HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - Initial Study and Mitigated Negative DeclarationArrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use
Redesignation and Homelessness
Prevention Resources and Care Center
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared for:
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Prepared by:
EcoTierra Consulting, Inc.
5776-D Lindero Canyon Road #414
Westlake Village, CA 91362
September 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
i
I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... I‐1
A. INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE .................................................................... I‐1
B. LEAD AGENCY ........................................................................................................................ I‐1
C. PURPOSE AND DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION ........................................................................ I‐1
II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ..................................................................................................... II‐1
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................... II‐1
B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ....................................................... II‐17
C. DETERMINATION ................................................................................................................ II‐17
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .................................................................... II‐18
1. Aesthetics ................................................................................................................... II‐19
2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................................ II‐23
3. Air Quality ................................................................................................................... II‐27
4. Biological Resources ................................................................................................... II‐43
5. Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... II‐53
6. Energy ......................................................................................................................... II‐62
7. Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................ II‐67
8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................... II‐77
9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................. II‐86
10. Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................................... II‐96
11. Land Use and Planning .............................................................................................. II‐106
12. Mineral Resources .................................................................................................... II‐115
13. Noise ......................................................................................................................... II‐118
14. Population and Housing ............................................................................................ II‐129
15. Public Services .......................................................................................................... II‐132
16. Recreation ................................................................................................................. II‐138
17. Transportation .......................................................................................................... II‐140
18. Tribal Cultural Resources .......................................................................................... II‐148
19. Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................... II‐153
20. Wildfire ..................................................................................................................... II‐163
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.......................................................................... II‐165
CITY OF FONTANA TABLE OF CONTENTS
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1, Regional and Project Vicinity Location Map ............................................................................... II‐9
Figure 2, Project Site Aerial ...................................................................................................................... II‐10
Figure 3, Existing and Proposed General Plan Designations .................................................................... II‐11
Figure 4, Existing and Proposed Zoning Districts ..................................................................................... II‐12
Figure 5, Views of the Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................................................ II‐13
Figure 6, Views of the Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................................................ II‐14
Figure 7, Views of the Project Site ........................................................................................................... II‐15
Figure 8, Conceptual Site Plan ................................................................................................................. II‐16
Figure 9, Noise Measurement Locations ............................................................................................... II‐122
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1, Project Site A Development Summary ......................................................................................... II‐4
Table 2, Health Effects Associated with Non‐Attainment Criteria Pollutants ......................................... II‐30
Table 3, Local Area Air Quality Levels ...................................................................................................... II‐31
Table 4, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds ............................................................................ II‐33
Table 5, SCAQMD LSTs ............................................................................................................................. II‐34
Table 6, Construction‐Related Regional Pollutant Emissions .................................................................. II‐36
Table 7, Construction‐Related Localized Pollutant Emissions at the Nearest Receptors ........................ II‐37
Table 8, Operation‐Related Regional Pollutant Emissions ...................................................................... II‐37
Table 9, Operation‐Related Localized Pollutant Emissions at the Nearest Receptors ............................ II‐38
Table 10, Construction GHG Emissions .................................................................................................... II‐82
Table 11, Project‐Related GHG Emissions ............................................................................................... II‐82
Table 12, Short‐Term Noise Measurement Data ................................................................................... II‐121
Table 13, Construction Noise Levels at Existing Adjacent Residences .................................................. II‐123
Table 14, Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria ..................................................... II‐125
Table 15, Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment 0 ......................................................... II‐126
Table 16, Project Trip Generation Forecast ........................................................................................... II‐142
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Energy Impact Study
Appendix B. Biological Report
Appendix C. Cultural Assessment
Appendix D. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix E. Noise Study
Appendix F. Traffic Assessment
Appendix G. Tribal Correspondence
Appendix H. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
I. INTRODUCTION
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
I‐1
A. INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE
An Initial Study (IS) is conducted by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on
the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15063[a]). If there is substantial evidence that a project may have
a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared, in
accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15064(a). However, if the
lead agency determines the impacts are, or can be reduced to, less than significant, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) or Negative Declaration (ND) may be prepared instead of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section
15070[b]). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a MND or ND is appropriate when the project’s Initial
Study identifies potentially significant effects, but:
a. Revisions to the project plan were made that would avoid or reduce the effects to a point where
clearly no significant effects would occur; and
b. There is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the
environment.
This IS prepared by the City of Fontana (including an attached Environmental Checklist form) determined
that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an EIR
is not required. This IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070.
B. LEAD AGENCY
The lead agency is the public agency with primary responsibility over a proposed project. In accordance
with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15051(b)(1), “the lead agency will normally be the agency with general
governmental powers.” The project would be approved by the City of Fontana. Therefore, based on the
criteria described above, the City of Fontana Planning Department is the lead agency for the proposed
project.
C. PURPOSE AND DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
The purpose of this IS/MND is to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the project. The
document is divided into the following sections:
I. INTRODUCTION
This section provides an introduction and describes the purpose and organization of this
document.
II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
This section includes the project background and a detailed description of the project. This section
describes the environmental setting for each of the environmental subject areas; evaluates a
range of impacts classified as “no impact,” “less than significant impact,” “less than significant
impact with mitigation incorporated,” or “potentially significant impact” in response to the
environmental checklist and provides an environmental determination for the project.
II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐1
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Project Title:
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care
Center Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Fontana
Development Services Organization
Planning Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
3. Lead Agency Contact Person and Phone Number:
Rina Leung
Senior Planner
909‐350‐6566
rleung@fontana.org
4. Project Location:
The project is located at the southwest corner of Arrow Boulevard and Tokay Avenue and includes
eight parcels near the western boundary of the City of Fontana (the “City”), approximately 1.2 miles
west from the City’s downtown. The project is divided into two parts: Site A and Site B (collectively,
the “project site”). Site A includes four parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 0232‐171‐05, ‐06, ‐
07, and ‐08), which all front Arrow Boulevard. Site B includes the remaining four parcels (APNs 0232‐
171‐09, ‐12, ‐13, and ‐14), which all front Tokay Avenue. The project site’s total area encompasses
approximately 25 acres with Site A encompassing approximately 7 acres and Site B encompassing
approximately 18 acres. Regional access to the project site is provided by the San Bernardino Freeway
(Interstate 10), located approximately 1.9 miles to the south, and the Ontario Freeway (Interstate 15),
located approximately 4.1 miles to the west. Local access to the project site is provided by Arrow
Boulevard and Tokay Avenue. Nearest transit access is from a bus stop at Arrow Boulevard and Citrus
Avenue that is served by Omnitrans’ Route 10. Figure 1, Regional and Project Vicinity Location Map,
shows the regional location. Figure 2, Project Site Aerial, shows an aerial photograph.
5. Applicant’s Name and Address:
City of Fontana
Engineering Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
6. General Plan Land Use Designations:
As shown in Figure 3, Existing and Proposed General Plan Designations, the existing land use
designation is OS – Open Space and the project’s proposed land use is I‐L – Light Industrial as well as
an Emergency Shelter Overlay District over the properties at Site A.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐2
7. Zoning Designation:
As shown in Figure 4, Existing and Proposed Zoning Districts, the existing zoning district is OS‐R – Open
Space Resource and the project’s proposed zoning district is M‐1 – Light Industrial as well as an
Emergency Shelter Overlay District over the properties at Site A.
8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Surrounding Land Uses
Property in the surrounding area is characterized by single‐ and multi‐family residential uses, vacant
land, commercial industrial uses, and a vacant mining pit (see Figure 2). Land uses immediately
surrounding the project site include a ready mix concrete supplier and vacant mining pit to the west;
commercial industrial business park, water utility building, and vacant land to the north across Arrow
Boulevard; single‐family residential and commercial land uses to the northeast across Arrow
Boulevard; vacant land, single‐ and multi‐family residential land uses to the east across Tokay Avenue;
and single‐family residential land uses to the south across the flood control channel and BNSF Railroad
right‐of‐way. Figures 5 and 6, Views of the Surrounding Land Uses, show photographs of the
surrounding land uses at street level.
The project site is also located near the City’s western boundary adjacent to a “pocket” of
unincorporated San Bernardino County land that is primarily industrial north of the BNSF Railroad
right‐of‐way and residential south of the BNSF Railroad right‐of‐way. This area of unincorporated San
Bernardino County is within the City’s Sphere of Influence. The project site is located entirely within
City limits; however, Site B includes approximately 18 acres of the existing 57‐acre vacant mining pit.
The balance of the mining pit outside of Site B is located within unincorporated San Bernardino
County. This mining pit has at various times since the 1940s been the site of aggregate extraction and
asphalt production.
As shown in Figure 3, the surrounding properties are designated by the City’s Fontana Forward
General Plan Update 2015‐2035 (“General Plan”) for I‐G – General Industrial, WMXU‐1 – Walkable
Mixed‐Use Downtown and Corridors, R‐M – Medium Density Residential, I‐L – Light Industrial, and OS
– Open Space. In the area of the project site, Arrow Boulevard is classified as “Primary Highway” and
Tokay Avenue south of Arrow Boulevard is classified as a “Local Street” and “Collector Street” north
of Arrow Boulevard by the General Plan’s Community Mobility and Circulation Element. Moreover,
Tokay Avenue south of Arrow Boulevard dead‐ends near the southeast corner of Site B at the flood
control channel.
As shown in Figure 4, the surrounding properties are zoned by the City for M‐2 – General Industrial,
FBC – Form‐Based Code, R‐2 – Medium Density Residential, M‐1 – Light Industrial, and OS‐R – Open
Space Resource.
Existing Project Site Conditions
The project site consists of two parts: Site A and Site B. The approximately 7‐acre Site A is an
undeveloped, vacant, graded, relatively flat field of non‐native grassland and a row of eucalyptus trees
along Arrow Boulevard. A couple of eucalyptus trees are in the field. The approximately 18‐acre Site
B is part of a larger 57‐acre vacant mining pit identified as the Fontana Pit and is also known as the
Vulcan Pit. As noted above, this mining pit has at various times since the 1940s been the site of
aggregate extraction and asphalt production. The eastern portion of the pit, which includes Site B,
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐3
served as the extraction area and is as much as 120 feet below the surrounding grade. Site B includes
a security fence around the northern, eastern, and southern perimeter and a raised earthen berm at
the eastern perimeter along Tokay Avenue behind the security fence. Site B consists of sparse weedy
vegetation, manufactured sloped topography consistent with decades of use as an extraction site,
and a concrete v‐ditch in the northern portion to capture and convey stormwater runoff from pooling
at the bottom of the pit. There is an unpaved access road in the southern portion of Site B connecting
the bottom of the pit to the higher up at‐grade elevation as well as the outline of a percolation pond
at the bottom of the pit. Figure 7, Views of the Project Site, includes photographs of the project site
at street level.
9. Description of Project:
The proposed project includes two separate components:
1) The entire project site (Site A and Site B) is proposed to be redesignated and rezoned from
Open Space to Light Industrial as well as adding an Emergency Shelter Overlay District to the
properties in Site A.
2) Construction and operation of a Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center
(hereinafter “Care Center”) at Site A.
This Initial Study analyzes the above two components in the following manner:
Site A redesignation and rezoning, and the construction of operation of the Care Center is
analyzed at the specific project‐level based on the multi‐phased buildout of the Care Center,
which is conservatively assumed to occur by 2030 for the purposes of this analysis.
Site B redesignation and rezoning is analyzed at the programmatic level as there is no
development proposed by this project at this site.
The project is discussed in further detail below.
Site A
The proposed Care Center would be located at Site A. The Care Center would be built out over multiple
phases and provide a total of up to 150 living units and up to 40,000 square feet of housing on‐site.
At this time, two initial phases of development have been articulated for approximately 3.5 acres of
the 7‐acre Site A. Phase 1 would develop approximately 2.5 acres and construct three “care
neighborhoods” with modular homes and an administrative building. A total of 48 living units would
be provided in Phase 1 across the three care neighborhoods and grading activity for streets and
utilities would be part of this phase. Phase 2A would develop approximately one acre and would
include the sports court, open space, gathering places, and an 18,200‐square‐foot pad for future
transitional housing. (Phase 2B would include the housing on the development pad.)
The balance of Site A, i.e., the remaining approximately 3.5 acres as well as the development pad for
future housing, would be developed in subsequent phases of 24‐30 living units per phase and could
include modular buildings or stick‐built on‐site construction. Figure 8, Conceptual Site Plan, illustrates
the Phase 1 and Phase 2A development for Site A. Table 1, Project Site A Development Summary,
includes a summary of the proposed development by phase and care neighborhood.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐4
Table 1
Project Site A Development Summary
Phase Neighborhood Use Size Total Living
Units
Phase 1
‐‐ Administrative Building 6,000 sf ‐‐
Neighborhood 1 Modular Buildings for Assisted
Care Housing
4 buildings with single
occupancy units on 0.29
acre
12
Neighborhood 2 Modular Buildings for Voluntary
Care Housing
12 buildings with single
occupancy units on 0.55
acre
24
Neighborhood 3 Modular Buildings for
Transitional Housing
8 buildings with single
occupancy units on 0.42
acre
12
Phase 2A ‐‐
Sports Court
Pad for Future Housing 18,200 sf pad ‐‐
Subtotal 6,000 sf administration
9,600 sf housing a 48
Subsequent Phases b
Phase 2B Neighborhood 4 Modular Buildings or Stick‐Built
for Transitional Housing Up to 8,940 sf Up to 30
Phase 3 Neighborhood 5 Modular Buildings or Stick‐Built Up to 8,940 sf Up to 30
Phase 4 Neighborhood 6 Modular Buildings or Stick‐Built Up to 8,940 sf Up to 30
Phase 5 Neighborhood 7 Modular Buildings or Stick‐Built Up to 3,580 sf Up to 12
Subtotal 30,400 sf housing Up to 102
Project Total 6,000 sf administration
40,000 sf housing Up to 150
sf = square feet
a Each modular building in Phase 1 measures 10 feet by 40 feet in size.
b General assumption for analytical purposes in this report to account for full buildout at maximum capacity of 30 living
units per phase and an estimate square footage of housing for those units per phase to reflect a buildout of up to 150
living units and up to 40,000 square feet of housing. As these are assumptions, exact buildout of these subsequent phases
may be different, but the maximum buildout is accounted for in the project totals. For instance, if fewer living units are
constructed in phases 2B through 4, phase 5 may exceed 12 living units/3,580 square feet of housing, but the project’s
maximum capacity at Site A would remain up to 150 living units in up to 40,000 square feet of housing.
Operation
The proposed Care Center would be operated by either the City or another qualified designated entity.
The overall intent of the Care Center is to assist residents in the San Bernardino County area who are
homeless, at threat of being homeless, and/or are experiencing medical and/or mental challenges by
helping them with their housing stability, life skills and/or employment income stability, and self‐
sufficiency to return to a stable housing situation and overcome and avoid a return to homelessness.
Specifically, this care community would include on‐site facilities for administration, job training, job
placement services, inner community gathering, counseling, medical and clinical wrap around
services.
The Care Center would be segmented into “care neighborhoods” based on the type of housing and
support services administered for those individuals that fall into the respective category. The three
care neighborhoods proposed for Phase 1 would include transitional housing, assisted care housing,
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐5
and voluntary care housing. The support services would be in the administration building. Kitchen and
dining facilities would also be in the administration building and communal dining would be handled
by staff.
Care Neighborhood 1 would be Assisted Care Housing. This neighborhood would be designed to room
and care for individuals that are experiencing severe mental challenges that are unable to care for
themselves. This neighborhood would include 24‐hour care and monitoring along with daily social
service programing. Service providers in this neighborhood might include social rehabilitation,
addiction counseling and detoxification, clinical and medical services, family reunification, and/or
stabilizing the individual by helping them manage the intake of prescriptions. The goal of this facility
is to help prepare individuals for entry into a more independent living arrangement, while still
benefiting from 24‐hour wrap around services.
Care Neighborhood 2 would be Voluntary Care Housing. This neighborhood would be designed to
shelter and care for individuals that can generally care for themselves but may require 24‐hour
support to maintain consistency with the intake of their medications and/or addiction counselling.
Service providers in this neighborhood might include social rehabilitation, addiction counseling,
clinical and medical services, family reunification, managing the intake of prescriptions, and skills
training. The goal of this facility is to continue to help individuals prepare for reentry into society in a
more independent living arrangement.
Care Neighborhood 3 would be Transitional Housing. This neighborhood would be designed to shelter
and counsel individuals and families that lack the economic ability to obtain housing. Support services
would be on an as‐needed basis depending on the individual’s circumstances but may include
addiction counseling, skills and jobs training, and general education. In this case, the individual(s)
would use the support services provided on‐site as needed. The goal of this facility is to help
individuals prepare for independent living outside of the 24‐hour wrap around services care center.
(Phase 2A would include a pad for future transitional housing development.)
Design and Architecture
The proposed modular buildings would be 10 feet by 40 feet each for a total of approximately 9,600
square feet of housing in Phase 1. As is the standard with modular homes, the proposed project’s
modular homes would be constructed off‐site at a factory and transported to Site A as one‐story
structures reflecting a modern design. The proposed residences would be built to the Manufactured
Home Construction and Safety Standards as set forth in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) Code requirements. Phase 1 would include two types of living units. Small units
would include a bed and desk area and are anticipated to be approximately 130‐150 square feet. Mid‐
sized units would also include a small bathroom and are anticipated to be approximately 200 square
feet. The living units for Phase 1 would not include kitchens. As noted above, dining facilities would
be in the administration building and communal dining would be handled by staff. Phase 1 living units
are intended for single occupancy. However, subsequent development phases may include living units
for families.
The administrative building would be one‐story and designed to reflect a contemporary design. This
building would house the support services for residents, including front office; security office; meeting
space for case managers, counselors, and healthcare professionals; kitchen area; and dining area.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐6
Open Space and Landscaping
Each care neighborhood would have its own open space and access to on‐site amenities, such as sport
courts, gathering places, exercise equipment, and walking trails. Phase 2B would include the
construction of sports court for use by residents. Benches would be included with Phase 1 and Phase
2A construction.
Phase 1 would include approximately 65,000 square feet of landscaping, and Phase 2A would include
approximately 25,000 square feet of landscaping for a total of approximately 90,000 square feet of
landscaping in the initial development phases. On‐site landscaping would include a variety of trees in
the open space areas and new street trees along Arrow Boulevard and Tokay Avenue. Walkways and
communal areas in each care neighborhood would consist of decomposed granite.
Access, Circulation, and Parking
A surface parking lot and vehicle drive aisle would be sited between the administration building and
Arrow Boulevard. Vehicles accessing the site would use the proposed driveway along Arrow Boulevard
and exit the site via the proposed driveway along Tokay Avenue. An on‐site drive aisle would allow
vehicles to drive to the administration building or the surface parking lot. The surface parking lot
includes 65 parking spaces. Subsequent phases of development may include new vehicular access
points along Arrow Boulevard.
Lighting and Security
The project would include provide lighting at street level for security. All lighting would be shielded
and focused on the developed portions of Site A and directed away from the neighboring land uses to
minimize light trespass. The proposed lighting would be low‐level LED lighting to reduce sky glow and
would be provided on buildings and along pathways of travel. The project would also include
architectural features and facades with a low level of reflectivity.
The entire community would be secured by a perimeter gate. Each care neighborhood in Phase 1
would be secured by a gate and would only be accessible through the administration building. The
project would also include other security features such as video surveillance of the property and alarm
systems for the proposed administrative building.
Sustainability Features
The proposed administration building would meet all the City Building Code and Title 24
requirements. The modular homes likewise would meet HUD design requirements including any
applicable energy efficiency and sustainability features. As such, the building would incorporate eco‐
friendly building materials, systems, and features wherever feasible, water saving/low‐flow fixtures,
non‐volatile organic compound paints/adhesives, drought‐tolerant planting, and high‐performance
building envelopment in conformance with Code requirements.
Site B
The project would redesignate and rezone Site B from Open Space to Light Industrial. The project does
not propose any development at Site B at this time.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐7
Proposed Land Use and Zoning Changes
The project proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the entire
project site (Site A and Site B) from OS – Open Space to I‐L – Light Industrial and Zone Change from
OS‐R – Open Space Resource to M‐1 – Light Industrial as well as an Emergency Shelter Overlay District
over the properties at Site A. The Emergency Shelter Overlay District, as set forth in Fontana Municipal
Code (FMC) Section 30‐651, is to provide for supportive and transitional housing uses on specific
properties within the Light Industrial (M‐1) zoning district. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the existing and
proposed land use designations and zoning.
Anticipated Construction Schedule
As no development is proposed for Site B, the anticipated construction schedule applies to the
proposed Care Center at Site A. The Care Center would be constructed over multiple phases. Two
phases of development have been articulated at this time (Phase 1 and Phase 2A).
Assuming project approval, Phase 1 is anticipated to commence construction in the second quarter of
2024. The anticipated duration of Phase 1 construction is six months. Construction activities would
include grading, minor excavation, paving, and building construction as well as the relocation of traffic
signal poles within the existing right‐of‐way. The modular homes would be constructed off‐site and
transported to the project site. Grading, excavation, and site preparation activities would occur over
approximately one month and building construction would occur over approximately five months.
Construction staging would be located on‐site at Site A. Phase 1 is anticipated to be completed by the
fourth quarter 2024.
