Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
2. City of Fontana
3. During Construction
and Operation
PDF GHG-3: PRECLUSION OF CERTAIN FUEL BURNING SOURCES
Leases will prohibit installation and use of fireplaces, hearths, or similar combustion sources. Project Applicant Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
2. City of Fontana
3. During Construction
and Operation
PDF GHG-4: ENERGY-EFFICIENT APPLIANCES
Leases will require tenants to install the following ENERGY STAR appliances in the fast-food restaurant and the sit-down restaurant:
• Dishwashers (15% more efficient than conventional appliances).
• Fans (50% more efficient than conventional appliances).
Refrigerators (15% more efficient than conventional appliances).
Project Applicant Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
2. City of Fontana
3. During Construction
and Operation
PDF GHG-5: WATER-SAVING DEVICES
Leases will require tenants to install the following low-flow water-using fixtures wherever applicable:
• Bathroom faucets (32% more efficient than state standard water flow rate).
• Kitchen faucets (18% more efficient than state standard water flow rate).
• Toilets (20% more efficient than state standard water flow rate).
Project Applicant Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
2. City of Fontana
3. During Construction
and Operation
4.17 Transportation
❖ SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7178/Midland Plaza Project Page 7-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2023
TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT PROJECT DESIGN FEATURE (PDF) OR MITIGATION MEASURE (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MONITORING
ACTION
1. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY
2. MONITORING
AGENCY
3. MONITORING
PHASE
Threshold 4.17 d): Would the project result
in inadequate emergency access?
MM TRANS-1: The Transportation Management Plan (TMP) must be reviewed and approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer prior to the
start of construction activity in the public right-of-way (ROW). The typical TMP requires items such as the installation of a K-rail between
the construction area and open traffic lanes, the use of flagmen and directional signage to direct traffic where only one travel lane is
available or when equipment movement creates temporary hazards, and the installation of steel plates to cover trenches under
construction. The TMP must provide that emergency access must be maintained at all times.
Project Applicant
and Project
Construction
Contractor
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
Engineering Dept.
2. City of Fontana
Engineering Dept.
3. Prior to and During
the Construction
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold 4.18 b): Would the project cause
a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource that
is listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k)?
MM TCR-1: Upon discovery of any cultural tribal cultural or archaeological resources, cease construction activities in the immediate
vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All cultural tribal and archaeological resources unearthed by project construction
activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Archaeology
(“Qualified Archaeologist”) and tribal monitor/consultant from an affiliated requesting tribe . If the resources are Native American in
origin, interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area Tribes) shall coordinate with the landowner regarding the treatment
and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes. Work may
continue in other parts of the project while evaluation takes place.
Project
Construction
Contractor and/or
Qualified
Archaeologist
Field
Verification
1. TBD
2. City of Fontana
Planning Dept.
3. Prior to and during
construction.
MM TCR-2: Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may
include the implementation of archaeological data recovery excavation to remove the resource along with 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, it shall be offered to the Tribe or a local school or
historical society in the area for educational purposes.
Project
Construction
Contractor and/or
Qualified
Archaeologist
Field
Verification
1. TBD
2. City of Fontana
Planning Dept.
3. During Construction
MM TCR-3: 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 of 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.
Project
Construction
Contractor and/or
Qualified
Archaeologist
Field
Verification
1. County Coroner
2. City of Fontana
3. During Construction
MM TCR-4: As specified by California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5, if human remains are found on the project site during
construction or during archaeological work, the San Bernardino County Coroner’s office shall be immediately notified and
no further excavation or disturbance of the discovery or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains
shall occur until the Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code
5097.98. The Coroner would determine within two working days of being notified if the remains are subject to their
authority. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, they shall contact the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC would make a determination as to the Most Likely Descendent.
Project
Construction
Contractor and/or
Qualified
Archaeologist
Field
Verification
1. County Coroner
2. City of Fontana
3. During Construction