While the timing of Phase 2A is subject to when funding is identified and made available, for the
purposes of this analysis, it is conservatively assumed to commence in the first quarter of 2025 after
completion of Phase 1. The anticipated duration of Phase 2A construction is 3 months. Construction
activities would include grading, excavation, and paving. Phase 2A is assumed to be completed by the
second quarter of 2025.
Construction staging for both Phase 1 and Phase 2A would be located on‐site at Site A. No soil import
or export is anticipated as any cut or fill would be balanced on site. Additionally, as Site A is currently
vacant and undeveloped, no hauling would be required.
The timing of subsequent phases or full buildout of the Care Center are unknown currently as they
are subject to timing and availability of sufficient funding. However, for purposes of this
environmental analysis, full buildout is assumed to be completed by 2030.
Permits and Approvals
The list below includes the anticipated requests for approval of the project. The Initial Study analyzes
impacts associated with the project and provides environmental review sufficient for all necessary
entitlements and public agency actions associated with the project. The discretionary entitlements,
reviews, permits, and approvals required to implement the project include, but are not necessarily
limited to, the following:
General Plan Amendment to redesignate the project site from OS – Open Space to I‐L – Light
Industrial as well as an Emergency Shelter Overlay District over the properties at Site A
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐8
Zone Change to rezone the project site from OS‐R – Open Space Resource to M‐1 – Light
Industrial as well as an Emergency Shelter Overlay District over the properties at Site A
Adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Grading, excavation, and building permits; and
Other permits, ministerial or discretionary, as may be necessary pursuant to various sections
of the Fontana Municipal Code from the City of Fontana Building & Safety Department (and
other municipal agencies) in order to execute and implement the project. Such approvals may
include, but are not limited to landscaping plan approvals, stormwater discharge permits,
permits for temporary lane closures, installation and hookup approvals for public utilities, and
related permits.
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required:
No other approvals by outside public agencies are required.
11. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the project Area
Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1:
As part of the process of identifying tribal cultural resources issues in or near the project site, the City
sent letters via email on March 27, 2023, inviting tribes to consult with the City regarding this project.
While Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) requires tribes to respond within 30 days, the project is also subject to
Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) because of the General Plan Amendment, which provides tribes 90 days to
respond. This 90‐day window closed on June 26, 2023. In response to the project’s AB 52/SB 18 tribal
notifications, the following seven tribes responded:
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (March 27, 2023)
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (April 3, 2023)
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California (March 27, 2023)
Morongo Band of Mission Indians (May 17, 2023)
Quechan Indian Tribe (March 29, 2023)
Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians (April 18, 2023)
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (April 6, 2023)
Of these responding tribes, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians ‐ Kizh Nation and Morongo Band of
Mission Indians initiated consultations with the City. The remaining tribes expressed no concern or
comment regarding the project and deferred to other tribes closer to the project site; however, San
Manuel Band of Mission Indians, while stating they are not concerned about the project, provided a
list of mitigation measures that they requested be required for the project. Tribal cultural resources
are analyzed under Checklist Question 18 in the environmental analysis in this Initial Study.
Source: OpenStreetMaps, April 2023.
Figure 1Regional and Project Vicinity Location Map
PROJECT SITE
PROJECT SITE A
PROJECT SITE B
UN
I
N
C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
E
D
S
A
N
B
E
R
N
A
R
D
I
N
O
C
O
U
N
T
Y
CI
T
Y
O
F
F
O
N
T
A
N
A
Source: Google Earth, May 2023.
Figure 2Project Site Aerial
ARROW BOULEVARD
TO
K
A
Y
A
V
E
N
U
E
PROJECT SITE A
PROJECT SITE B
UN
I
N
C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
E
D
S
A
N
B
E
R
N
A
R
D
I
N
O
C
O
U
N
T
Y
CI
T
Y
O
F
F
O
N
T
A
N
A
AL
M
E
R
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
Figure 3Existing and Proposed General Plan Designations
Source: City of Fontana, General Plan Land Use Map, April 2022.
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
Project Site
OS
WMXU-1
R-M
R-SF
I-G
I-L
R-M
R-SF C-C
OS
I-L
WMXU-1
R-M
R-SF
I-G
I-L
R-M
R-SF C-C
OS
ESO ESO
ESO
Emergency Shelter Overlay (ESO)
Figure 4Existing and Proposed Zoning Districts
Source: City of Fontana, Zoning District Map, April 2022.
EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATIONS
OS-R
FBC
R-2
R-1
M-2
M-1
R-2
R-1 C-1
OS-R M-1
FBC
R-2
R-1
M-2
M-1
R-2
R-1 C-1
OS-R
ESO ESO
ESO
Project Site
Emergency Shelter Overlay (ESO)
Figure 5Views of the Surrounding Land Uses Views 1, 2, and 3
ARROW BOULEVARD
TO
K
A
Y
A
V
E
N
U
E
AL
M
E
R
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
ARROW BOULEVARD
PROJECT SITE A
PROJECT SITE B
View 1: View looking southwest from Arrow Boulevard
toward ready mix concrete supplier land use.
PHOTO LOCATION MAP
1
3
2
View 2: View looking southeast from Tokay Avenue
toward multi-family residential land use.
View 3: View looking northeast from Tokay Avenue
towards multi-family residential land uses.
Source: GoogleEarth, May 2023.
Figure 6Views of the Surrounding Land Uses Views 4, 5, and 6
ARROW BOULEVARD
TO
K
A
Y
A
V
E
N
U
E
AL
M
E
R
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
PROJECT SITE A
PROJECT SITE B
View 4: View looking northeast from Arrow Boulevard
and Tokay Avenue toward single-family residential and
commercial land uses.
PHOTO LOCATION MAP
465
View 5: View looking northwest from Arrow Boulevard
and Tokay Avenue toward vacant land in the
foreground and Fontana Water Company building in
the background.
View 6: View looking northwest from Arrow Boulevard
toward general industrial land uses.
Source: GoogleEarth, May 2023.
Figure 7Views of the Project Site Views 1, 2, and 3
ARROW BOULEVARD
TO
K
A
Y
A
V
E
N
U
E
AL
M
E
R
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
ARROW BOULEVARD
TO
K
A
Y
A
V
E
N
U
E
PROJECT SITE A
PROJECT SITE B
View 1: View looking southeast from Arrow Boulevard
toward the project site.
PHOTO LOCATION MAP
1
3
2
View 2: View looking southwest from Arrow Boulevard
and Tokay Avenue toward the project site.
View 3: View looking northwest from Tokay Avenue
toward the project site.
Source: GoogleEarth, May 2023.
Figure 8Conceptual Site Plan
Source: City of Fontana, January 2023.
BASIS OF BEARINGS BENCH MARK:
CITY OF FONTANA BENCHMARK NO. "XXX"
ELEVATION = XXXX.XX
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐18
D. 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 cited. 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.
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off‐site as well as on‐site,
cumulative as well as project‐level, indirect, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) A “Less Than Significant Impact” applies when the proposed project would not result in a
substantial and adverse change in the environment. This impact level does not require mitigation
measures.
4) “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
5) “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than
Significant Impact.” The initial study must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain
how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
Where the impact determinations for Site A and Site B are different from one another for a particular
checklist threshold question, the greater impact level between the two sites is checked in the checklist
boxes for the respective threshold questions.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐19
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099 would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcrops, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) In non‐urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Checklist Discussion
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
A significant impact may occur if a proposed project introduces incompatible visual elements within a field
of view containing a scenic vista or substantially blocks a scenic vista. The City is located on a desert valley
floor between the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the Jurupa Hills to the south. Elevations range
from approximately 1,700 feet above mean sea level to the northern portion of the valley and 1,000 feet
above mean sea level in the southern portion. The San Gabriel Mountains are the City’s most prominent
visual feature, rising dramatically above the community with scenic views towards the mountains. The
San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills are considered scenic resources in the City’s General Plan.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is in an urbanized area characterized by residential,
industrial, and commercial uses as well as a mining pit. The project would develop the Care Center at Site
A, which is currently a vacant, undeveloped lot on approximately seven acres of land. The initial Phase 1
and Phase 2A development would consist of a one‐story, 6,000‐square‐foot administration building and
24 one‐story modular buildings measuring 10 feet by 40 feet in three care neighborhoods, providing
approximately 9,600 square feet of housing in the initial development phases. Subsequent phases would
include either one‐story modular homes or one‐story stick‐build construction (i.e., conventional
construction). Site A is approximately 5 miles south of the San Gabriel Mountains and approximately 3.8
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐20
miles north of the Jurupa Hills. As such, the project site is not located near these scenic resources and
public views of these resources from Site A are already limited from ground level due to the distance to
these scenic resources and intervening built environment and mature trees between Site A and these
scenic resources. Additionally, the proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding
development in terms of structural heights. Views of these scenic resources would continue to be
available from Arrow Boulevard and Tokay Avenue as well as from open spaces at Site A. Thus, the
proposed structures would not substantially affect existing views of scenic resources. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
No Impact. The project site is in an urbanized area characterized by residential, industrial, and commercial
uses as well as a mining pit. Site B is approximately 5 miles south of the San Gabriel Mountains and
approximately 3.6 miles north of the Jurupa Hills. As such, the project site is not located near these scenic
resources and public views of these resources from Site B are already limited from ground level due to
the distance to these scenic resources and intervening built environment and mature trees between Site
B and these scenic resources. Views of these scenic resources would continue to be available from Arrow
Boulevard and Tokay Avenue; however, on‐site views of scenic resources are substantially limited due to
the depth of Site B below surrounding grade level. Any future development at Site B would also be
required to comply with the permitted land uses and development standards associated with the Light
Industrial land use designation and zoning . Thus, per the analysis above, existing views of these scenic
resources would not be affected by the project at Site B. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no
mitigation measures are required.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
A significant impact may occur only where scenic resources would be damaged or removed by the project
within a state scenic highway. According to the City’s General Plan, there are no officially designated state
scenic highways within or adjacent to the City, and no roadways within the City are currently eligible for
scenic highway designation.
SITE A
No Impact. There are no state scenic highways in the City, and as such, no such resources exist near the
project site. The nearest such resource is Route 138 in the San Bernardino Mountains, approximately 13
miles northeast from the Site A, which is eligible for designation. The nearest designated scenic highway
is Route 2 in the San Gabriel Mountains in Los Angeles County, approximately 21.5 miles northwest from
Site A. The project would not have any aesthetic effect on any state scenic highways due to the distance
of these roadways and there are no available views of Site A from these roadways. Moreover, Site A does
not include any on‐site scenic resources such as scenic trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings.
Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
No Impact. As discussed above, no scenic highways are located near the project site. The project would
not have any aesthetic effect on any state scenic highways due to the distance of these roadways and
there are no available views of Site B from these roadways. Moreover, Site B does not include any onsite
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐21
scenic resources such as scenic trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. Therefore, no impact would
occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
c) Would the project, in non‐urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from 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?
A significant impact may occur if a project introduces incompatible visual elements on the project site or
visual elements that would be incompatible with the character of the area surrounding the project site
for projects in non‐urbanized areas, or if the project conflicts with scenic quality‐related zoning or
regulations for projects in urbanized areas. The project site (Site A and Site B) is in an “urbanized area” as
defined by Public Resources Code Section 21071. Project approval would amend the project site’s land
use designation and zoning district, which govern land use and building design.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. Site A is in an urbanized area with existing commercial, industrial, and
residential development in the project vicinity. The project would develop the Care Center at Site A, which
is currently a vacant, undeveloped lot on approximately seven acres of land. The initial Phase 1 and Phase
2A development would consist of a one‐story, 6,000‐square‐foot administration building and 24 one‐story
modular buildings measuring 10 feet by 40 feet in three care neighborhoods, providing approximately
9,600 square feet of housing in the initial development phases. Subsequent phases would include either
one‐story modular homes or one‐story stick‐build construction (i.e., conventional construction). The
project would redesignate and rezone Site A from Open Space to Light Industrial with an Emergency
Shelter Overlay District. The Emergency Shelter Overlay District is intended to provide supportive and
transitional housing uses on specific properties within the Light Industrial (M‐1) zoning district. The
proposed uses at Site A would comply with the uses permitted through the Emergency Shelter Overlay
District at a Light Industrial‐zoned site.
The proposed buildings at Site A would comply with the applicable zoning and other regulations for
supportive and transitional housing for developments in an Emergency Shelter Overlay District that
govern scenic quality as set forth in Section 30‐655 (General Development Standards and Design
Guidelines) of the Zoning and Development Code. Specifically, the project would comply with the
requirements guiding landscaping, site design, lighting, and architecture as they relate to scenic quality.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations regarding scenic
quality and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
No Impact. Site B is in an urbanized area with existing commercial, industrial, and residential development
in the project vicinity. The project would redesignate and rezone Site B from Open Space to Light
Industrial. Any future development at Site B would be required to comply with the uses and development
standards associated with the Light Industrial land use designation and zoning . Therefore, per the analyze
above, no impacts are expect to occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐22
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
A significant impact may occur if a project introduces new sources of light or glare on the project site
which would be incompatible with the areas surrounding the project site or which pose a safety hazard,
such as to motorists utilizing adjacent streets. Existing sources of light and glare in the immediate project
area include streetlights, outdoor safety and security lighting associated with commercial and residential
developments that generally surround the project site as well as transient lighting from vehicle headlights
on nearby roadways such as Arrow Boulevard and Tokay Avenue.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction at Site A would be limited to the daytime hours as set forth in
FMC Section 18‐83. Nighttime construction lighting would not be required. Therefore, no short‐term
impacts associated with light or glare would occur.
Regarding long‐term operational impacts, development at Site A would increase the intensity of lighting
from that of the existing vacant area to the proposed Care Center. New sources of light and glare from
the project include reflective windows, outdoor landscaping, safety and wayfinding lighting, and light and
glare from vehicles accessing Site A. Specifically, the administrative building and housing buildings,
recreational open space areas, and parking lot are components that would include new sources of lighting
such as building wall‐mounted lights, light poles, and light bollards. As the project would redesignate and
rezone Site A from Open Space to Light Industrial with an Emergency Shelter Overlay District, the
proposed development is required to conform with the City’s light and glare development standards.
Therefore, upon compliance with the City’s lighting regulations for Site A development, long‐term
operational impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
No Impact. The project would redesignate and rezone Site B from Open Space to Light Industrial. Any
future development at Site B would be required to comply with the uses and development standards
associated with the Light Industrial land use designation and zoning such as FMC Section 30‐544, which
prohibits light trespass and adverse glare as part of the performance standards for developments in the
industrial zoning districts. Therefore, , no impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
None required for either Site A or Site B.
Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐23
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to
nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code Section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of
forestland to non‐forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to nonagricultural use or conversion of
forestland to non‐forest use?
Checklist Discussion
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?
A significant impact may occur if a project were to result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non‐agricultural use.
SITE A
No Impact. According to Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program mapping information available from
the California Department of Conservation, Site A is categorized as “Other Land” that does not contain
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐24
any soils mapped as “Prime Farmland,” “Unique Farmland,” or “Farmland of Statewide Importance.”1 As
such, implementation of the project at Site A would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non‐ agricultural use. No impact would occur, and no mitigation
measures are required.
SITE B
No Impact. As with Site A, Site B is categorized as “Other Land.” Therefore, as with Site A, implementation
of the project at Site B would have no impact on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance, and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
A significant impact may occur if a project were to result in the conversion of land zoned for agricultural
use or under a Williamson Act contract from agricultural use to another non‐agricultural use.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. Pursuant to FMC Section 30‐609, Site A’s existing OS‐R – Open Space
Resource zoning allows animal grazing, breeding, raising, or training with a minor use permit. However,
Site A is currently a vacant lot, and no such agricultural uses occur on or within the vicinity. As such, the
rezoning of Site A would not conflict with agricultural use. Additionally, Site A is not protected open space2
or under a Williamson Act contract.3 Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures
are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. Site B is currently a vacant, former mining pit and, as with Site A, is zoned
OS‐R – Open Space Resource and is not a protected open space or under a Williamson Act contract.
Therefore, the rezoning of Site B would not conflict with agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
A significant impact may occur if a project results in the conversion of farmland to another, non‐
agricultural use, and/or if a project results in the conversion of forest land to another, non‐forest use.
1 California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder,
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed June 29, 2023.
2 City of Fontana, General Plan, Chapter 7: Conservation, Open Space, Parks, and Trails, November 13, 2018, Exhibit 7.4:
Protected Open Space in Fontana, page 7‐10.
3 California Department of Conservation, Williamson Act Program, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa, accessed June
29, 2023.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐25
SITE A
No Impact. Site A is not zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production, nor is it surrounded
by forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production land. Therefore, implementation of the project at
Site A would have no potential to conflict with or cause the rezoning of any areas currently zoned as forest,
timberland, or Timberland Production and would not result in the rezoning of any such lands. No impact
would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
No Impact. As with Site A, Site B is not zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production, nor is
it surrounded by forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production land. Therefore, as with Site A,
implementation of the project at Site B would have no impact on forest land, timberland, or Timberland
Production, and no mitigation measures are required.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?
A significant impact may occur if a project results in the conversion of forest land to another, non‐forest
use.
SITE A
No Impact. Site A does not contain a forest and is not designated as forest land. Therefore,
implementation of the project at Site A would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of
forest land to non‐forest use. No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
No Impact. As with Site A, Site B does not contain a forest and is not designated as forest land. Therefore,
implementation of the project at Site B would have no impact on forest land, and no mitigation measures
are required.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forestland to non‐forest
use?
A significant impact may occur if a project results in the conversion of farmland to another, non‐
agricultural use, and/or if a project results in the conversion of forest land to another, non‐forest use.
SITE A
No Impact. “Farmland” is defined by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as “Prime Farmland,” “Unique
Farmland,” or “Farmland of Statewide Importance.” As described in response to Checklist Question 2(a)
above, Site A does not contain any soils mapped by the Department of Conservation as “Farmland.”
Furthermore, the project site and surrounding areas do not contain forestland or areas zoned or preserved
for forestland uses. Therefore, implementation of the project at Site A would not result in the conversion
of Farmland to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forestland to non‐forest use. No impact would occur,
and no mitigation measures are required.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐26
SITE B
No Impact. As with Site A, Site B does not contain any soil mapped by the Department of Conservation as
“Farmland” and no forestland or areas zoned or preserved for forestland uses exists in the vicinity.
Therefore, implementation of the project at Site B would have no impact on Farmland or forestland, and
no mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
None required for either Site A or Site B.
Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐27
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is nonattainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
The following is based on the findings of the Homeless Prevention Resource and Care Center, Air Quality,
Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, City of Fontana, CA, prepared by MD Acoustics, July 18, 2023
(“AQ/GHG/EA Study”). The AQ/GHG/EA Study is available in Appendix A to this Initial Study.
Checklist Discussion
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
The project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (“Basin”), which includes the non‐desert portions
of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, and all of Orange County. The Basin is under the
regulatory jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and as such,
SCAQMD is responsible for controlling emissions primarily from stationary sources. SCAQMD is also
responsible for developing, updating, and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the
Basin. The AQMP is intended to bring pollutants that are currently designated “nonattainment” in the
Basin according to federal and/or state ambient air quality standards into a level of attainment. The
current 2022 AQMP was adopted by SCAQMD Governing Board on December 2, 2022, and was approved
and adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on January 26, 2023.
The AQMP contains a comprehensive list of pollution control strategies directed at reducing emissions
and achieving ambient air quality standards. These strategies are developed, in part, based on regional
population, housing, and employment projections prepared by the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG). SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside,
San Bernardino, and Imperial counties and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, the
economy, community development and the environment. Regarding future growth, SCAG prepares a
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies (RTP/SCS), which provide population,
housing, and employment projections for cities and counties under its jurisdiction. The growth projections
contained in the RTP/SCS are based in part on projections originating under county and city general plans.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐28
As such, projects which propose development that is consistent with the growth anticipated by SCAG’s
growth projections and/or the applicable general plan would not conflict with the SCAQMD AQMP.
The purpose of this discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and
objectives of the 2022 AQMP and discuss whether the Project would interfere with the region’s ability to
comply with federal and state air quality standards. If the decision‐makers determine that the Project is
inconsistent, the lead agency may consider Project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate
the inconsistency.
The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that “New or amended General Plan Elements (including land use
zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency
with the AQMP.” Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project
should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not
obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency:
(1) Whether a project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality
violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality
standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.
(2) Whether a project will exceed the assumptions in the 2022 AQMP or increments based on the
year of project buildout and phase.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. Both criteria listed above are evaluated for Site A in the following:
Criterion 1 – Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations? Based on the air quality modeling analysis
contained in the AQ/GHG/EA Study (and discussed below), short‐term construction impacts of the project
at Site A would not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD regional and local thresholds of
significance. The AQ/GHG/EA Study also found that long‐term operational impacts of the project at Site A
would not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD local and regional thresholds of significance.
Therefore, the project at Site A would not contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration
standards and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion.
Criterion 2 – Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP? Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined
by performing an analysis of a proposed project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this
criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted for projects are based on the same forecasts as the
AQMP. SCAG’s 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS (also known as Connect SoCal) includes planning that responds directly
to federal and state requirements placed on SCAG. Local governments are required to use these as the
basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA.
For this project, the City’s General Plan (adopted in 2018) defines the assumptions that are represented
in the 2022 AQMP. The General Plan land use designation for Site A is OS – Open Space. Additionally, Site
A is zoned OS‐R – Open Space Resource. The project would redesignate Site A to I‐L – Light Industrial and
rezone Site A to M‐1 – Light Industrial with an Emergency Shelter Overlay District. The project at Site A
would develop a Care Center to assist San Bernardino County area residents who are homeless, at threat
of being homeless, and/or are experiencing medical and/or mental challenges by helping them with their
housing stability, life skills, employment income stability, and self‐sufficiency to return to a stable housing
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐29
situation and overcome and avoid a return to homelessness. As such, the project proposes transitional
housing. Under the Emergency Shelter Overlay District, residents are limited to a maximum stay of six
months (FMC Section 30‐654(4)). Conservatively counting the residents of the Care Center as new
residents to the City, the project would be within SCAG 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS growth forecasts for the City,
as discussed Checklist Question under 14(a), below.
Moreover, the proposed administration building and future stick‐built construction would meet all City
Building Code and Title 24 requirements, and the modular homes would meet HUD design requirements,
these include applicable energy efficiency and sustainability features. As such, the building would
incorporate eco‐friendly building materials, systems, and features wherever feasible, water saving/low‐
flow fixtures, non‐volatile organic compound paints/adhesives, drought‐tolerant planting, and high‐
performance building envelopment in conformance with Code requirements. Furthermore, the number
of daily vehicle trips generated by the project at Site A (390 daily vehicle trips; see Checklist Question
17(a), below) is below the threshold required to perform a vehicle miles travelled (VMT) analysis, and as
such, would not conflict with SCAG’s 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS goals as VMT impacts are considered
insignificant. And as mentioned above, strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not
required. Therefore, the project would not exceed the 2022 AQMP assumptions, and is found to be
consistent with the 2022 AQMP for the second criterion.
Based on the above, the project at Site A would not result in an inconsistency with 2022 AQMP. Therefore,
a less than significant impact would occur.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. Both criteria listed above are evaluated for Site B in the following:
Criterion 1 – Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations? Any future development at Site B would
be required to comply with the permitted land uses and development standards associated with the Light
Industrial land use designation and zoning. Therefore, the project would not contribute to the exceedance
of any air pollutant concentration standards and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first
criterion.
Criterion 2 – Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP? Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined
by performing an analysis of a proposed project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this
criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted for projects are based on the same forecasts as the
AQMP. SCAG’s 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS (also known as Connect SoCal) includes planning that responds directly
to federal and state requirements placed on SCAG. Local governments are required to use these as the
basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA.
For this project, the City’s General Plan (adopted in 2018) defines the assumptions that are represented
in the 2022 AQMP. The General Plan land use designation for Site B is OS – Open Space). Additionally, Site
B is zoned OS‐R – Open Space Resource. The project would redesignate Site B to I‐L – Light Industrial and
rezone Site B to M‐1 – Light Industrial. Any future development at Site B would be required to comply
with the permitted land uses and development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use
designation and zoning. Therefore, the project would not exceed the 2022 AQMP assumptions, and is
found to be consistent with the 2022 AQMP for the second criterion.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐30
Based on the above, the project at Site B would not result in an inconsistency with 2022 AQMP. Therefore,
a less than significant impact would occur.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
As discussed above, the project is in the Basin, which is under the regulatory jurisdiction of SCAQMD.
SCAQMD is required to monitor air pollutant levels of ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), inhalable particulate matter (PM), hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and lead to
ensure that National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards
(CAAQS) are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards.
Air Quality Standards and Attainment
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and CARB designate air basins where ambient air quality
standards are exceeded as “nonattainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated as an
“attainment” area. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation,
they are considered “unclassified.” According to the AQ/GHG/EA Study, the Basin is in nonattainment of
federal (NAAQS) standards for ozone (O3), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5),
and lead. The Basin is in nonattainment of state (CAAQS) standards for ozone (O3), particulate matter less
than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and PM2.5.4 Health impacts associated with criteria pollutants for
which the region is in nonattainment are described in Table 3, Health Effects Associated with Non‐
Attainment Criteria Pollutants. It should be noted that the federal nonattainment designation for lead
applies to the Los Angeles County portion of the Basin, and is, therefore, not shown on the following table.
Table 2
Health Effects Associated with Non‐Attainment Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant Adverse Effects
Ozone (O3)
(1) Short‐term exposures: (a) pulmonary function reductions and localized lung
edema in humans and animals and (b) risk to public health implied by alterations
in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals; (2) long‐term exposures:
risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered
pulmonary morphology in animals after long‐term exposures and pulmonary
function reductions in chronically exposed humans; (3) vegetation damage; and
(4) property damage.
Inhalable particulate matter
(PM10)
(1) Excess deaths from short‐term and long‐term exposures; (2) excess seasonal
declines in pulmonary function, especially in children; (3) asthma exacerbation and
possibly induction; (4) adverse birth outcomes including low birth weight; (5)
increased infant mortality; (6) increased respiratory symptoms in children such as
cough and bronchitis; and (7) increased hospitalization for both cardiovascular and
respiratory disease (including asthma).
Inhalable particulate matter
(PM2.5)
(1) Excess deaths from short‐ and long‐term exposures; (2) excess seasonal
declines in pulmonary function, especially in children; (3) asthma exacerbation and
possibly induction; (4) adverse birth outcomes, including low birth weight; (5)
increased infant mortality; (6) increased respiratory symptoms in children, such as
cough and bronchitis; and (7) increased hospitalization for both cardiovascular and
respiratory disease, including asthma.
4 Table 5 of the AQ/GHG/EA Study, available as Appendix A to this Initial Study.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐31
Table 2
Health Effects Associated with Non‐Attainment Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant Adverse Effects
Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Environments and Contaminants, Criteria Air Pollutants, 2015,
available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015‐10/documents/ace3_criteria_air_pollutants.pdf.
To monitor the various concentrations of air pollutants throughout the Basin, SCAQMD has divided the
region into 38 source receptor areas (SRAs) with a designated ambient air monitoring station
representative of each area. The project site is in the Central San Bernardino Valley Source Receptor
Area (SRA 34). The nearest air monitoring station to the project site with available air quality data is the
Fontana‐Arrow Highway Station, located approximately 1.85 miles west of the project site; however, this
station does not provide all ambient weather data. Thus, additional data was pulled from SCAQMD
historical data for SRA 34 for both sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide to provide the existing levels.
Table 3, Local Area Air Quality Levels, presents the monitored pollutant levels within the vicinity.
However, it should be noted that due to the air monitoring station distance from the project site,
recorded air pollution levels at the air monitoring station reflect local air quality conditions at the project
site with varying degrees of accuracy.
Table 3
Local Area Air Quality Levels a
Pollutant
(Standard)b
Year
2019 2020 2021
Ozone (O3):
Maximum 1‐Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.124 0.151 0.125
Days > CAAQS (0.09 ppm) 41 56 44
Maximum 8‐Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.109 0.111 0.103
Days > NAAQS (0.07 ppm) 67 89 81
Days > CAAQS (0.070 ppm) 71 91 83
Carbon Monoxide (CO):
Maximum 1‐Hour Concentration (ppm) 2.7 1.7 2.0
Days > NAAQS (20 ppm) 0 0 0
Maximum 8‐Hour Concentration (ppm) 1.0 1.2 1.6
Days > NAAQS (9 ppm) 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2):
Maximum 1‐Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.076 0.066 0.067
Days > NAAQS (0.25 ppm) 0 0 0
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2):
Maximum 1‐Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.002 0.003 0.005
Days > CAAQS (0.04 ppm) 0 0 0
Inhalable Particulates (PM10):
Maximum 24‐Hour Concentration (ug/m3) 88.8 76.8 73.8
Days > NAAQS (150 ug/m3) 0 0 0
Days > CAAQS (50 ug/m3) 11 6 3
Annual Average (ug/m3) 35.3 37.2 30.1
Annual > NAAQS (50 ug/m3) No No No
Annual > CAAQS (20 ug/m3) Yes Yes Yes
Ultra‐Fine Particulates (PM2.5):
Maximum 24‐Hour Concentration (ug/m3) 81.3 57.6 55.1
Days > NAAQS (35 ug/m3) 3 4 2
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐32
Table 3
Local Area Air Quality Levels a
Pollutant
(Standard)b
Year
2019 2020 2021
Annual Average (ug/m3) 11.3 12.7 12.0
Annual > NAAQS (15 ug/m3) No No No
Annual > CAAQS (12 ug/m3) No Yes Yes
a Source: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air‐quality/air‐quality‐data‐studies/historical‐data‐by‐year and/or
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php.
b CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard; ppm = parts per million
As shown in the above table, during the 2019 to 2021 monitoring period for the Fontana‐Arrow Highway
Station, the state 1‐hour concentration standard for ozone has been exceeded between 41 and 56 days
each year. The state 8‐hour concentration standard for ozone has been exceeded between 71 and 91 days
each year over the past three years. The federal 8‐hour concentration standard for ozone has been
exceeded between 67 and 89 days each year over the past three years. It should be noted that ozone is a
secondary pollutant as it is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of chemical reactions between other
pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which occur only in the presence
of bright sunlight. Many areas of the Basin contribute to the ozone levels experienced at the monitoring
station, with the more significant areas being those directly upwind.
Carbon monoxide (CO) is another important pollutant that is due mainly to motor vehicles. During the
2019 to 2021 monitoring period, the federal and state standards were not exceeded. Moreover, federal
and state standards for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) were not exceeded.
During the 2019 to 2021 monitoring period, the state 24‐hour concentration standard for PM10 was
exceeded between 3 and 11 days and the state’s annual average was exceeded all three years. The federal
24‐hour concentration standard for PM10 was not exceeded. The federal 24‐hour concentration standard
for PM2.5 was exceeded between 2 and 4 days, and the state’s annual average for PM2.5 was exceeded for
two of the three years.
Air Emissions Thresholds
Many air quality impacts that derive from dispersed mobile sources, which are the dominate pollution
generators in the Basin, often occurs hours later and miles away after photochemical processes have
converted primary exhaust pollutants into secondary contaminants such as ozone. The incremental
regional air quality impact of an individual project is generally very small and difficult to measure.
Therefore, SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted
rather than on actual ambient air quality because the direct air quality impact of a project is not
quantifiable on a regional scale. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that any project in the Basin with
daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having
an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. For the purposes of the AQ/GHG/EA Study,
a regional air quality impact would be considered significant if emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance
thresholds identified in Table 4, SCQAMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐33
Table 4
SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Mass Daily Thresholds
Pollutant Construction (lbs/day) Operation (lbs/day)
NOX 100 55
VOC 75 55
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOX 150 150
CO 550 550
Lead 3 3
Toxic Air Contaminants, Odor, and GHG Thresholds
TACs
Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million)
Chronic & Acute Hazard Index > 1.0 (project increment)
Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402
GHG 10,000 MT/yr CO2e for industrial facilities
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant SCAQMD Standards
NO2
1‐hour average annual
arithmetic mean
SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to
an exceedance of the following attainment standards:
0.18 ppm (state)
0.03 ppm (state) and 0.0534 (federal)
PM10
24‐hour average
Annual average
10.4 µg/m3 (construction) & 2.5 µg/m3 (operation)
1.0 µg/m3
PM2.5
24‐hour average
10.4 µg/m3 (construction) & 2.5 µg/m3 (operation)
SO2
1‐hour average
24‐hour average
0.25 ppm (state) & 0.075 ppm (federal – 99th percentile)
0.04 ppm (state)
Sulfate
24‐hour average
25 µg/m3 (state)
CO
1‐hour average
8‐hour average
SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to
an exceedance of the following attainment standards:
20 ppm (state) and 35 ppm (federal)
9 ppm (state/federal)
Lead
30‐day average
Rolling 3‐month average
1.5 µg/m3 (state)
0.15 µg/m3 (federal)
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Significance Thresholds, Revised March 2023, available at
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/ceqa/handbook/south‐coast‐aqmd‐air‐quality‐significance‐
thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25.
Project‐related construction air emissions may have the potential to exceed the state and federal air
quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant
enough to create a regional impact to the Basin. In addition to the above thresholds, to assess localized
air quality impacts, SCAQMD has developed Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) to assess project‐
related air emissions in a project’s vicinity. SCAQMD has also provided Final Localized Significant Threshold
Methodology (LST Methodology), June 2003 (revised July 2008), which details the methodology to analyze
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐34
local air emission impacts. The Localized Significant Threshold Methodology found that the primary
emissions of concern are nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (both
PM10 and PM2.5). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute
to an air quality exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
at the nearest sensitive receptor, taking into consideration ambient concentrations in each SRA, distance
to the sensitive receptor, and project size. LSTs only apply to emissions within a fixed stationary location
and are not applicable to mobile sources, such as cars on a roadway. According to the LST Methodology,
the use of LSTs is voluntary, to be implemented at the discretion of local agencies.
LSTs have been developed for emissions within areas up to five acres in size, with air pollutant modeling
recommended for activity within larger areas. SCAQMD provides lookup tables for project sites that
measure one, two, or five acres. The project site is in SRA 34, and the maximum number of acres disturbed
in a day at Site A would be 2.5 acres during site preparation and grading.5 Accordingly, the emissions
thresholds for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (both PM10 and
PM2.5) were based on SRA 34 and a disturbance of two acres per day (rounded from 2.5 acres) at a distance
of 25 meters (82 feet) as the closet sensitive receptor to Site A are the residential land uses located 85
feet to the southeast. LSTs for construction on a two‐acre site, to be conservative, in SRA 34 for a receptor
at 25 meters are shown in Table 5, SCAQMD LSTs.
Table 5
SCAQMD LSTs
Pollutant
Allowable Emissions from a 2‐acre Site in SRA 34 for a Receptor
at 25 meters (pounds/day)
Construction Operation
Gradual conversion of NOx to NO2 170 170
CO 972 972
PM10 7 2
PM2.5 4 1
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Analysis Handbook, Appendix C, Mass Rate LST Look Up Table,
available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/ceqa/handbook/localized‐significance‐thresholds/appendix‐c‐mass‐
rate‐lst‐look‐up‐tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The following air quality analysis summarizes the findings of the
AQ/GHG/EA Study for the proposed Care Center at Site A based on the air quality standards and
thresholds discussed above.
Emissions Modeling Parameters and Assumptions
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.1.13 was used to estimate air quality
impacts from construction and operation of the project. Using CalEEMod, the peak daily air pollutant
emissions were calculated and presented below. These emissions represent the highest level of emissions
for each of the construction phases in terms of air pollutant emissions.
Construction is anticipated to commence in the second quarter of 2024. The anticipated duration of Phase
1 construction is six months, which entails construction of the administration building and transportation
5 Table 9 of the AQ/GHG/EA Study, available as Appendix A to this Initial Study.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐35
and hook‐up of the modular homes which would be constructed off‐site. While the timing of Phase 2A is
subject to when funding is identified and made available, for the purposes of the Initial Study analysis, it
is conservatively assumed to commence the first quarter of 2025 after completion of Phase 1. The
anticipated duration of Phase 2A construction is three months with completion by the end of second
quarter of 2025. The timing of subsequent phases or full buildout of the Care Center are unknown
currently as they are subject to timing and availability of sufficient funding. For purposes of this
environmental analysis, full buildout is assumed to be completed by 2030. However, for the purposes of
a highly conservative analysis in the AQ/GHG/EA Study, it was assumed that the entire Care Center would
be built out as one phase to assess the worst‐case scenario emissions (i.e., that the entire Care Center
with the 6,000‐square‐foot administration building and a maximum of 150 living units in 40,000 square
feet of housing would be fully constructed by the end of second quarter of 2025). It should be noted that
that staggered multiphase construction based on funding availability would, in turn, result in less intense
air quality emissions compared to what is presented in the AQ/GHG/EA Study as emissions modeling
assumes greater levels of efficiency and emission reduction in construction equipment in conjunction with
less intense phase‐by‐phase construction compared to all at once. Furthermore, and for the same purpose
of a highly conservative analysis, all construction was assumed to be stick built (i.e., conventional
construction), which would generate greater emissions than modular homes.
Construction activities that are analyzed in the AQ/GHG/EA Study are 1) site preparation, 2) grading, 3)
building construction, 4) paving, and 5) architectural coating. For details on construction modeling and
construction equipment for each activity, see Appendix A to the AQ/GHG/EA Study, which is included as
Appendix A to this Initial Study.
The project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which identifies measures to reduce
fugitive dust and is required to be implemented at all construction sites located within the Basin.
Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard best management practices (BMPs)
in construction and operation activities, such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed
soils, managing haul road dust by application of water, covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds
on unpaved roads to 15 mph, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of
construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph and establishing a permanent, stabilizing ground cover
on finished sites. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 would require the use of water trucks during all
phases where earth moving operations would occur. Since compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 is required,
it is included in the CalEEMod output data. Moreover, the project would be required to comply with
SCAQMD Rule 1113, which limits volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in architectural coatings for buildings
and parking lot striping; however, no changes were made to the CalEEMod architectural coating default
values.
In addition, projects that disturb 50 acres or more of soil or move 5,000 cubic yards of materials per day
are required to submit a Fugitive Dust Control Plan or a Large Operation Notification Form to SCAQMD.
Based on the size of the project for Site A where the Care Center is proposed (i.e., approximately 7 acres)
and the fact that the project would not export more than 5,000 cubic yards of material a day, a Fugitive
Dust Control Plan or Large Operation Notification would not be required.
Operational or long‐term emissions occur over the life of the project. Both mobile and area sources
generate operational emissions. Area source emissions arise from consumer product usage, heaters that
consume natural gas, gasoline‐powered landscape equipment, and architectural coatings (painting).
Mobile source emissions from motor vehicles are the largest single long‐term source of air pollutants from
the operation of the project. Small amounts of emissions would also occur from area sources such as the
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐36
consumption of natural gas for heating, from landscaping emissions, and consumer product usage. The
operational emissions were estimated using the latest version of CalEEMod.
Project Construction Emissions
Table 6, Construction‐Related Regional Pollutant Emissions, summarizes the estimated maximum daily
construction emissions for the project at Site A. As shown, emissions resulting from project construction
would not exceed criteria pollutant thresholds established by SCAQMD for emissions of any criteria
pollutant. Additionally, as operations would overlap with Phase 2A construction, the maximum combined
construction and operational emissions have been considered in Table 6 and would also not exceed the
daily thresholds. Therefore, impacts to regional pollutant emissions would be less than significant, and no
mitigation measures are required.
Table 6
Construction‐Related Regional Pollutant Emissions
Activity Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation
On‐Site 2.35 23.20 20.70 0.03 6.14 3.58
Off‐Site 0.05 0.05 0.85 0.00 0.13 0.03
Total 2.40 23.25 21.55 0.03 6.27 3.61
Grading
On‐Site 1.90 18.20 18.80 0.03 3.60 2.11
Off‐Site 0.08 0.07 1.27 0.00 0.20 0.05
Total 1.98 18.27 20.07 0.03 3.80 2.16
Building Construction
On‐Site 1.20 11.20 13.10 0.02 0.50 0.46
Off‐Site 0.58 1.22 9.45 0.00 1.55 0.38
Total 1.78 12.42 22.55 0.02 2.05 0.84
Paving
On‐Site 0.93 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 0.32
Off‐Site 0.07 0.24 1.26 0.00 0.25 0.06
Total 1.00 7.69 11.24 0.01 0.60 0.38
Architectural Coating
On‐Site 13.23 0.88 1.14 0.00 0.03 0.03
Off‐Site 0.10 0.10 1.68 0.00 0.28 0.07
Total 13.33 0.98 2.82 0.00 0.31 0.10
Total of overlapping phases 16.11 21.09 36.61 0.03 2.96 1.32
Overlapping Operations a 3.35 2.01 21.66 0.03 1.00 0.22
Maximum Combined b 19.46 25.26 58.27 0.06 7.27 3.83
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Thresholds No No No No No No
Notes:
On‐site emissions are from equipment operated on‐site that is not operated on public roads.
Off‐site emissions are from equipment operated on public roads.
Construction, architectural coatings, and paving phases may overlap.
a Overlapping operations include daily project emissions based on operation in 2024. See detailed operational emissions in Table
8, below.
b Maximum combined emissions include the maximum daily construction emissions and 2024 daily operational emissions.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐37
Table 7, Construction‐Related Localized Pollutant Emissions at the Nearest Receptors, shows the on‐site
emissions from CalEEMod for the different construction phases and the LST emissions thresholds (shown
on Table 5, above). As shown, none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the local emissions
thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors from Site A. Therefore, impacts to localized pollutant
emissions would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Table 7
Construction‐Related Localized Pollutant Emissions at the Nearest Receptors
Phase On‐Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) a
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation 23.20 20.70 6.14 3.58
Grading 18.20 18.80 3.60 2.11
Building Construction 11.20 13.10 0.50 0.46
Paving 7.45 9.98 0.35 0.32
Architectural Coating 0.88 1.14 0.03 0.03
Total of overlapping phases 19.53 24.22 0.88 0.81
SCAQMD Threshold b 170 972 7 4
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
a Calculated from CalEEMod 2022.1.1.13.
b See Table 5, above. Based on SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look‐Up Tables for two acres in SRA 34 with 25‐meter
threshold.
Therefore, as shown on the above tables, construction‐related emissions for the project at Site A would
be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Project Operational Emissions
The operations‐related criteria air quality impacts created by the project at Site A were analyzed with
CalEEMod. The summer and winter emissions created by the project’s long‐term operations were
calculated and the highest emissions from either summer or winter are summarized in Table 8, Operation‐
Related Regional Pollutant Emissions, to demonstrate the worst‐case scenario. As shown, the project
would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Therefore, impacts to regional pollutant emissions would
be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Table 8
Operation‐Related Regional Pollutant Emissions
Activity Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) a
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources b 1.71 0.08 8.48 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Usage c 0.02 0.42 0.18 0.00 0.03 0.03
Mobile Sources d 1.62 1.51 13.00 0.03 0.97 0.19
Total Emissions 3.35 2.01 21.66 0.03 1.00 0.22
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:
a Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.13
b Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment.
c Energy usage consists of emissions from on‐site energy usage.
d Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐38
Table 9, Operation‐Related Localized Pollutant Emissions at the Nearest Receptors, shows the on‐site
emissions from CalEEMod for the operation of the project and the LST emissions thresholds (shown on
Table 5, above). CalEEMod does not separate on‐site and off‐site emissions for mobile sources. For a
worst‐case scenario assessment, the emissions shown on the following table include all on‐site project‐
related stationary sources and 10 percent of the project‐related new mobile sources.6 This percentage is
an estimate of the amount of project‐related new vehicle traffic that would occur on‐site. As shown, local
operational emissions would not exceed the LST thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors from Site A.
Therefore, impacts to localized pollutant emissions would be less than significant, and no mitigation
measures are required.
Table 9
Operation‐Related Localized Pollutant Emissions at the Nearest Receptors
On‐Site Emission Source On‐Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) a
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources b 0.08 8.48 0.00 0.00
Energy Usage c 0.42 0.18 0.03 0.03
On‐Site Vehicle Emissions d 0.15 1.30 0.10 0.02
Total Emissions 0.65 9.96 0.13 0.05
SCAQMD Threshold e 170 972 2 1
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
a Calculated from CalEEMod 2022.1.1.13.
b Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment.
c Energy usage consists of emissions from the generation of electricity and natural gas usage.
d On‐site vehicular emissions based on 1/10 of the gross vehicular emissions and road dust.
e See Table 5, above. Based on SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look‐Up Tables for two acres in SRA 34 with 25‐meter threshold.
Therefore, as shown on the above tables, operational emissions would be less than significant, and no
mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project would redesignate and rezone
Site B from Open Space to Light Industrial. Any future development at Site B would be required to comply
with the permitted land uses and development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use
designation and zoning. However, to assess the air quality emissions of future proposed development,
mitigation measure MM AQ‐1 requires an air quality study to be conducted that considers project‐specific
and cumulative emissions in accordance with SCAQMD guidelines and a Health Risk Assessment in
accordance with California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and SCAQMD guidelines,
6 The project at Site A is approximately 0.2 mile in length at its longest point. Therefore, the on‐site mobile source emissions
represent approximately 1/53rd of the short CalEEMod default distance of 6.9 miles. To be conservative, 1/34th the distance
(dividing the mobile source emissions by 10) was used to represent the portion of the overall mobile source emissions that
would occur on‐site.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐39
and include mitigation measures as appropriate prior to approval of any development at Site B. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Certain population groups are especially sensitive to air pollution and should be given special
consideration when evaluating potential air quality impacts. These population groups include children,
the elderly, persons with pre‐existing respiratory or cardiovascular illnesses, and athletes or others who
engage in frequent exercise. SCAQMD identifies the following as sensitive receptors: long‐term health
care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools,
playgrounds, childcare centers, and athletic facilities. The closest existing sensitive receptors to the
project site are the residential uses to the east across Tokay Avenue.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The following air quality analysis summarizes the findings of the
AQ/GHG/EA Study for the proposed Care Center at Site A regarding impacts to human health, toxic air
contaminants, and CO “hot spot” emissions.
Human Health Impacts
Regarding health effects related to criteria pollutant emissions, the applicable significance thresholds are
established for regional compliance with the state and federal ambient air quality standards, which are
intended to protect public health from both acute and long‐term health impacts, depending on the
potential effects of the pollutant. Because regional and local emissions of criteria pollutants during
construction and operation of the project at Site A would be below the applicable thresholds, the project
would not contribute to long‐term health impacts related to nonattainment of the ambient air quality
standards. Therefore, significant adverse acute health impacts from project construction and operation
would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Toxic Air Contaminants
The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate emissions
associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the project at Site A. The Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has issued the Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment
Guidelines and Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (February 2015), to
provide a description of the algorithms, recommended exposure variates, cancer and noncancer health
values, and the air modeling protocols needed to perform a health risk assessment under the Air Toxics
Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Hazard identification includes identifying all
substances that are evaluated for cancer risk and/or non‐cancer acute, 8‐hour, and chronic health
impacts. In addition, identifying any multi‐pathway substances that present a cancer risk or chronic non‐
cancer hazard via non‐inhalation routes of exposure.
Given the temporary and short‐term construction schedule that would be required to construct each
phase, the project at Site A would not result in a long‐term (i.e., lifetime or 30‐year) exposure because of
project construction. Furthermore, the closest sensitive receptors to Site A are located approximately 85
feet southeast across Tokay Avenue and construction‐based PM emissions (including diesel exhaust
emissions) do not exceed any local or regional thresholds. The project would comply with the CARB Air
Toxics Control Measure that limits diesel powered equipment and vehicle idling to no more than five
minutes at a location, and the CARB In‐Use Off‐Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation; compliance with these
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐40
would minimize emissions of toxic air contaminants during construction. Therefore, impacts from toxic
air contaminants during construction would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are
required.
CARB published the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook in April 2005 to serve as a general guide for
considering impacts to sensitive receptors from facilities that emit toxic air contaminant emissions. The
recommendations provided therein are voluntary and do not constitute a requirement or mandate for
either land use agencies or local air districts. The goal of the guidance document is to protect sensitive
receptors, such as children, the elderly, acutely ill, and chronically ill persons, from exposure to toxic air
contaminants emissions. Some examples of CARB’s siting recommendations include the following: (1)
avoid siting sensitive receptors within 500 feet of a freeway, urban road with 100,000 vehicles per day, or
rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day; (2) avoid siting sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of a
distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating
transport refrigeration units per day, or where transport refrigeration unit operations exceed 300 hours
per week); (3) avoid siting sensitive receptors within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation using
perchloroethylene and within 500 feet of operations with two or more machines; and (4) avoid siting
sensitive receptors within 300 feet of a large gasoline dispensing facility (3.6 million gallons per year or
more) or 50 feet of a typical gasoline dispensing facility (less than 3.6 million gallons per year). The project
proposes transitional housing and support services, is located over two miles from the San Bernardino
Freeway (I‐10) and over four miles from the Ontario Freeway (I‐15), and would not be located within 1,000
feet of a distribution centers, within 300 feet of a dry cleaners, or within 300 feet of a gas station.
Therefore, operational toxic air contaminant‐related impacts would be less than significant, and no
mitigation measures are required.
CO Hot Spot Emissions
Carbon monoxide (CO) is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source
of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality
generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. Local
air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with project CO levels to the state
and federal CO standards which were presented above on Table 4.
To determine if the project could cause emission levels exceeding CO standards, a sensitivity analysis is
typically conducted to determine the potential for CO “hot spots” at a number of intersections in the
general project vicinity. Because of reduced speeds and vehicle queuing, “hot spots” potentially can occur
at high traffic volume intersections with a Level of Service E or worse.
Micro‐scale air quality emissions have traditionally been analyzed in environmental documents where the
air basin was a nonattainment area for CO. However, SCAQMD has demonstrated in the CO attainment
redesignation request to EPA that there are no “hot spots” anywhere in the Basin, even at intersections
with much higher volumes, much worse congestion, and much higher background CO levels than
anywhere in San Bernardino County. If the worst‐case intersections in the Basin have no “hot spot”
potential, any local impacts would be below thresholds.
The project‐specific trip generation analysis prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers (Appendix
F to this Initial Study), that the project is only anticipated to generate 390 daily vehicle trips with 27 trips
produced in the AM peak hour and 36 trips produced in the PM peak hour on a typical weekday, and as
such, did not meet the City’s 50‐trip peak hour threshold requiring a Traffic Impact Analysis Report. The
1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide showed that an intersection which has a daily traffic
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐41
volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day would not violate the CO standard. The volume of
traffic at project buildout at Site A would be well below 100,000 vehicles and below the necessary volume
to even get close to causing a violation of the CO standard. Therefore, no CO “hot spot” modeling was
performed, and no significant long‐term air quality impact is anticipated to local air quality with the on‐
going use of the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are
required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project would redesignate and rezone
Site B from Open Space to Light Industrial; however, no development is proposed at Site B by the project.
Any future development at Site B would be required to comply with the permitted land uses and
development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use designation and zoning, and would
include an air quality impact assessment and Health Risk Assessment as required by mitigation measure
MM AQ‐1 as well as include mitigation measures as appropriate to reduce impacts prior to approval of
any development at Site B. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
SCAQMD recommends that odor impacts be addressed in a qualitative manner. Such an analysis shall
determine whether the project would result in excessive nuisance odors, as defined under the California
Code of Regulations and Section 41700 of the California Health and Safety Code, and thus would
constitute a public nuisance related to air quality.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include
the application of materials such as asphalt pavement. The objectionable odors that may be produced
during the construction process are short‐term in nature and the odor emissions are expected to cease
upon the drying or hardening of the odor producing materials. Diesel exhaust and VOCs would be emitted
during construction of the project at Site A, which are objectionable to some; however, emissions would
disperse rapidly from the site, and as such, should not reach an objectionable level at the nearest sensitive
receptors. Due to the short‐term nature and limited amounts of odor producing materials being utilized,
no significant impact related to odors would occur during construction of the project at Site A.
Potential sources that may emit odors during the on‐going operations of the project at Site A would
include odor emissions from vehicles and trash storage areas. Due to the distance of the nearest receptors
from Site A, and through compliance with SCAQMD’s Rule 402, no significant impact related to odors
would occur during the on‐going operations of the project.7 Impacts would be less than significant, and
no mitigation measures are required.
7 SCAQMD Rule 402 prohibits a person from discharging from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or
other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public,
or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural
tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐42
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would redesignate and rezone Site B from Open Space to Light
Industrial; however, no development is proposed at Site B by the project. Any future development at Site
B would be required to comply with the permitted land uses and development standards associated with
the Light Industrial land use designation and zoning as well as SCAQMD’s Rule 402. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is required for the project at Site B:
MM AQ‐1 Prior to approval of development at Site B, an air quality impact assessment shall be
conducted in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District guidelines as
well as a Health Risk Assessment in accordance with California Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment. Mitigation measures shall be required as necessary based on the
findings of these studies to ensure impacts are reduced to less than significant, and any
future development that would result in unavoidable/unmitigatable significant impact shall
be prohibited. Such measures could include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:
During construction:
Tier 4 Final engine ratings for construction equipment
Limiting the amount of daily grading disturbance area.
Forbidding idling of heavy equipment for more than three minutes.
Using paints, architectural coatings, and industrial maintenance coatings that have
volatile organic compound levels of less than 10 g/L.
During operation:
Forbidding trucks from idling for more than three minutes and requiring operators to
turn off engines when not in use.
Installing solar photovoltaic systems
Meeting CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards, including all provisions related to
designated parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle charging, and bicycle parking.
Using paints, architectural coatings, and industrial maintenance coatings that have
volatile organic compound levels of less than 10 g/L.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐43
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special‐status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands a (including, but
not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
habitat conservation plan, natural community
conservation plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The following is based on the findings of the Biological Resources Assessment Report for Homeless
Prevention Resources and Care Center Project, Fontana, California, prepared by Kleinfelder, July 5, 2023
(“Biological Report”). The Biological Report is available in Appendix B to this Initial Study. It should be
noted that the Biological Report did not detail existing conditions or evaluate potential impacts to Site B
as it was not accessible for survey and because no project activities are proposed for Site B by the project.
As part of preparation of the Biological Report, a literature review was conducted using standard biological
references, including the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), California Native Plant Society
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐44
(CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (IRP), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Information, Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool. Other resources consulted included aerial
photographs, topographic maps, soil survey maps, climatic data, relevant policy and planning documents,
and previous biological reports prepared for all or part of the project site and nearby areas. Based on the
literature review, a list of potentially occurring sensitive and special‐status biological resources and
designated critical habitats was prepared and included sensitive and special‐status biological resources
and designated critical habitats with known occurrence records within one mile of the project site and
unreported sensitive and special‐status species affiliated with habitat and soil conditions present. The
USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and U.S. Geological Society (USGS) National Hydrography
Dataset (NHD) were also consulted to identify previously documented wetlands and water features within
or near the project site.
In addition to the literature review, a field survey targeting sensitive or special‐status biological resources
within the project site was conducted by a Kleinfelder biologist on April 4, 2023. The survey focused on
identifying and documenting the presence of sensitive and special‐status plant and wildlife species,
documenting habitat elements that may support sensitive and special‐status plant and wildlife species,
and identifying and delineating potential jurisdictional water features. During the survey, the biologist
visually and aurally searched for sensitive or special‐status resources and their sign (e.g., tracks, scat,
burrows). All wildlife and botanical resources observed were identified to species or, when relevant, to
subspecies.
The results of the literature review and field survey with respect to the status and known occurrences of
sensitive and special‐status biological resources at the project site and in the surrounding area are
discussed under the relevant CEQA Checklist Questions below.
Checklist Discussion
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
A significant impact may occur if a project were to remove or modify habitat for any species identified or
designated as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the State or federal regulatory agencies cited.
A review of industry‐standard databases; including CNDDB, IPAC, and CNPS; identified nine sensitive or
special‐status wildlife species and five sensitive or special‐status plant species with potential to occur
within Site A’s vicinity. These species included the San Diego Ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila), Parry’s
spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi), paniculate tarplant (Deinandra paniculate), Santa Ana River
woollystar (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum), mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata var. puberula), Delhi
Sands flower‐loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis), monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus),
Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae), southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi), coastal
California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow
flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), San Bernadino Merriam’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami
parvus), western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus).
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐45
During the field survey, vegetation present was ruderal and dominated by non‐native grasses and
mustards. Plant species observed included Sahara mustard (Brassica tournefortii), London rocket
(Sisymbrium irio), common stork’s‐bill (Erodium cicutarium), brome species (Bromus sp.), wall barley
(Hordeum murinum), small‐flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii), and Canaigre dock (Rumex
hymenosepalus). Several eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.) trees were present along Arrow Boulevard and two
mature eucalyptus trees were present within the lot. Wildlife observed during the survey included red‐
tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), common raven (Corvus corax), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis),
western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), western fence lizard
(Sceloporus occidentalis), and California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi). Several small to
medium sized small mammal burrows (e.g., ground squirrel, pocket gopher) were observed throughout.
SITE A
No Impact. The following analysis discusses direct and indirect impacts of the proposed Care Center at
Site A based on the findings of the Biological Report.
Direct Impacts
No candidate, sensitive, or special‐status plant species, nor their habitats, were observed within 50 feet
of Site A during the field survey. None of the candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species identified
during the database review were assessed as having moderate‐to‐high potential to occur given available
habitat conditions at Site A and individual species habitat requirements. Additionally, no candidate,
sensitive, or special‐status wildlife species (including individuals or sign) were observed during the field
survey, and no suitable habitat for such species was noted. None of the candidate, sensitive, or special‐
status wildlife species identified during the database review were assessed as having moderate‐to‐high
potential to occur given available habitat conditions at Site A and individual species habitat requirements.8
Accordingly, implementation of the project at Site A would have no direct impact on any candidate,
sensitive, or special status species. No mitigation measures are required.
Indirect Impacts
As discussed above, no candidate, sensitive, or special status species have been assessed as having a
moderate‐to‐high potential to occur at Site A given the available habitat conditions. Moreover, Site A not
only lacks the suitable habitat elements needed for sensitive and special‐status biological resources, but
is also isolated from other natural areas by urban sprawl (further reducing the potential for such species
to occur).9 Due to the lack of natural, undisturbed habitat and the unlikely presence of listed or special‐
status plant or wildlife species in the vicinity, implementation of the project at Site A would have no
indirect impact on any candidate, sensitive, or special status species. No mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As previously stated, the Biological Report
did not detail existing conditions of Site B. However, because Site B is located on the same project site as
Site A, the literature review conducted to identify candidate, sensitive, and special‐status species with the
potential to occur within the greater project area is applicable to Site B. Future development at Site B
8 Kleinfelder, Biological Resources Assessment Report for Homeless Prevention Resources and Care Center Project, Fontana,
California, July 5, 2023, page 13.
9 Kleinfelder, Biological Resources Assessment Report for Homeless Prevention Resources and Care Center Project, Fontana,
California, July 5, 2023, page 20.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐46
could potentially directly and/or indirectly impact such species should they exist at Site B. As such,
mitigation measure MM BIO‐1 is included and requires a field survey by a biologist to detail the existing
biological species, habitats, and communities present at Site B and identify any sensitive or special status
species that may be present. Should such species be identified, mitigation measure MM BIO‐1 also
requires proper avoidance and protection measures to be implemented at the direction of a qualified
biologist. In the event that development is proposed for Site B, implementation of mitigation measure
MM BIO‐1 would ensure that impacts to candidate, sensitive, and special‐status species potentially
occurring at Site B would be less than significant.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
A significant impact may occur if riparian habitat or any other sensitive natural community identified
locally, regionally, or by the State and federal regulatory agencies cited were to be adversely modified
without adequate mitigation.
SITE A
No Impact. No rivers or streams are located on or in the vicinity of Site A and the field survey did not
identify riparian habitat. Additionally, as discussed above under Checklist Question 4(a), non‐native
grassland was the only vegetation community observed on Site A. Therefore, implementation of the
project at Site A would not have an effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. No
impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As previously stated, the Biological Report
did not detail existing conditions of Site B. However, as with Site A, no rivers or streams are located on or
in the vicinity and accordingly, there is no potential for riparian habitat to occur. However, because Site B
was not surveyed, it is unknown if other sensitive natural communities are present. Future development
at Site B, which could potentially directly and/or indirectly impact such species should they exist at Site B.
As such, mitigation measure MM BIO‐1 is included and requires a field survey by a biologist to detail the
existing biological species, habitats, and communities at Site B and identify any sensitive natural
communities that may be present. Should such communities be identified, mitigation measure MM BIO‐
1 also requires proper avoidance and protection measures be implemented at the direction of a qualified
biologist. In the event that development is proposed for Site B, implementation of mitigation measure
MM BIO‐1 would ensure that impacts to sensitive natural communities would be less than significant.
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?
A significant impact may occur if state or federally protected wetlands are modified or removed without
adequate mitigation.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐47
SITE A
No Impact. A review of the NWI identified two freshwater ponds located within one mile of Site A. These
include a 0.4‐acre pond to the northwest and a 0.18‐acre pond directly east. Both features were classified
as palustrine with unconsolidated bottoms and permanently flooded. A review of available aerial imagery
suggests these features are self‐contained industrial ponds and not connected to any other features. A
separate review of the NHD identified only an underground pipeline approximately 1.75 miles to the
southwest. No potentially jurisdictional features were identified within Site A during the field survey.
Because no potentially jurisdictional features were observed on Site A, the Biological Report concluded
that implementation of the project at Site A would have no impact on wetlands, and no mitigation
measures are required.10
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. An existing inundation within a low‐lying
portion of Site B was observed during a site visit for the project, which may potentially be classified as a
wetland. Future development at Site B, which could potentially directly and/or indirectly impact such
species should they exist at Site B. As such, mitigation measure MM BIO‐1 is included and requires a field
survey by a biologist to detail the existing biological species, habitats, and communities at Site B and
identify any sensitive natural communities, including wetlands, that may be present. Should such
communities be identified, mitigation measure MM BIO‐1 also requires proper avoidance and protection
measures be implemented at the direction of a qualified biologist. In the event that development is
proposed for Site B, implementation of mitigation measure MM BIO‐1 would ensure that impacts to
wetlands would be less than significant.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
A significant impact may occur if a project would interfere or remove access to a migratory wildlife
corridor or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. There are no natural surface drainages,
watercourses, or ponding features on Site A. Additionally, there are no water bodies on or adjacent to the
Project Site that could support fish. Therefore, there is no potential for implementation of the project at
Site A to interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory fish. Additionally, no local or regional
wildlife corridors are present within or adjacent to Site A nor are there native wildlife nurseries. Based on
the above, implementation of the project at Site A would not have the potential to interfere with the
movement of any native resident or migratory fish or established wildlife corridor, or interfere with native
wildlife nursery sites.
However, the project would remove 7 acres of non‐native grassland and numerous eucalyptus (Eucalyptus
sp.) trees from Site A. Although no birds were observed nesting on Site A, the existing non‐native grassland
10 Kleinfelder, Biological Resources Assessment Report for Homeless Prevention Resources and Care Center Project, Fontana,
California, July 5, 2023, page 18.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐48
and trees could provide potential roosting and nesting habitat for birds common to the Fontana area. As
noted previously, common, non‐sensitive bird species observed Site A include Anna’s hummingbird,
Allen’s hummingbird, house finch, rock dove, raven, and Eurasian collared dove. Although these species
are not considered special‐status or sensitive based on their prevalence in southern California, federal
and state regulations are in place to protect these bird species, among others, while nesting. Should
construction occur during the avian nesting season (February 15 – September 1) and active nests are
present, significant impacts to nesting birds could occur. Accordingly, mitigation measure MM BIO‐2 is
included and prohibits construction activities during nesting season unless surveys are conducted to
identify nesting bird surveys prior to vegetation removal and ground‐disturbing activities. Should nesting
birds be identified, mitigation measure MM BIO‐2 establishes proper avoidance and protection measures.
Following implementation of mitigation measure MM BIO‐2, impacts to nesting birds at Site A would be
less than significant.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As stated above, existing inundation within a
low‐lying portion of Site B may potentially be classified as a wetland. However, stormwater inundation is
a temporary occurrence with no connection to other water bodies and, accordingly, does not provide
habitat for resident or migratory fish. Additionally, no local or regional wildlife corridors are present within
or adjacent to Site B nor are there native wildlife nurseries. Any future development at Site B would be
required to comply with the permitted land uses and development standards associated with the Light
Industrial land use designation and zoning. Future development at Site B, impacts to nesting birds could
occur should future construction take place during nesting bird season. As such, mitigation measure MM
BIO‐2 would also apply to potential future development proposed at Site B and prohibits construction
activities during nesting season unless surveys are conducted to identify nesting bird surveys prior to
vegetation removal and ground‐disturbing activities. Should nesting birds be identified, mitigation
measure MM BIO‐2 establishes proper avoidance and protection measures. Following implementation of
mitigation measure MM BIO‐2, impacts to nesting birds at Site B would be less than significant.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance (e.g., oak trees or California walnut woodlands)?
A project‐related significant adverse effect could occur if a project is inconsistent with local regulations
pertaining to biological resources.
Local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources include the following:
FMC Chapter 28, Article III, Preservation of Heritage, Significant and Specimen Trees: requires that
an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture be retained prior to the removal
of any heritage, significant, and specimen tree(s) to make recommendations as to the feasibility
of maintaining or removing the tree(s); and that any heritage, significant, or specimen trees
removed are replaced with trees of a species approved by the Community Development Director
or their designee on the property from which the tree(s) are to be removed or at an approved off‐
site location. The Municipal Code defines “heritage trees” as: a tree of historical value because of
its association with a place, building, natural feature or event of local, regional, or national
historical significance as identified by City Council resolution; or a tree representative of a
significant period of the City's growth or development (windrow tree, European Olive tree); or a
protected or endangered species as specified by federal or state statute; or a tree deemed
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐49
historically or culturally significant by the City Manager or their designee because of size,
condition, location or aesthetic qualities. The Municipal Code defines “significant trees” as the
species of Southern California black walnut, Coast live oak, Deodora cedar, California sycamore,
or London plane trees. The Municipal Code defines “specimen trees” as a mature tree (that is not
a heritage or significant tree) that is an excellent example of its species in structure and aesthetics
and warrants preservation, relocation, or replacement.
Chapter 30, Article VIII, Division 2, Section 30‐606, Resource Protection: dictates that areas
containing significant biological habitat (as identified in the General Plan as California Walnut
Woodland, Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, Southern
Riparian Forest, Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland, San Bernardino kangaroo rat
Critical Habitat in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, and coastal California gnatcatcher
Critical Habitat in the Jurupa Hills) shall be preserved and protected.
SITE A
No Impact. As discussed above under Checklist Question 4(a), non‐native grassland was the only
vegetation community observed on Site A and no significant biological habitat exists onsite. Therefore,
implementation of the project at Site A would not conflict with Chapter 30, Article VIII, Division 2, Section
30‐606 of the FMC. Additionally, the project would remove numerous eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.) trees
from Site A. None of the trees are considered or designated as a heritage, significant, and specimen tree.
Therefore, implementation of the project at Site A would not conflict with FMC Chapter 28, Article III. As
such, implementation of the project at Site A would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources. No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As previously stated, the Biological Report
did not detail existing conditions of Site B. The significant biological habitats protected by the City’s
Municipal Code are identified by the General Plan are identified as occurring outside of the project area.
As such, potential future development would not conflict with Municipal Code Chapter 30, Article VIII,
Division 2, Section 30‐606.
Heritage, significant, or specimen trees may exist at Site B, and their removal could conflict with Chapter
28, Article III. As such, mitigation measure MM BIO‐1 is included and requires a field survey by a biologist
to detail the existing biological species, habitats, and communities present at Site B and identify any
heritage, significant, or specimen trees that may be present. Should such trees be identified, mitigation
measure MM BIO‐1 also requires avoidance or replacement of such trees under the direction and
supervision of an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture consistent with Municipal
Code Chapter 28, Article III. In the event that development is proposed for Site B, implementation of
mitigation measure MM BIO‐1 would ensure that impacts related to conflicts with local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources would be less than significant.
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?
A significant impact may occur if a project is inconsistent with resource policies of any conservation plans
of the types cited above.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐50
SITE A
No Impact. Site A is not located within the boundaries of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Therefore, implementation of the project at Site A would not conflict with such plans. No impact would
occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
No Impact. Site B is not located within the boundaries of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. No
impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are required for the project at Site A and Site B:
MM BIO‐1 In the event that any construction, development, or other project activities is proposed for
Site B, clearing and grubbing, equipment staging, excavation or other construction‐related
activity or vegetation management activities requiring the use of heavy equipment (e.g.,
bobcat), a qualified biologist shall conduct a field survey of Site B. Minimum qualifications
for a qualified biologist will be a four‐year college degree in biology or related field and
demonstrated experience with the species of concern. The survey shall detail the existing
biological species, habitats, and communities present at Site B and identify any candidate,
sensitive, or special status species; riparian or other sensitive natural communities;
wetlands; and heritage, significant, or specimen trees protected by Fontana Municipal Code
Chapter 28, Article III that may be present.
Special Status Plant Species: If any special‐status plant species are found to occur within the
work limits, the qualified biologist shall establish an adequate buffer area for each plant to
exclude activities that directly remove or alter the habitat of, or result in indirect adverse
impacts on, the special‐status plant species. The qualified biologist shall oversee installation
of a temporary, plastic, mesh‐type construction fence at least four feet tall around any
established buffer area to prevent encroachment by construction vehicles and personnel.
The qualified biologist shall determine the exact location of the fencing. The fencing shall be
checked and maintained weekly until all construction is complete. The buffer zone
established by the fencing shall be marked by a sign identifying the special‐status plant and
the applicable protection regulation (Endangered Species Act of 1973, California Native Plan
Protection Act, etc.). No construction activity shall be allowed until the above conditions are
met. Any special‐status plant species observed during surveys shall be reported to the
USFWS and CDFW and submitted to the CNDDB.
If direct impacts cannot be avoided, the City shall require that the Applicant prepare a plan
for minimizing the impacts by one or more of the following methods: 1) salvage and replant
plants at the same location following construction; 2) salvage and relocate the plants to a
suitable off‐site location with long‐term assurance of site protection; 3) collect seeds or other
propagules for reintroduction at the site or elsewhere; or 4) payment of fees in lieu of
preservation of individual plants, to be used for conservation efforts elsewhere. The success
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐51
criterion for any seeded, planted, and/or relocated plants shall be full replacement at a 1:1
ratio after five years. Monitoring surveys of the seeded, planted, or transplanted individuals
shall be conducted for a minimum of five years, to ensure that the success criterion can be
achieved at year 5. If it appears the success criterion would not be met after five years,
contingency measures may be applied. Such measures shall include, but not be limited to:
additional seeding and planting; altering or implementing weed management activities; or,
introducing or altering other management activities.
Special Status Animal Species: Prior to conducting preconstruction surveys, the qualified
biologist shall prepare a relocation plan that describes the appropriate survey and handling
methods for all special‐status species with the potential to occur at Site B based on the
literature review and identify nearby relocation sites where individuals would be relocated
if found during the preconstruction surveys. The relocation plan shall be submitted to CDFW
for review prior to the start of construction activities. The animal shall be relocated to
equivalent or better habitat relative to where it was found. Preconstruction surveys shall be
conducted within 5 days prior to the start of any onsite activities. If any special‐status wildlife
species is identified, construction activities shall not begin in the immediate vicinity of the
individual until USFWS and/or CDFW is contacted and the individual has been allowed to
leave the construction area or the qualified biologist has relocated the individual according
to the relocation plan. Any special‐status species observed during surveys shall be reported
to the USFWS and CDFW so the observations can be added to the CNDDB.
Sensitive Natural Communities and Wetlands: In the event that sensitive natural
communities or wetlands are identified, the qualified biologist shall prepare a Wetland
Management Plan delineating any sensitive natural communities and wetlands and detailing
avoidance and minimization measures that must be implemented during construction. The
construction contractor(s) shall implement the following general avoidance and
minimization measures to protect sensitive natural communities, wetlands, and waters
during construction:
Work areas shall be delineated with stakes and flagging prior to construction to avoid
sensitive natural resources outside of the project area. Any construction‐related
disturbance outside of these boundaries, including driving, parking, temporary access,
sampling or testing, or storage of materials, shall be prohibited without explicit approval
of the City and qualified biologist.
The introduction of exotic plant species shall be avoided through physical or chemical
removal and prevention. Measures to prevent the introduction of exotic plants into the
project site via vehicular sources shall include vehicle cleaning for vehicles coming to
the site and leaving the site. Earthmoving equipment shall be cleaned prior to transport
to the project area. Weed‐free rice straw or other certified weed‐free straw shall be
used for erosion control.
Construction equipment shall not be stored in sensitive natural communities, wetlands,
or waters.
Any temporary construction impacts shall be restored in place to pre‐activity functions. Where
avoidance and minimization are not feasible or desirable for resource protection, and permanent
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐52
impacts, including removal, occur, applicable U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permits shall
be obtained. Permanent impacts shall be mitigated with wetland compensation through a USACE‐
approved mitigation bank and/or in‐lieu fee program. Mitigation banking or in‐lieu fees shall
result in no net loss of jurisdictional aquatic resources. A functional assessment, such as the
California Rapid Assessment Method, of the jurisdictional areas proposed to be impacted and
preserved at the mitigation site shall be conducted to evaluate the existing functions and services
within the jurisdictional drainages and ensure that the functions and values of the jurisdictional
areas lost are replaced at the mitigation site. The precise mitigation ratio shall depend on the
functions and values of the mitigation site and the value of the wetland established by the
Wetland Management Plan.
Heritage, Significant, and Specimen Trees: In the event that heritage, significant, or specimen
trees are identified on Site B, an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture be
retained to make a recommendation as to the feasibility of maintaining or removing the tree(s).
If any heritage, significant, or specimen trees are to be removed, replacement trees of a species
approved by the Community Development Director or their designee shall be planted on the
property from which the tree(s) are to be removed or at an approved off‐site location.
MM BIO‐2 Vegetation clearing and ground disturbance shall be prohibited at the project site during the
migratory bird nesting season (January 31 through September 1), unless a migratory bird
nesting survey is completed in accordance with the following requirements:
A nesting bird survey shall be conducted on the project site and within suitable habitat
located within a 500‐foot radius of the project site by a qualified biologist within three (3)
days prior to initiating vegetation clearing or ground disturbance.
If the survey identifies the presence of active nests, then the nests shall not be disturbed
unless the qualified biologist verifies through non‐invasive methods that either (i) the
adult birds have not begun egg‐laying and incubation; or (ii) the juveniles from the
occupied nests are capable of independent survival.
If the biologist is not able to verify any of the conditions from sub‐item “b,” above, then
no disturbance shall occur within a buffer zone specified by the qualified biologist for each
nest or nesting site. The buffer zone shall be species‐appropriate (no less than 100‐foot
radius around the nest for non‐raptors and no more than a 500‐foot radius around the
nest for raptors) and shall be sufficient to protect the nest from direct and indirect
impacts from construction activities. The size and location of buffer zones, if required,
shall be based on consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and shall be subject to review and approval by the City.
The nests and buffer zones shall be field checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor.
The approved buffer zone shall be marked in the field with construction fencing, within
which no vegetation clearing or ground disturbance shall commence until the qualified
biologist with City concurrence verify that the nests are no longer occupied and/or
juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐53
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
The following is based on the findings of the Cultural Resources Assessment Report for the Homelessness
Prevention Resources and Care Center Project, City of Fontana, San Bernadino County, California, prepared
by Kleinfelder, May 2023 (“Cultural Assessment”). The Cultural Assessment is available in Appendix C to
this Initial Study.
Checklist Discussion
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to
State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines an historical resource as: 1) a resource listed in or
determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources; 2) a resource listed in a local register of historical resources or identified
as significant in an historical resource survey meeting certain state guidelines; or 3) an object, building,
structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be significant in the
architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or
cultural annals of California, provided that the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial
evidence in light of the whole record. CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(b)(3) also provides that generally, a
project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with
Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995),
Weeks and Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the
historical resource.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Generally, properties eligible for listing in the
National Register are at least 50 years old. The California Office of Historic Preservation generally
recommends an evaluation of buildings and structures older than 45 years of age by professionals meeting
the Secretary of the Interior Standards Professional Qualifications for Architectural History and
Archeology. The approximately 7‐acre Site A is an undeveloped, vacant, graded, relatively flat field of non‐
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐54
native grassland and a row of eucalyptus trees along Arrow Boulevard. There are no buildings or structures
on the site, and it is therefore not listed in the National Register.
Cultural Resources Records Search
A Cultural Assessment was prepared for the project, which included, in part, an intensive pedestrian
survey and a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), background
research to identify the presence or absence of cultural resources within the project area, and an
evaluation of those resources, as warranted. The CHRIS records search was conducted at the South Central
Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located on the California State University Fullerton campus and
received on April 27, 2023. The records search included any previously conducted investigations and
recorded cultural resources within the project site and surrounding quarter‐mile radius to identify any
site‐specific information. The SCCIC also searched files regarding the California Historical Landmarks,
properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Place (NRHP), and properties eligible for
listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).
The results of the records search indicated that one cultural resource study intersected with the project
area (SB‐07401), but no previously recorded cultural resources were identified within the project area.11
Two historic‐period built environment resources (P‐36‐015286 and P‐36‐029538) were identified within
the 0.25‐mile search radius and no previously recorded pre‐historic resources were identified within the
0.25‐mile search radius.12
Historic Map Review
Historical maps were reviewed depicting features such as towns, roads, buildings, and waterways to
provide additional information regarding the potential for the presence of historic‐era cultural resources
within the project area. Historic maps are available at several online repositories, including the USGS,
Library of Congress Geography and Map Division – Sanborn Map Company (Sanborn), and the United
States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) – General Land Office (GLO)
Records. Aerial imagery was reviewed online at the NETR. In addition, a serial land patent was issued to
Sarah C. Brandon in 1869, for 964 acres that included the east half of Section 12 in Township 1 South,
Range 6 West.
The following summarizes the results of the historic map review of the project area:
• The project area is depicted as undeveloped “Public land.” The “San Bernardino Road” extends
east to west, about 0.8 mile north of the project area. The “Old San Bernardino Road” extends
east to west, about 3.8 miles south of the project area. No buildings, structures, or other locations
of previous historic activities were noted within a one‐mile radius of the project area.
• The project area is depicted as undeveloped “Public land.” The “Etiwanda and Riverside Road”
and “Etiwanda and Cucamonga Road” intersect, about 3.85 miles west of the project area. No
11 Cultural Report No. SB‐07401, Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Vulcan Conservation and Flood Control
Project, in and near the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (2013). See Table 2 of the Cultural Assessment in
Appendix C.
12 Primary Number P‐36‐015286 refers to a historic building and Primary Number P‐36‐029538 refers to a water conveyance
system. Both are outside the project area, but within 0.25 mile. See Table 2 of the Cultural Assessment in Appendix C.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐55
buildings, structures, or other locations of previous historic activities were noted within a one‐
mile radius of the Project area.
• The 1896 USGS quadrangle depicts multiple unnamed light duty roads within a one‐mile radius of
the project area. The “Southern California Division of the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad”
is 0.25 mile south of the project area. The early “Rosena” grid and about 10 buildings are depicted
along the railroad alignment, about 0.8 miles east‐southeast from the project area.
• The 1926 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map depicts downtown Fontana, historic buildings, and several
farms but does not include lands within the project area.
• The 1938 aerial imagery shows the project area as undeveloped land.
• The 1943 USGS quadrangle depicts one building in the project area. “Arrow Boulevard” and
“Citrus Avenue” are named roads. The “Pacific Electric Railroad” is 0.2 mile north of the project
area; the “Grape Spur” of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad bisect, 0.25 mile west; and
the mainline of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad is still 0.25 mile south. Development
within a one‐mile radius of the project area is more pronounced. About 50 buildings are visible,
most of which are along the railroads. Building density increases to the east towards downtown
Fontana.
• The 1948 aerial imagery shows one building in the center the project area, surrounded by
agricultural land.
• The 1953 USGS quadrangle depicts about four buildings in the project area, which is bound by a
highway named the “Arrow Route.” An unnamed gravel pit is 0.2 mile southwest. Additional
buildings are depicted 300 feet east‐northeast of the project area.
• The 1966 aerial imagery shows the building in the project area center was removed.
• The 1967 quadrangle still depicts one building in the project area, and the land remains
undeveloped. The Fontana Gravel Pit is depicted within Site B. Building density increases to the
west, south, and east.
• The 1985 aerial imagery shows the land in Site A as undeveloped, with a duty road intersecting
the eastern half from north to south. The Fontana Gravel Pit is visible in Site B.
Between 1985 and 2020, aerial imagery shows no visible changes to the project area, and no
additional historic‐era buildings or structures were identified within the vicinity.
Field Survey Results
An intensive pedestrian survey of Site A was conducted on May 9, 2023. Site A shows evidence of
mechanical disturbance and had a built‐up berm that outlines the parcel on the north along Arrow
Boulevard and east along Tokay Avenue boundary of the parcel. Modern trash dumps appear along the
berm that consists of glass bottles, metal cans, construction debris, and other miscellaneous dumping
items. Overall, the area is flat, but the ground surface is uneven due to possible furrowing of the surface
that runs east to west. Additionally, random built‐up berms appear through the middle of the parcel. Soil
present in the project area was a pale yellowish‐grey sandy loam with subrounded to rounded gravel and
cobble inclusions. Vegetation in the area was knee‐high to chest‐high bushes and shrubs that consisted of
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐56
cheat grass, fox tail, and thorny bush. Trees in the area were eucalyptus trees. Ground visibility was 0 to
5 percent due to dense vegetation. Vegetation grew denser toward the middle of the area. As a result of
the density of vegetation, roughly 30 percent of the project site was accessible. No cultural resources
were observed during the pedestrian survey.
Conclusion
The Cultural Assessment determined there are no previous or newly identified cultural resources on Site
A. These results, compounded with the high amount of disturbance due to past use as agricultural land,
have reduced the potential for subsurface cultural materials within Site A. However, there could be some
potential to encounter subsurface cultural materials in the event the project design changes and/or
ground disturbance is anticipated beyond the project area as it is currently defined, and as such, mitigation
measure MM CUL‐1 is required. Further, in addition to MM CUL‐1, the City has adopted standard
conditions of approval to address potential cultural and tribal cultural resources which would govern any
development on Site A. The City’s standard conditions of approval related to cultural resources that would
apply to the project at Site A entail the following:
Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, cease construction activities in
the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural and
archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the
qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources are Native American in
origin, interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area Tribes) shall coordinate with the
landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request
preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of
the project while evaluation takes place.
Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not
feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavation to
remove the resource along the subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All tribal cultural
resources shall be returned to the Tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native
American in origin shall be curated at a public, non‐profit institution with a research interest in
the materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the
archaeological material, they shall be offered to the Tribe or a local school or historical society in
the area for educational purposes.
Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects shall
be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary
disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary
objects shall be taken. Principal personnel shall meet the Secretary of the Interior standards for
archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years’ experience as a principal investigator working with
Native American archaeological sites in Southern California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall
ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified.
Therefore, based on the Cultural Assessment, impacts to historic resources would be less than significant
with implementation of mitigation measure MM CUL‐1.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐57
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Properties eligible for listing in the National
Register are at least 50 years old. Site B served as the extraction area and is as much as 120 feet below
the surrounding grade. Site B includes a security fence around the northern, eastern, and southern
perimeter and a raised earthen berm at the eastern perimeter along Tokay Avenue behind the security
fence. There are no buildings or structures on the site, and no resources listed in the National Register.
Cultural Resources Records Search
Site B was included in the CHRIS records search. Like Site A, one previous historical/archaeological
resources survey report (SB‐07401) intersects the project area, and seven additional studies were
identified within a quarter‐mile radius. SB‐07401 runs parallel to the southern project boundary, which is
outside of the project area and would not be affected by project activities. There are two historic
structures within a quarter‐mile radius of the project site (P‐36‐015286 and P‐36‐029538).
Historic Map Review
Like Site A, the Cultural Assessment suggests that the likelihood for subsurface prehistoric and historic
resources is low for Site B.
Field Survey Results
Site B was inaccessible for survey due to the property being fenced off. What was notable from outside
the fence was the property being a large dug‐out gravel pit. The pit appeared excavated to approximately
120 feet from surface level and had mechanically sloped walls. At the base of the pit was a concrete
foundation. Vegetation in the area is similar to Site A without trees being present and the addition of large
bushes. Along the eastern edge of the area, along Tokay Avenue, there was roadside trash dumping
present.
Conclusion
The Cultural Assessment suggests that the likelihood for subsurface prehistoric and historic resources is
low. However, an intensive pedestrian survey to addend the cultural resources report would be required
prior to issuance of any ground‐disturbance‐related permits or other construction‐related activities within
Site B as part of mitigation measure MM CUL‐2. Further in addition to MM CUL‐1, the City has adopted
standard conditions of approval to address potential cultural and tribal cultural resources which would
govern any development on Site B. The City’s standard conditions of approval related to cultural resources
are enumerated above for Site A and would be applicable to Site B. With the imposition of mitigation
measures MM CUL‐1 and MM CUL‐2 as well as the standard conditions of approval, impacts would be less
than significant.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines significant archaeological resources as resources
which meet the criteria for historical resources, as discussed above, or resources which constitute unique
archaeological resources. A project‐related significant adverse effect could occur if the project were to
affect archaeological resources which fall under either of these categories. Archaeological sites (such as
are most often recommended eligible under Criterion 4 of the California Register, which is the potential
for a resource to contribute information important to the study of history or prehistory. This is also known
as the potential for a given resource to answer specific research questions (or its inherent “data or
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐58
information potential”). In addition to meeting the Criteria for Evaluation, a property must have integrity.
“Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance,” (U.S. Department of the Interior 2002:44).
For properties eligible under Criterion 4, less attention is given to their overall condition, than if they were
being considered under Criteria 1, 2, or 3. Archeological sites, in particular, do not exist today exactly as
they were formed as there are always cultural and natural processes that alter the deposited materials
and their spatial relationships. For properties eligible under Criterion 4, integrity is based upon the
property’s potential to yield specific data that addresses important research questions.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The project’s Cultural Assessment included, in part, an intensive pedestrian
survey at Site A, Sacred Lands File (SLF) search through the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC),
and CHRIS SCCIC records search for background research to identify the presence or absence of cultural
resources within the project area, and an evaluation of those resources, as warranted. The SLF search
includes inventory files to determine if any recorded sacred lands or other features of Native American
cultural importance or sensitivity are located within the project area and/or within the surrounding
quarter‐mile radius. The SCCIC maintains records of previously documented cultural resources including
those that meet the definition of a tribal cultural resource, and technical studies.
The SCCIC records results are discussed in the preceding threshold, above. The NAHC SLF search results
were received on April 18, 2023. The results were negative for cultural resources within the project site
and the surrounding quarter‐mile radius. Moreover, the intensive pedestrian survey at Site A, also
discussed above, observed no cultural resources. Further, the project site is not located in an area with a
known sensitivity for archaeological or prehistoric resources.
Sensitivity for Buried Pre‐Historic Resources
The project area is located on a level area, located approximately 2.24 miles southeast of Etiwanda Creek.
The distance from a natural water source decreases the likelihood of prehistoric habitation in the vicinity.
The results of the CHRIS records search indicate there were no previously recorded prehistoric cultural
resources previously identified within the project area. One previously conducted cultural resources study
that intersected with the project area resulted in negative findings for prehistoric cultural resources. Five
previously conducted studies resulted in negative findings for prehistoric resources within a 0.25‐mile
radius of the project area. The consistent negative results from the previously conducted studies suggest
a lowered likelihood for the presence of subsurface prehistoric resources. Further, the NAHC identified
no tribal cultural resources within the project area or the search radius. The negative results from the field
survey further reduce the likelihood for subsurface prehistoric materials. As such, the project area is
considered to have a low sensitivity for buried prehistoric resources.
Sensitivity for Buried Historic Resources
The results of the CHRIS records search indicate there were no previously recorded historic‐period cultural
resources previously identified within the project area. One previously conducted cultural resources study
that intersected with the project area resulted in negative findings for historic‐period cultural resources.
Two historic‐period built environment resources were identified within the 0.25‐mile radius of the project
area, but the five previously conducted cultural resources studies resulted in negative findings for historic‐
period archaeological resources. Based on a review of historic maps and aerials, the only historical activity
of note within the project area was the agricultural use noted on historic topographic maps from 1948.
The lack of evidence for historic‐period habitation and the use of the property for agriculture, which
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐59
results in significant ground disturbance, lessen the potential for historic‐period cultural resources. As
such, the project area is considered to have a low sensitivity for buried historic‐era resources.
Conclusion
These results, compounded with the high amount of disturbance due to past use as agricultural land have
reduced the potential for subsurface cultural materials within Site A. Thus, the project at Site A is
considered to have a low sensitivity for buried cultural resources. However, in accordance with standard
conditions of approval for grading permits, the City requires adherence to regulatory compliance
measures and procedures related to the incidental discovery of archaeological resources discovered
during construction. Further the City has adopted standard conditions of approval to address potential
cultural and tribal cultural resources which would govern any development on Site A. The City’s standard
conditions of approval related to cultural resources that would apply to the project at Site A entail the
following:
Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, cease construction activities in
the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural and
archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the
qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources are Native American in
origin, interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area Tribes) shall coordinate with the
landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request
preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of
the project while evaluation takes place.
Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not
feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavation to
remove the resource along the subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All tribal cultural
resources shall be returned to the Tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native
American in origin shall be curated at a public, non‐profit institution with a research interest in
the materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the
archaeological material, they shall be offered to the Tribe or a local school or historical society in
the area for educational purposes.
Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects shall
be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary
disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary
objects shall be taken. Principal personnel shall meet the Secretary of the Interior standards for
archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years’ experience as a principal investigator working with
Native American archaeological sites in Southern California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall
ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified.
The project’s mandatory adherence to these standard conditions of approval would ensure that if any
archaeological resources are encountered during construction, the project would not cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐60
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. Like Site A, Site B is not located in an area with a known sensitivity for
archaeological or prehistoric resources, and the likelihood of Site B being used as a pre‐historic habitation
site is low. Site B is also considered to have a low sensitivity for buried historic‐era resources. Further, the
City has adopted standard conditions of approval to address potential cultural and tribal cultural resources
which would govern any development on Site B. The City’s standard conditions of approval related to
cultural resources that would also apply to future development at Site B are enumerated above for Site
A. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
A significant adverse effect may occur if grading or excavation activities associated with a project were to
disturb previously interred human remains.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not located in an area with a known sensitivity to
archaeological or prehistoric resources. While no formal cemeteries, other places of human internment,
or burial grounds sites are known to occur within the immediate project site area, there is always a
possibility that human remains could be encountered during construction of the project at Site A. Should
human remains be encountered unexpectedly during grading or construction activities, California Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner
has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98. If human remains of Native American origin are discovered during construction, compliance with
state laws, which fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (Public Resource Code Section 5097), relating to
the disposition of Native American burials would be required. Considering the low potential for any human
remains to be located on the project site and that compliance with regulatory standards described above
would ensure appropriate treatment of any human remains unexpectedly encountered during grading
activities, the project’s impact on human remains would be less than significant and no mitigation
measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not located in an area with a known sensitivity to
archaeological or prehistoric resources. While no formal cemeteries, other places of human internment,
or burial grounds sites are known to occur within the immediate project site area, there is always a
possibility that human remains could be encountered during construction of the project at Site B. Should
human remains be encountered unexpectedly during grading or construction activities, California Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner
has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98. If human remains of Native American origin are discovered during construction, compliance with
state laws, which fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (Public Resource Code Section 5097), relating to
the disposition of Native American burials would be required. Considering the low potential for any human
remains to be located on the project site and that compliance with regulatory standards described above
would ensure appropriate treatment of any human remains unexpectedly encountered during grading
activities, the project’s impact on human remains would be less than significant and no mitigation
measures are required.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐61
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure in addition to the City’s standard conditions of approval is required for
the project at Site A and for any future development at Site B:
MM CUL‐1 In the event the project design changes, and ground disturbance is anticipated beyond the
Project area as it is currently defined, further surveys shall be conducted in those new areas
to assess the presence of cultural resources. The City shall retain a Secretary of the Interior
Qualified Archaeologist to oversee the execution of a survey of the new or expanded project
areas. Any newly discovered or previously recorded cultural resources within the additional
survey areas shall be recorded (or updated) on appropriate DPR 523‐series forms and a
technical report shall be prepared and submitted to the City which shall include a summary
of the field survey and additional research as well as management recommendations and
mitigation measures, as necessary. The report shall be completed prior to any ground
disturbing activities.
MM CUL‐2 An intensive pedestrian survey to addend the cultural resources shall be conducted prior to
issuance of any ground‐disturbance‐related permits or other construction‐related activities
within Site B. In the event that resources are discovered, measures identified in the
subsequent addended report shall be adhered to in conjunction with, and to the satisfaction
of, the City. Such measures shall stipulate that any newly discovered or previously recorded
cultural resources within Site B’s area of disturbance shall be recorded (or updated) on
appropriate DPR 523‐series forms and included in the addended cultural resources technical
report, which shall be submitted to the City, and which shall include a summary of the field
survey and additional research as well as management recommendations and mitigation
measures, as necessary.
Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐62
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
6. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The following is based on the findings of the Homeless Prevention Resource and Care Center, Air Quality,
Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, City of Fontana, CA, prepared by MD Acoustics, July 18, 2023
(“AQ/GHG/EA Study”). The AQ/GHG/EA Study is available in Appendix A to this Initial Study.
Checklist Discussion
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
A significant impact may occur if a project were to consume energy resources in a wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary way during construction or operation. To determine if the project would result in a
potentially significant environmental impact due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources during the construction or operation of the project, an analysis of the project’s energy
use for all stages of the project has been provided. Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines refers
to Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines as guidance for the information to be provided in the analysis.
Appendix F provides the following factors that a lead agency may consider in the discussion of energy use:
1. The project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for
each stage of the project including construction, operation, maintenance, and/or removal (If
appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials may be discussed);
2. The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for
additional capacity;
3. The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of
energy;
4. The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards;
5. The effects of the project on energy resources; and
6. The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient
transportation alternatives.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐63
In accordance with the considerations above, the following analysis evaluates the potential energy
impacts of the project with a particular emphasis on whether the project would result in the inefficient,
wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The energy analysis does not include a full life cycle
analysis of energy usage that would occur over the production/transport of materials used during project
construction or operation, or the end of life for the materials and processes that would occur as an indirect
result of the project (i.e., “the energy intensiveness of materials”). Estimating the energy usage associated
with these processes would be too speculative for meaningful consideration, would require analysis
beyond the current state‐of‐the‐art in impact assessment, and may lead to a false or misleading level of
precision in reporting. Manufacture and transport of materials related to project construction and
operation are expected to be regulated under regulatory energy efficiency requirements. Therefore, it is
assumed that energy usage related to construction and operational materials would be consistent with
current regulatory requirements regarding energy usage.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. Information from CalEEMod’s daily and annual outputs prepared for the air
quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis was utilized for the energy analysis in the
AQ/GHG/EA Study. Southern California Edison (SCE) would provide electrical service and Southern
California Gas Company (SCGC) would provide natural gas service to the Care Center at Site A.
Construction Energy Demand – Electricity Usage
Based on the 2017 National Construction Estimator, the typical power cost per 1,000 square feet of
building construction per month is estimated to be $2.32. At full buildout, the project plans to develop
Site A with a 6,000‐square‐foot administration building and up to 150 living units in up to 40,000 square
feet of housing. While the actual construction schedule is multiphase and dependent on availability of
funding, for the purpose of a highly conservative analysis, it was assumed that the project would be fully
built out in one phase over 15 months in the AQ/GHG/EA Study. The total power cost of the on‐site
electricity usage during the construction of the project at Site A is estimated to be approximately $1,601,
and the total electricity usage from project construction related activities is estimated to be approximately
29,105 kilowatt hours (kWh).13 According to the most recent electricity consumption data, the residential
sector of San Bernardino County consumed approximately 5.8 billion kWh of electricity in 2021.14
Therefore, project construction equipment electricity usage would be insignificant compared to the
County’s demand.
Construction Fuel Estimates
Using the CalEEMod data input, the project’s construction phase would consume electricity and fuel as a
single energy demand, that is, once construction is completed their use would cease. CARB’s 2017
Emissions Factors Tables show that on average aggregate fuel consumption (gasoline and diesel fuel)
would be approximately 18.5 horsepower hours per gallon. Project construction activities would consume
an estimated 27,603 gallons of diesel fuel.15 In 2020, the State of California consumed approximately 13.6
billion gallons of diesel fuel. Therefore, fuel consumption would be insignificant compared to the state’s
demand.
13 Table 16 of the AQ/GHG/EA Study, available as Appendix A to this Initial Study.
14 California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County, https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx.
15 Table 17 of the AQ/GHG/EA Study, available as Appendix A to this Initial Study.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐64
It is assumed that all construction worker trips are from light duty autos along area roadways. With respect
to estimated VMT, the construction worker trips would generate an estimated 478,632 VMT. An
estimated 15,465 gallons of fuel would be consumed for construction worker trips.16
With respect to estimating VMT for the construction vendors and hauling trips specifically during building
construction and architectural coating, project construction would generate an estimated 38,556 VMT.
For the architectural coatings it is assumed that the contractors would be responsible for bringing coatings
and equipment with them in their light duty vehicles.17 An estimated 4,182 gallons of fuel would be
consumed for vendor and hauling trips with a total consumption of 19,647 gallons of fuel for all
construction transportation including worker fuel consumption.18 In 2018, the State of California
consumed approximately 15.2 billion gallons of transportation fuel. Therefore, fuel consumption would
be insignificant compared to the state’s demand.
Construction equipment would conform to CARB regulations and California emissions standards and
related fuel efficiencies. In addition, CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measure limits idling times of
construction vehicles to no more than five minutes, thereby minimizing unnecessary and wasteful
consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Furthermore, the project has
been designed in compliance with California’s Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen Standards.
Construction of the project would require the typical use of energy resources. There are no unusual
project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be
more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities; or equipment that would not conform to
current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Equipment employed in the construction of
the project would not result in inefficient wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of fuel. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Operational Fuel Consumption
The largest source of operational energy use would be vehicle operation of customers. Using the
CalEEMod output, it is assumed that an average trip for autos were assumed to be 16.6 miles, light trucks
were assumed to travel an average of 6.9 miles, and 3‐ to 4‐axle trucks were assumed to travel an average
of 8.4 miles. To show a worst‐case analysis, as the proposed project is a housing project, it was assumed
that vehicles would operate 365 days per year. An estimated 64,539 gallons of fuel would be consumed
per year for the operation of the proposed project as a worst‐case scenario estimate that includes all
classes of vehicles from autos to heavy‐heavy trucks.19
Trip generation generated by the proposed project are consistent with other similar residential/housing
uses of similar scale and configuration as reflected in the trip generation analysis prepared by Linscott Law
& Greenspace for the project (Appendix F to this Initial Study). That is, the proposed project does not
propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips, nor
16 Table 18 of the AQ/GHG/EA Study, available as Appendix A to this Initial Study.
17 Vendors delivering construction material debris from the site during grading would use medium to heavy duty vehicles with
an average fuel consumption of 9.22 mpg for medium heavy‐duty trucks and 6.74 mpg for heavy heavy‐duty trucks (see
Appendix B to the AQ/GHG/EA Study for details, which is available as Appendix A to this Initial Study).
18 Tables 18 and 19 f the AQ/GHG/EA Study, available as Appendix A to this Initial Study.
19 Table 21 of the AQ/GHG/EA Study, available as Appendix A to this Initial Study.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐65
associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption. Therefore, project transportation energy
consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.
Operational Energy Demands – Electricity and Natural Gas
The estimated electricity demand for the proposed project is approximately 685,583 kWh per year. In
2021, the residential sector of San Bernardino County consumed approximately 5.8 billion kWh of
electricity.20 In addition, the estimated natural gas consumption for the proposed project is approximately
1,655,577 kBTU per year (or 17 therms per year). In 2021, the residential sector of San Bernardino County
consumed approximately 257 million therms of gas.21 Therefore, the increase in both electricity and
natural gas demand from the proposed project is insignificant compared to the County’s existing demand.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project would redesignate and rezone
Site B from Open Space to Light Industrial; however, no development is proposed at Site B by the project.
Any future development at Site B would be required to comply with the permitted land uses and
development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use designation and zoning. Given the
adequate available supply discussed for Site A, above, it is reasonably anticipated that future development
at Site B would also not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient,
or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. However, to
fully assess the energy demand and efficiency of future proposed development, mitigation measure MM
ENG‐1 requires a supplemental energy analysis to be conducted that considers project‐specific and
cumulative energy demand, and include mitigation measures as appropriate prior to approval of any
development at Site B. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
A significant impact may occur if a project were to conflict with a state or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. Regarding federal transportation regulations, the project site is in an already
developed area. Access to and from Site A would be from existing roads. These roads are already in place
so the project would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct intermodal transportation plans or
projects that may be proposed pursuant to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)
because SCAG is not planning for intermodal facilities in the project area.
Regarding the state’s Energy Plan and compliance with Title 24 CCR energy efficiency standards, the
project would be required to comply with the CALGreen Code requirements for energy efficient buildings
and appliances as well as utility energy efficiency programs implemented by the SCE and SCGC.
Regarding the state’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards, the project would be required to meet or
exceed the energy standards established in the CALGreen Code, which require that new buildings reduce
20 California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County, https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx.
21 California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County, https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐66
water consumption, employ building commissioning to increase building system efficiencies, divert
construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant‐emitting finish materials.
Based on the above, the project would implement features and systems designed to reduce the
consumption of energy. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures
are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project would redesignate and rezone
Site B from Open Space to Light Industrial. Any future development at Site B would be required to comply
with the permitted land uses and development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use
designation and zoning. Given the adequate available supply discussed for Site A, above, it is reasonably
anticipated that future development at Site B would also not result in a conflict with or obstruct a state
or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. However, to fully assess the energy demand and
efficiency of future proposed development against energy efficiency plans and policies, mitigation
measure MM ENG‐1 requires a supplemental energy analysis to be conducted that considers project‐
specific and cumulative energy demand, and include mitigation measures as appropriate prior to approval
of any development at Site B. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures is required for the project at Site B:
MM ENG‐1 Prior to approval of development at Site B, a supplemental energy analysis shall be
conducted. Mitigation measures shall be required as necessary based on the findings of the
supplemental analysis to ensure impacts are reduced to less than significant, and any future
development that would result in unavoidable/unmitigatable significant impact shall be
prohibited. Such measures could include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following
exceeding Title 24 minimum requirements, programs to reduce the Vehicle Miles Traveled
to the site, solar panels, etc.
Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐67
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist‐Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic‐related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to
life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐68
Checklist Discussion
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.
and
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
A significant impact may occur if a project is located within a state‐designated Alquist‐Priolo Zone or other
designated fault zone, and appropriate building practices are not employed. Active earthquake faults are
faults where surface rupture has occurred within the last 11,000 years. The Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazards of surface faulting and fault rupture to built
structures. Surface rupture of a fault generally occurs within 50 feet of an active fault line.
A significant impact may occur if a project represents an increased risk to public safety or destruction of
property by exposing people, property or infrastructure to seismically induced ground shaking hazards
that are greater than the average risk associated with locations in the Southern California region.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest Alquist‐Priolo fault zone is the Lytle Creek fault located
approximately 4.9 miles to the north of Site A. However, an unnamed, inferred fault near Fontana may
traverse Site A. This fault is thought to be concealed and possibly late Quaternary.22 Moreover, Site A is in
the seismically active region of Southern California, and as such, is susceptible to ground shaking during a
seismic event.
Modular homes would be required to comply with HUD Code and any stick built (i.e., conventional
construction), such as the administration building and potential future housing, would be required to
comply with California Building Code (CBC). Compliance with HUD Code includes incorporation of seismic
standards, and the grading and foundations would be undertaken appropriate to the Site A as established
in the geotechnical investigation that is required to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the
issuance of building permits. The purpose of the CBC is to establish minimum standards to safeguard the
public health, safety, and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress, and general
stability by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy,
location, and maintenance of all building and structures within its jurisdiction. The earthquake design
requirements of the CBC consider the occupancy category of the structure, site class, soil classifications,
and various seismic coefficients. The CBC provides standards for various aspects of construction, including
but not limited to excavation, grading, earthwork, construction, preparation of the site prior to fill
placement, specification of fill materials, fill compaction and field testing, retaining wall design and
construction, foundation design and construction, and seismic requirements. It includes provisions to
22 California Department of Conservation, Geologic Map of California, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/DataViewer/.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐69
address issues such as (but not limited to) ground shaking. In accordance with California law, project
design and construction would be required to comply with provisions of the CBC.
The potential seismic hazard to Site A would not be higher than in most areas of the City or elsewhere in
the region. The project would involve the development of transitional housing and an administrative
building with outdoor recreation facilities, and the development of housing is a typical use of urban
environments. The project would not involve mining operations, deep excavation into the earth, or boring
of large areas, which could create unstable seismic conditions or stresses in the earth’s crust or otherwise
have the potential to directly or indirectly exacerbate any potential for fault rupture or substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking.
Because the project would comply with the CBC and because the project would not exacerbate existing
ground shaking hazards or be in an Alquist‐Priolo fault zone, impacts would be less than significant, and
no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest Alquist‐Priolo fault zone is the Lytle Creek fault located
approximately 5 miles to the north of Site B. However, an unnamed, inferred fault near Fontana may
traverse Site B. This fault is thought to be concealed and possibly late Quaternary.23 Moreover, Site B is in
the seismically active region of Southern California, and as such, is susceptible to ground shaking during a
seismic event.
The project would redesignate and rezone Site B from Open Space to Light Industrial. Any future
development at Site B would be required to comply with the permitted land uses and development
standards associated with the Light Industrial land use designation and zoning. The potential seismic
hazard to Site B would not be higher than in most areas of the City or elsewhere in the region. Future
development at Site B would not involve mining operations, deep excavation into the earth, or boring of
large areas, which could create unstable seismic conditions or stresses in the earth’s crust or otherwise
have the potential to directly or indirectly exacerbate any potential for fault rupture or substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. Because future
development would comply with the CBC and because future development would not exacerbate existing
ground shaking hazards or be in an Alquist‐Priolo fault zone, impacts would be less than significant, and
no mitigation measures are required.
iii. Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction?
and
iv. Landslides?
A significant impact may occur if a project is in an area identified as having a high risk of liquefaction and
mitigation measures required within such designated areas are not incorporated into the project.
Liquefaction describes a phenomenon where cyclic stresses, which are produced by earthquake‐induced
ground motions, create excess pore pressures in cohesionless soils. As a result, the soils may acquire a
high degree of mobility, which can lead to lateral spreading, consolidation and settlement of loose
23 California Department of Conservation, Geologic Map of California, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/DataViewer/.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐70
sediments, ground oscillation, flow failure, loss of bearing strength, ground fissuring, and sand boils, and
other damaging deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table, but after liquefaction
has developed, it can propagate upward into overlying, non‐saturated soils as excess pore water escapes.
The possibility of liquefaction occurring at a given site is dependent upon the occurrence of a significant
earthquake in the vicinity, sufficient groundwater to cause high pore pressures, and on the grain size,
relative density, and confining pressures of the soil at the site. Additional various general types of ground
failures which might occur because of severe ground shaking at the site include landslides, ground
subsidence, ground lurching and shallow ground rupture.
A significant adverse effect may occur if a project is located in a hillside area with soil conditions that
would suggest high potential for sliding.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. Site A is not located in an area identified as at risk of liquefaction or
landslides.24 Nonetheless, compliance with federal, state, and local regulations would minimize the risks
associated with the potential risk from landslides or liquefaction relative to existing conditions. There have
been no reported historical occurrences of landslides in the City. The only areas susceptible to landslides
are the southern Jurupa hillsides and the northern part of the City close to the San Bernardino National
Forest, and Site A is not located near these hilly terrains.
Adherence to CBC and the site‐specific geotechnical investigation that is mandated by the CBC would
identify and minimize risks from areas of unstable soils by ensuring the incorporation of recommendations
from the geotechnical investigations into project design plans. While the project would be susceptible to
seismic activity given its location within a seismically active area, Site A is not susceptible to liquefaction
or landslides and would further minimize any potential ground failure risk through the incorporation of
applicable CBC standards and geotechnical design considerations. Therefore, the project would not result
in substantial adverse impacts related to liquefaction or landslides, and impacts would be less than
significant. No mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. Site B is not located in an area identified as at risk of liquefaction or
landslides.25 However, the current condition of Site B as the extraction portion of the open mining pit
results in steep slopes along the sides of Site B and the base of Site B approximately 120 feet below the
surrounding grade. Nonetheless, compliance with federal, state, and local regulations would minimize the
risks associated with the potential risk from landslides or liquefaction relative to existing conditions.
The project would redesignate and rezone Site B from Open Space to Light Industrial. Any future
development at Site B would be required to comply with the permitted land uses and development
standards associated with the Light Industrial land use designation and zoning. Adherence to CBC and the
site‐specific geotechnical investigation that is mandated by the CBC would identify and minimize risks
from areas of unstable soils by ensuring the incorporation of recommendations from the geotechnical
investigations into project design plans for future development at Site B. Therefore, future development
24 California Department of Conservation, Geologic Map of California, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/DataViewer/.
25 California Department of Conservation, Geologic Map of California, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/DataViewer/.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐71
at Site B would not result in substantial adverse impacts related to liquefaction or landslides, and impacts
would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required..
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
A significant impact may occur if a project exposes large areas to the erosional effects of wind or water
for a protracted period.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities have the potential to result in soil erosion,
particularly during grading and excavation activities. Fugitive dust caused by strong wind and/or earth‐
moving operations during construction would be minimized through required compliance with SCAQMD
Rule 403, which prohibits visible particulate matter from crossing property lines. Standard practices to
control fugitive dust emissions include watering of active grading sites, covering soil stockpiles with plastic
sheeting, and covering soils in haul trucks with secured tarps. In addition, the potential for project
construction activities to result in increased erosion and sediment transport by stormwater to surface
waters would be minimized because the project would be required to comply with a Construction General
Permit, which is issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). The
Construction General Permit requires the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP), which outlines BMPs to reduce erosion and topsoil loss from stormwater runoff. Compliance
with the Construction General Permit would ensure that BMPs are implemented during construction and
minimize substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Upon completion of construction, the project at
Site A would be stabilized with landscaping and paving, and operational activities would not result in soil
erosion. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would redesignate and rezone Site B from Open Space to Light
Industrial. Any future development at Site B would be required to comply with the permitted land uses
and development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use designation and zoning. Like Site
A, fugitive dust caused by strong wind and/or earth‐moving operations during construction would be
minimized through required compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, which prohibits visible particulate
matter from crossing property lines. In addition, future development would be required to comply with a
Construction General Permit, which is issued by the SARWQCB, and SWPPP, which outlines BMPs to
reduce erosion and topsoil loss from stormwater runoff. Upon completion of construction, future
development at Site B would be stabilized with landscaping and paving, and operational activities would
not result in soil erosion. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation
measures are required.
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?
A significant impact may occur if a project is built in an unstable area without proper site preparation or
design features to provide adequate foundations for project buildings, thus posing a hazard to life and
property. Potential impacts with respect to liquefaction and landslide potential are evaluated in Sections
6(a)(iii) and (iv) above. Lateral spreading is the horizontal movement or spreading of soil toward an open
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐72
face. Lateral spreading may occur when soils liquefy during an earthquake event, and the liquefied soils
with overlying soils move laterally to unconfined spaces. Subsidence is the sudden sinking or gradual
downward settling of the earth’s surface with little or no horizontal movement. Subsidence is caused by
a variety of activities that include, but are not limited to, withdrawal of groundwater, pumping of oil and
gas from underground, the collapse of underground mines, liquefaction, and hydrocompaction. Collapse
potential refers to the potential settlement of a soil under existing stresses upon being wetted.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not identified as being in an oil field or within an oil drilling
area. The project at Site A does not propose direct withdrawal or injection of fluid into the subsurface
soils beneath the site. Construction and operation of the project would not involve activities known to
cause or trigger subsidence and is not anticipated to adversely affect soil stability or increase the potential
for local or regional landslides, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Moreover, the project would comply
with CBC requirements and site‐specific design requirements for soil stability established in the geologic
investigation are required to be reviewed and approved by the City as required by CBC. As such, the
project would not create or exacerbate existing conditions such as unstable geologic units or unstable soil.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would redesignate and rezone Site B from Open Space to Light
Industrial. Any future development at Site B would be required to comply with the permitted land uses
and development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use designation and zoning, and as
such, would not involve the direct withdrawal or injection of fluid into the subsurface soils beneath the
site. Future development of the site would comply with CBC requirements and the development‐specific
geologic investigation per MM GEO‐1. Therefore, as no development is proposed at Site B by the project,
impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
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?
A significant impact may occur if a project is built on expansive soils without proper site preparation or
design features to provide adequate foundations for project buildings, thus posing a hazard to life and
property. Expansive soils are clay‐based soils that tend to expand as they absorb water and shrink as water
is drawn away.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. Site A is mapped as consisting of gravelly loamy sand.26 Sandy and gravelly
soils do not typically contain significant levels of clay that could adversely affect building footings through
expansive properties. Furthermore, the project would be required to comply with the CBC and HUD Code
(for modular homes), which include building foundation requirements appropriate to site‐specific
conditions, such as expansion potential, established in the geologic investigation that is required to be
reviewed and approved by City as required by CBC. Final design and construction of the foundation system
26 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey,
https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐73
for the proposed structures would be based on required expansion index and plasticity index testing that
would be conducted at the completion of rough grading to verify the properties, including expansion
potential, of near surface soils. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with respect to expansive
soils, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Site B is mapped as consisting of gravelly
loamy sand.27 Sandy and gravelly soils do not typically contain significant levels of clay that could adversely
affect building footings through expansive properties. The project would redesignate and rezone Site B
from Open Space to Light Industrial. Any future development at Site B would be required to comply with
the permitted land uses and development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use
designation and zoning. Moreover, future development is required to be subject to a geological and soils
assessment and development‐specific geotechnical investigation as well as conformance with CBC by
mitigation measure MM GEO‐1. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
A significant impact may occur if a project is in an area not served by an existing sewer system.
SITE A
No Impact. Site A is in a developed area of the City, which is served by a wastewater collection,
conveyance, and treatment system operated by the City. The project at Site A would connect to the
existing wastewater system. No septic tanks or alternative disposal systems are necessary, nor are they
proposed. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures would be required.
SITE B
No Impact. Site B is in a developed area of the City, which is served by a wastewater collection,
conveyance, and treatment system operated by the City. Any future development at Site B would connect
to the existing wastewater system at Tokay Avenue and Valencia Court via an onsite force main to account
for the difference in grade. No septic tanks or alternative disposal systems would be necessary or
anticipated given the existing wastewater infrastructure available in the area of Site B. Any future
development at Site B would be required to comply with the permitted land uses and development
standards associated with the Light Industrial land use designation and zoning. Therefore, no impacts
would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
A significant impact may occur if a project directly or indirectly destroys a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature. Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains, imprints, or traces
of past life preserved in the geologic record. This resource can include bones, teeth, soft tissues, shells,
27 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey,
https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐74
plant material, microscopic organisms, footprints, trackways, and burrows. Fossils are the only record of
the natural history of life on this planet. Despite the frequency of sedimentary rock in the geologic record,
and the number of organisms that have lived throughout the planet’s history, only a very small number
of remains have been preserved in the fossil record. Fossils are important scientific resources, allowing
the study of:
The evolutionary history of extinct organisms, including their lifestyle, interrelationships,
distribution, speciation, extinction, and relation to modern groups.
The taphonomic agents responsible for fossil preservation, including biases in the fossil record.
Ancient environments, in which these organisms lived, and the distribution and change in these
environments and their organisms through time.
The temporal relationships of rock deposits from one area to another, and the timing of geologic
events.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Site A is in a mapped area of the City
consisting of Quaternary younger alluvial fan deposits.28 Younger fan deposits do not have the potential
to contain significant paleontological resources; however, younger fan deposits may be underlain by
older, higher sensitivity sediments in the subsurface. While grading activities associated with the project
at Site A would not extend to the depths of older sediments, there is a chance, albeit unlikely, that
previously unknown paleontological resources exist at Site A and may be inadvertently discovered during
construction. As such, mitigation measure MM GEO‐2 is required to ensure potential impacts from
inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources is less than significant.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Site B is in a mapped area of the City
consisting of Quaternary younger alluvial fan deposits, which do not have the potential to contain
significant paleontological resources.29 Any future development at Site B would be required to comply
with the permitted land uses and development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use
designation and zoning. As with Site A, any future development at Site B would be subject to mitigation
measure MM GEO‐2, which would ensure potential impacts from inadvertent discovery of paleontological
resources remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is required for the project at Site B:
MM GEO‐1 Future development at Site B shall be subject to a geological and soils assessment and
development‐specific geotechnical investigation and associated design
28 California Department of Conservation, Geologic Map of California, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/DataViewer/.
29 California Department of Conservation, Geologic Map of California, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/DataViewer/.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐75
recommendations. Such measures could include, but not necessarily be limited to, the
following:
All grading and earthworks shall be observed and tested by the Project Geotechnical
Engineer, Engineering Geologist, and/or their authorized representatives. These tasks
shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations contained in the site‐
and project‐specific Geotechnical Report, in accordance with the current Building Code
requirements of the City of Fontana, and in accordance with the Geotechnical Engineer
and/or Engineering Geologist’s Recommended Earthwork Specifications.
Structural designs shall consider seismic (earthquake) loading factors in compliance
with state and City Building Code.
Slope stability, expansive soils, compressible soils and other similar engineering
geology and geotechnical hazard considerations shall conform with the grading
standards in the State of California Building Code, City of Fontana Building Code, and
by the general requirement for engineering investigation reports, and by many of the
implementation programs within other categories.
A final project design‐specific geotechnical and engineering geology report is required
to be prepared by a California‐licensed geotechnical engineer, California‐certified
engineering geologist, and civil engineer with expertise in geotechnical issues
registered in the State of California during project design and prior to project
construction in compliance with the most current City guidelines. The investigation is
required to address the proposed project foundation and structure design to minimize
effects from adverse soil conditions including any liquefiable or otherwise
unstable/consolidation‐prone soils; bedrock characteristics; subsidence; earthquake
ground shaking; slope instability; subsurface gas; groundwater; and/or other
geotechnical and engineering geologic hazards. Prior to Grading Plan approval and
issuance of permits, all construction/development plans will be approved by the City
for construction of such improvements. Construction will occur in accordance with the
approved plans.
The following mitigation measure is required for the project at Site A and Site B:
MM GEO‐2 If a suspected unique paleontological resource were to be discovered during construction
of the project, the following protocol shall be implemented:
The City of Fontana shall be notified of the discovery. Work shall cease around the
find until a qualified paleontologist meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
(SVP) standards has evaluated the find in accordance with federal, state, and local
guidelines. The Applicant or its Successor shall choose the qualified paleontologist,
subject to the approval of City of Fontana. Construction activity may continue
unimpeded on other portions of the site.
Construction personnel of the project shall be prohibited from collecting or moving
any paleontological materials and associated materials. Such measure(s) may include
avoidance, preservation in place, data recovery and associated documentation, or
other appropriate measures. The City of Fontana shall determine the appropriate and
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐76
feasible measure(s) that will be necessary to mitigate impacts, in consideration of the
measure(s) recommended by the paleontologist.
The Applicant or its Successor shall implement all measure(s) that the City of Fontana
determines necessary, appropriate, and feasible. Within 60 days after treatment
measures are implemented, the paleontologist shall prepare and submit a final report
to the City of Fontana. The report shall include documentation of any recovered
resources, the significance of the resources, and the treatment of the recovered
resources. Any fossils recovered would be deposited in an accredited and permanent
scientific institution (e.g., San Bernardino County Museum).
Construction in the affected area shall re‐commence with the approval of the City of
Fontana.
Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐77
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The following is based on the findings of the Homeless Prevention Resource and Care Center, Air Quality,
Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, City of Fontana, CA, prepared by MD Acoustics, July 18, 2023
(“AQ/GHG/EA Study”). The AQ/GHG/EA Study is available in Appendix A to this Initial Study.
Checklist Discussion
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
A project may have a significant impact if project‐related emissions exceed federal, state, or regional
standards or thresholds.
Constituent gases of the earth’s atmosphere, called atmospheric GHG, play a critical role in the earth’s
radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation emitted from the earth’s surface, which otherwise would
have escaped to space. Prominent GHGs contributing to this process include carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This
phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. It is
thought that anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these GHGs more than natural
ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a
trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s natural climate, known as global warming or climate change.
Emissions of gases that induce global warming are attributable to human activities associated with
industrial/manufacturing, agriculture, utilities, transportation, and residential land uses. Transportation
is responsible for 41 percent of the state’s GHG emissions, followed by electricity generation. Emissions
of CO2 and nitrous oxide (NOX) are byproducts of gasoline combustion. Methane, a potent GHG, results
from off‐gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of CO2, where CO2 is stored
outside of the atmosphere, include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean.
Regulatory Background Summary
On June 1, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order (EO) S‐3‐05, which calls for a
reduction in GHG emissions to the year 2000 level by 2010, to year 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent
below 1990 levels by 2050.
The principal overall state plan and policy adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions is AB 32
(California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐78
mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a cap on statewide GHG
emissions. AB 32 recognizes that California is the source of substantial amounts of GHG emissions. To
avert the consequences of economic well‐being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of
California, AB 32 establishes a state goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020,
codifying the goal of EO S‐3‐05.
CARB approved a Climate Change Scoping Plan as required by AB 32 in 2008; CARB updates this plan every
five years as required by state law. The Climate Change Scoping Plan proposes a “comprehensive set of
actions designed to reduce overall carbon GHG emissions in California, improve our environment, reduce
our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public
health”.30 The Climate Change Scoping Plan has a range of GHG‐reduction actions, which include direct
regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non‐monetary incentives, voluntary
actions, market based mechanisms such as a cap‐and‐trade system, and an AB 32 implementation
regulation to fund the program. On February 10, 2014, CARB released the Draft Proposed First Update to
the Climate Change Scoping Plan.31 The board approved the final First Update to the Climate Change
Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The first update describes California’s progress towards AB 32 goals, stating
that “California is on track to meet the near‐term 2020 greenhouse gas limit and is well positioned to
maintain and continue reductions beyond 2020 as required by AB 32.”28 The Scoping Plan Update in
January 2017 incorporates the 40 percent reduction to 1990 emissions levels by 2030.
The latest Scoping Plan was adopted by CARB in November 2022. The 2022 Scoping Plan lays out the
sector‐by‐sector roadmap for California, the world’s fifth largest economy, to achieve carbon neutrality
by 2045 or earlier, outlining a technologically feasible, cost‐effective, and equity‐focused path to achieve
the state’s climate target. The 2022 Scoping Plan addresses recent legislation and direction from the
governor and extends and expands upon earlier plans with a target of reducing anthropogenic emissions
to 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan also takes the unprecedented step of
adding carbon neutrality as a science‐based guide and touchstone for California’s climate work.
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, Senate Bill (SB) 375, established a
process to coordinate land use planning, regional transportation plans, and funding priorities to help
California meet the GHG reduction goals established in AB 32. SB 375 required SCAG to incorporate a SCS
into its RTPs that would achieve GHG emission reduction targets though several measures, including land
use decisions. SCAG’s current SCS is included in the SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS. The goals and policies of
the RTP/SCS that reduce VMT focus on transportation and land use planning that include building infill
projects; locating residents closer to where they work and play; and designing communities so there is
access to high quality transit service.
On April 29, 2015, Governor Brown signed EO B‐30‐15, which ordered an interim statewide GHG emission
reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 to ensure California
meets its target of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Five key goals for
reducing GHG emissions through 2030 include (1) increasing renewable electricity to 50 percent; (2)
doubling the energy efficiency savings achieved in existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner; (3)
reducing petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent; (4) reducing emissions of short‐lived
30 Climate Change Scoping Plan—Pursuant to AB 32. Sacramento, CA: CARB, December 2008, website:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf.
31 Proposed First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework. Sacramento, CA: CARB, February
2014, website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/draft_proposed_first_update.pdf.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐79
climate pollutants; and (5) managing farms, rangelands, forests, and wetlands to increasingly store
carbon. EO B‐30‐15 also directs CARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030
target in terms of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
On September 8, 2016, the Governor signed SB 32 to codify the GHG reduction goals of EO B‐30‐15,
requiring the state to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (Health and Safety
Code Section 38566). As stated above, the state expects this goal to keep the state on track to meeting
the goal set by EO S‐3‐05 of reducing GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
In addition, the Governor of California signed AB 197 to ensure that the state meets the SB 32 goals by
requiring CARB to provide annual reports of GHGs, criteria pollutants, and toxic air contaminants by
facility, city and sub‐county level, and sector for stationary sources and at the county level for mobile
sources. It also requires CARB to prioritize specified emission reduction rules and regulations and to
identify specified information for emission reduction measures (e.g., alternative compliance mechanism,
market‐based compliance mechanism, and potential monetary and nonmonetary incentive) when
updating the Scoping Plan.
SB 350, signed October 7, 2015, is the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015. SB 350 is the
implementation of some of the goals of EO B‐30‐15. The objectives of SB 350 are as follows:
1. To increase from 33 percent to 50 percent, the procurement of our electricity from renewable
sources
2. To double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses of retail
customers through energy efficiency and conservation
The text of SB 350 sets a December 31, 2030, target for the state to generate 50 percent of its electricity
from renewable sources. SB 350 also requires the state to double statewide energy efficiency savings in
electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030. Additionally, SB 350 sets requirements for large utilities to
develop and submit integrated resources plans (IRPs), which detail how utilities would meet their
customers’ resource needs, reduce GHG emissions, and integrate clean energy resources.32
On September 10, 2018, the governor signed SB 100, the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018. SB 100
requires renewable energy and zero‐carbon resources to supply 100 percent of electric retail sales to end‐
use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve state agencies by December 31, 2045. This
policy requires the transition to zero‐carbon electric systems that do not cause contributions to increase
GHG emissions elsewhere in the western electricity grid.33 SB 100 also creates new standards for the
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) goals established by SB 350 in 2015. Specifically, the bill increases
required energy from renewable sources for both investor‐owned utilities and publicly owned utilities
from 50 percent to 60 percent by 2030.
Further, on September 10, 2018, Governor Brown also signed California EO B‐55‐18, which sets a new
statewide goal of carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045 and achieve net negative
32 California Energy Commission Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act—SB 350. Sacramento, CA: CEC, website:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/rules‐andregulations/energy‐suppliers‐reporting/clean‐energy‐and‐pollution‐reduction‐act‐sb‐
350.
33 California Energy Commission SB 100 Joint Agency Report. Sacramento, CA: CEC website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sb100.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐80
emissions thereafter. EO B‐55‐18 was added to the existing statewide targets of reducing GHG emissions,
including the targets previously established by Governor Brown of reducing emissions to 40 percent below
1990 levels by 2030 (EO B‐30‐15 and SB 32), and by Governor Schwarzenegger of reducing emissions to
80 percent below 1990 levels by 2040 (EO S‐3‐05).
SCAQMD Significance Criteria
On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted an interim GHG significance threshold for
stationary sources, rules, and plans where the SCAQMD is lead agency (SCAQMD permit threshold). The
SCAQMD permit threshold consists of five tiers. However, the SCAQMD is not the lead agency for this
Project. Therefore, the five permit threshold tiers do not apply to the proposed project.
The SCAQMD is in the process of preparing recommended significance thresholds for GHGs for local lead
agency consideration (“SCAQMD draft local agency threshold”); however, the SCAQMD Board has not
approved the thresholds as of the date of this Initial Study. The existing draft thresholds consist of the
following tiered approach:
Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption
under CEQA.
Tier 2 consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan. If a
project is consistent with a qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it does not have significant GHG
emissions.
Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose, but must be consistent with
all projects within its jurisdiction. A project’s construction emissions are averaged over 30 years
and are added to a project’s operational emissions. If a project’s emissions are under one of the
following screening thresholds, then the project is less than significant:
□ All land use types: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
□ Based on land use type: residential: 3,500 MTCO2e per year; commercial: 1,400 MTCO2e per
year; or mixed use: 3,000 MTCO2e per year.
□ Based on land type: Industrial (where SCAQMD is the lead agency), 10,000 MTCO2e per year.
Tier 4 has the following options:
□ Option 1: Reduce emissions from business as usual (BAU) by a certain percentage; this
percentage is currently undefined.
□ Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures.
□ Option 3: 2020 target for service populations (SP), which includes residents and employees:
4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 6.6 MTCO2e/SP/year for plans; 2035 target: 3.0
MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 4.1 MTCO2e/SP/year for plans.
Tier 5 involves mitigation offsets to achieve target significance threshold.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐81
SCAQMD’s draft thresholds use the Executive Order S‐3‐05 goal as the basis for the Tier 3 screening level.
Achieving the Executive Order’s objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap carbon dioxide
concentrations at 450 ppm, thus stabilizing the global climate.
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 of which
were removed because they were very large projects 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 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 their significance threshold at the low‐end value 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 SCAQMD over a decade ago and was adopted as an interim policy; however, no permanent,
superseding policy or threshold has since been adopted. The 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold was
developed and recommended by SCAQMD, an expert agency, based on substantial evidence as provided
in the Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold (2008) document
and subsequent Working Group meetings (latest of which occurred in 2010). 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 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 2023 (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 jurisdiction.
Thus, if project‐related GHG emissions do not exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold, then project‐
related GHG emissions would have a less‐than‐significant impact. On the other hand, if project related
GHG emissions exceed 3,000 MTCO2e per year, the project would result in a significant impact related to
GHG emissions.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. To determine whether the project’s GHG emissions are significant from
construction and operation of the Care Center at Site A, the AQ/GHG/EA Study analysis uses the SCAQMD
draft screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land uses.
Methodology
CalEEMod version 2022.1.1.13 was used to calculate the GHG emissions from the proposed project. This
analysis quantifies the project’s total annual GHG emissions, taking into account compliance with
regulation and GHG emission reduction features that would be incorporated into the project’s design. The
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐82
project is anticipated to generate GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, mobile sources, waste,
water, and construction equipment. Each source of GHG emissions is described below.
Area sources include emissions from consumer products, landscape equipment and architectural
coatings. Energy usage includes emissions from the generation of electricity and natural gas used on‐site.
Mobile sources include emissions from the additional vehicle miles generated from the project. The
vehicle trips associated with the project have been analyzed by inputting the project‐generated trip
generation data from the project‐specific trip generation analysis prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan
Engineers (Appendix F to this Initial Study). Waste includes the GHG emissions generated from the
processing of waste from the project as well as the GHG emissions from the waste once it is interred into
a landfill. Water includes the water used for the interior of the building as well as for landscaping and is
based on the GHG emissions associated with the energy used to transport and filter the water. The
construction‐related GHG emissions were also included in the analysis and were based on a 30‐year
amortization rate as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group meeting on November 19, 2009.
Impact Analysis
The GHG emissions from project construction equipment and worker vehicles are shown in Table 10,
Construction GHG Emissions. The emissions are from all phases of construction. As discussed above in the
air quality analysis, for the purposes of a highly conservative analysis in the AQ/GHG/EA Study, it was
assumed that the entire Care Center would be built out as one phase to assess the worst‐case scenario
(i.e., that the entire Care Center with the 6,000‐square‐foot administration building and a maximum of
150 living units in 40,000 square feet of housing would be fully constructed by the end of second quarter
of 2025). The total construction emissions amortized over a period of 30 years are estimated at 18 MTCO2e
per year. Annual CalEEMod output calculations are provided in Appendix A to the AQ/GHG/EA Study,
which is included as Appendix A to this Initial Study.
Table 10
Construction GHG Emissions
Activity Emissions (MTCO2e) a
2024 348
2025 192
Total 540
Averaged over 30 years b 18.00
Notes:
a MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (includes carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide).
b The emissions are averaged over 30 years because the average is added to the operational emissions, pursuant to SCAQMD.
Operational emissions occur over the life of the project. The operational emissions for the project are
892.37 MTCO2e per year before factoring in construction as shown on Table 11, Project‐Related GHG
Emissions.
Table 11
Project‐Related GHG Emissions
Category
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons/Year) a
Bio‐CO2 NonBio‐CO2 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Area Sources b 0.00 2.58 2.58 0.00 0.00 2.59
Energy Usage c 0.00 253.00 253.00 0.02 0.00 254.00
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐83
Table 11
Project‐Related GHG Emissions
Category
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons/Year) a
Bio‐CO2 NonBio‐CO2 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Mobile Sources d 0.00 465.00 465.00 0.03 0.02 474.00
Solid Waste e 40.40 0.00 40.40 4.04 0.00 141.00
Water f 1.98 12.10 14.08 0.20 0.00 20.70
Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08
Construction g 0.00 17.83 17.83 0.00 0.00 18.00
Total Emissions 42.38 750.51 792.89 4.29 0.02 910.37
SCAQMD Draft Screening Threshold 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
Notes:
a Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.13.
b Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape equipment.
c Energy usage consists of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage.
d Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles.
e Solid waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills.
f Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater.
g Construction GHG emissions based on a 30‐year amortization rate.
Furthermore, as shown in Table 11, the project’s total emissions (with incorporation of construction
related GHG emissions) would be 910.37 MTCO2e per year. These emissions do not exceed the SCAQMD
screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, the project’s GHG emissions would be less than
significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project would redesignate and rezone
Site B from Open Space to Light Industrial. Any future development at Site B would be required to comply
with the permitted land uses and development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use
designation and zoning. However, to assess the GHG emissions of future proposed development,
mitigation measure MM GHG‐1 requires a GHG study to be conducted that considers project‐specific GHG
emissions in accordance with SCAQMD guidelines, and includes mitigation measures as appropriate, prior
to approval of any development at Site B. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
A significant air quality impact may occur if a project is not consistent with the applicable plans designed
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or would in some way represent a substantial hindrance to employing
the policies or obtaining the goals of such a plan.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not conflict with the San Bernardino County Regional
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (March 2021) or the City’s General Plan policies for reducing GHG
emissions as the project would not result in a significant GHG emissions impact. The San Bernardino
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐84
County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan include SCAQMD’s interim GHG significance threshold
to be used in project‐level CEQA evaluations. As discussed above, the project’s operational GHG emissions
do not exceed SCAQMD draft screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. As such, the project at Site
A is consistent with the County’s GHG reduction plan.
The Project would comply with the requirements in the CALGreen Building Code and Title 24 as well as
HUD Code for modular homes, which require buildings to be designed to include green building measures
for energy efficiency, water conservation, recycling, light pollution reduction, electric vehicle charging
stations, Energy Star‐rated appliances, eco‐friendly building materials, non‐volatile organic compound
paints/adhesives, drought‐tolerant planting, and high‐performance building envelopment. As the
project’s operational GHG emissions do not exceed SCAQMD’s screening threshold, the project would also
not conflict with the goals of AB 32 or SB 32.
The project provides new, modern facilities to provide transitional housing and associated support
services for area residents experiencing homelessness in San Bernardino County. The project would create
an environmentally sensitive development by locating the proposed Care Center in an urbanized area with
a surrounding built environment and with relatively minimal impacts on the environment. The project
location is also served by existing roadway and utility infrastructure. Furthermore, the number of daily
vehicle trips generated by the project at Site A (390 daily vehicle trips; see Checklist Question 17(a), below)
is below the threshold required to perform a VMT analysis, and as such, would not conflict with SCAG’s
2020‐2045 RTP/SCS goals for reducing GHG associated with VMT as VMT impacts are considered
insignificant. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project would redesignate and rezone
Site B from Open Space to Light Industrial. Any future development at Site B would be required to comply
with the permitted land uses and development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use
designation and zoning. However, to assess the GHG emissions of future proposed development,
mitigation measure MM GHG‐1 requires a GHG study to be conducted that considers project‐specific GHG
emissions in accordance with SCAQMD guidelines, and includes mitigation measures as appropriate, prior
to approval of any development at Site B. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is required for the project at Site B:
MM GHG‐1 Prior to approval of development at Site B, a greenhouse gas emissions assessment shall be
conducted in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District guidelines.
Mitigation measures shall be required as necessary based on the findings of these studies to
ensure impacts are reduced to less than significant, and any future development that would
result in unavoidable/unmitigatable significant impacts shall be prohibited. Such measures
could include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:
During construction:
Tier 4 Final engine ratings for construction equipment
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐85
During operation:
Installing solar photovoltaic systems
Meeting CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards, including all provisions related to
designated parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle charging, and bicycle parking.
Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐86
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles or a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires?
The following is based on the findings of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Homelessness
Prevention Resources and Care Center Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California 92335,
prepared by Kleinfelder, June 16, 2023 (“Phase I ESA”). The Phase I ESA is available in Appendix D to this
Initial Study.
The Phase I ESA included a records review of federal, state, and local regulatory agency databases
regarding hazardous substance use, storage, or disposal at the project site and surrounding vicinity;
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐87
topography, soil, and groundwater conditions; and historical use information obtained from historical
aerial photographs and topographic maps, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, city/suburban directories,
building department records; as well as interviews with persons knowledgeable of the project site and a
site reconnaissance. The purpose of the Phase I ESA was to identify recognized environmental conditions
(RECs), controlled RECs (CRECs), historical RECs (HRECs), business environmental risks (BERs), and de
minimis conditions associated with the project site. As defined by ASTM International, a REC is:
The presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products due to a release to the environment; (2) likely
presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products due to a release or likely release to the
environment; or (3) presence of hazardous materials or petroleum products under conditions that pose a
material threat of a future release to the environment.
As defined by the ASTM, a CREC is:
… a recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or
petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (for
example, as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting risk‐based
criteria established by regulatory authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to
remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (for example, property use limitations,
activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls).
As defined by the ASTM, an HREC is:
…a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has affected the Subject Property
and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted
use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to environmental
controls.
As defined by the ASTM, a BER is:
…a risk which can have a material environmental or environmentally‐driven impact on the business
associated with the current or planned use of a parcel of commercial real estate, not necessarily limited to
those environmental issues required to be investigated in this practice. Consideration of business
environmental risk issues may involve addressing one or more non‐scope considerations...
As defined by the ASTM, a de minimis condition is:
A condition that generally does not present a threat to human health or the environment and that
generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate
governmental agencies.
According to historical use information reviewed as part of the Phase I ESA, Site A was used for small‐tree
farming (possibly orchards) until at least 1938. A residence previously existed within Site A along Arrow
Boulevard from sometime in the 1940s until it was demolished in 1989; Site A has remained vacant ever
since. Site B appears to have been used for dryland farming until at least 1938. The adjacent gravel mine
was in operation from approximately the 1940s until the 1990s. However, the gravel mine did not expand
onto Site B until sometime between 1975 and 1985.
The Phase I ESA identified the following RECs associated with the project site:
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐88
REC 1: Unauthorized dumping, in the form of soil and construction debris piles located in Site A
along Tokay Avenue and a soil and gravel pile in Site B along Tokay Avenue, was observed during
the site reconnaissance. The soil/construction debris piles and soil/gravel pile are considered RECs
due to the potential for contamination to be present within and below the piles.
REC 2: The use of Site B as a gravel mine pit, with potential soil contamination from historic mining
activities, is considered an REC.
REC 3: Potential soil contamination from historic stormwater drainage from the adjacent D&K
Concrete facility to the north/northwest and from the historic hazardous material/waste storage
area, maintenance shop, and septic tank leach fields from the larger former gravel mine
operations to the west, is considered an REC.
In addition, the Phase I ESA identified the following BERs associated with the project site:
BER 1: An unlabeled container filled with an unknown liquid (potentially a petroleum‐based
product or other fluid potentially containing VOCs) was observed in Site A along Tokay Avenue
was observed during the site reconnaissance. Because no evidence of a release is present, the
container is considered a BER.
BER 2: Because the project site and adjacent properties were formerly used for agricultural
purposes (dry farming within Site B and possible orchards within Site A) through at least 1938, it
is common for residual concentrations of pesticides, including arsenic or lead, associated with
application for pest control, to be present in the shallow soils on agricultural sites. The pesticide
concentrations in these situations are typically less than regulatory action levels, and the potential
for further action to be required to address the pesticides is low. The potential for residual
pesticides in shallow soils is considered a BER.
Checklist Discussion
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
A significant impact may occur if a project involves use or disposal of hazardous materials as part of its
routine operations and would have the potential to generate toxic or otherwise hazardous emissions that
could adversely affect sensitive receptors.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The following hazards discussion relates to the proposed Care Center at Site
A. As noted above, the Phase I ESA identified two RECs and two BERs associated with Site A. Namely, REC
1, REC 3, BER 1, and BER 2, detailed above.
Construction
Potentially hazardous materials required for construction typically include gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricants,
paints, and solvents. However, handling of these potentially hazardous materials at Site A would be
temporary and limited to the project’s construction phase. Additionally, as detailed under Checklist
Question 10(a), the project would be subject to the requirements of the SARWQCB’s Construction General
Permit to prepare a SWPPP and implement BMPs in order to prevent impacts from the handling and
storage of potentially hazardous materials during construction. The transport, removal, and disposal of
hazardous materials during construction would be conducted by a permitted and licensed service provider
consistent with federal, state, and local requirements including the EPA, the California Department of
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐89
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(Cal/OSHA), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, and the San Bernardino County Fire Department (the Certified Unified Program Agency for San
Bernardino County) or through the Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) Program. As
such, implementation of the project at Site A would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment as a result of transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction. Impacts
would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Operation
The types and amounts of hazardous materials that would be used in connection with the project would
be typical of those used in other housing developments (e.g., cleaning solvents, pesticides for landscaping,
painting supplies, and petroleum products). Use of these materials would be subject to compliance with
existing regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the federal, state, and local agencies related
to storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. As such, operation of the project at Site A would not
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. As noted above, the Phase I ESA identified two RECs and two BERs
associated with Site A. Namely, REC 1, REC 2, REC 3, and BER 2, detailed above. Future development at
Site B would be subject to the requirements of the SARWQCB’s Construction General Permit to prepare a
SWPPP and implement BMPs in order to prevent impacts from the handling and storage of potentially
hazardous materials during construction. The transport, removal, and disposal of hazardous materials
during construction would be conducted by a permitted and licensed service provider consistent with
federal, state, and local requirements including the EPA, DTSC, Cal/OSHA, Caltrans, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, and the San Bernardino County Fire Department (the Certified Unified
Program Agency for San Bernardino County) or through the CESQG Program. As such, future development
at Site B would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment as a result of transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction. Impacts would be less than significant, and
no mitigation measures are required.
Any future development at Site B would be required to comply with the permitted land uses and
development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use designation and zoning, and likewise
the types and amounts of hazardous materials that would be used in connection with future development
at Site B would be typical for such uses. Use of these materials would be subject to compliance with
existing regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the federal, state, and local agencies related
to storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. As such, operation of any future development at Site
B would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation
measures are required.
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?
A significant impact may occur if a project could potentially pose a hazard to nearby sensitive receptors
by releasing hazardous materials into the environment through accident or upset conditions.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐90
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The following hazards discussion relates to
the proposed Care Center at Site A.
Construction
Because of the potential for contaminated soil associated with REC 1, REC 3, BER 1, and BER 2, ground‐
disturbing activities during construction, such as grading and excavation, could encounter contaminated
soil, which could create a significant hazard to the public and environment if it was handled, stockpiled,
or disposed of improperly. Accordingly, mitigation measure MM HAZ‐1 is required for the project at Site
A, which would require a Phase II subsurface investigation to identify and delineate potential
contaminants of concern in the soil at the site, and if any contamination is found, for remediation to occur
prior to the start of any ground‐disturbance at Site A. Additionally, mitigation measure MM HAZ‐2 would
require the preparation of a Construction Risk Management Plan (CRMP) that would establish a protocol
for the evaluation, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of potentially contaminated soil during
construction. Although the existence of the container filled with unknown liquid (BER‐1) does not
represent a REC, mitigation measure MM HAZ‐3 is also included and would require that all trash shall be
removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable disposal regulations for hazardous and potentially
hazardous materials. Following implementation of mitigation measures MM HAZ‐1, MM HAZ‐2, and MM
HAZ‐3, construction of the project at Site A would not create a significant hazard to the public or
environment involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less
than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Operation
As described above under Checklist Question 9(a), the types and amounts of hazardous materials that
would be required for operation of the project would be typical of housing land uses (e.g., cleaning
solvents, pesticides for landscaping, painting supplies, and petroleum products). Such products would be
handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with manufacturer recommendations that are consistent
with applicable federal, state, and local regulations regarding such hazardous materials. As such,
operation of the project at Site A would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant,
and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Because of the potential for contaminated
soil associated with REC 1, REC 2, and BER 2, ground‐disturbing activities during construction for any future
development at Site B, such as grading and excavation, could encounter contaminated soil, which could
create a significant hazard to the public and environment if it was handled, stockpiled, or disposed of
improperly. mitigation measure MM HAZ 1 is required for Site B, which would require a Phase II subsurface
investigation to identify and delineate potential contaminants of concern in the soil at the site, and if any
contamination is found, for remediation to occur prior to the start of any ground‐disturbance at Site B.
Additionally, mitigation measure MM HAZ 2 would require the preparation of a Construction Risk
Management Plan (CRMP) that would establish a protocol for the evaluation, handling, storing, testing,
and disposing of potentially contaminated soil during construction. Moreover, mitigation measure MM
HAZ 4 is required for future development at Site B to conduct on‐site reconnaissance of Site B when future
development is proposed at that site, which would be in addition to and broader than mitigation measure
MM HAZ 1 for Site B. Following implementation of mitigation measures MM HAZ 1 through MM HAZ 4,
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐91
future development at Site B would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment involving
the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated for the construction of a future development at Site B.
Any future development at Site B would be required to comply with the permitted land uses and
development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use designation and zoning, and likewise
the types and amounts of hazardous materials that would be used in connection with future development
at Site B would be typical for such uses. Such products would be handled, stored, and disposed of in
accordance with manufacturer recommendations that are consistent with applicable federal, state, and
local regulations regarding such hazardous materials. As such, operation of future development at Site B
would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are
required for operation of a future development at Site B.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
A significant adverse effect may occur if a project site is located within one‐quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school site and is projected to release toxic emissions which pose a health hazard beyond
regulatory thresholds.
SITE A
No Impact. Site A is not located within one‐quarter mile of an existing school; the nearest school is
Oleander Elementary School (8650 Oleander Avenue) located 0.3‐mile to the southeast. No existing plans
for additional school sites were identified for Fontana School District.34 Furthermore, as detailed under
Checklist Questions 9(a) and 9(b), the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes. Therefore, no hazardous‐materials‐related impact
to schools would occur following implementation of the project at Site A, and no mitigation measures are
required.
SITE B
No Impact. As with Site A, Site B is not located within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Any future development at Site B would be required to comply with the permitted land uses and
development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use designation and zoning. Therefore,
no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
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?
California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires various State agencies to compile lists of hazardous
waste disposal facilities, unauthorized releases from underground storage tanks, contaminated drinking
water wells and solid waste facilities where there is known migration of hazardous waste and submit such
information to the Secretary for Environmental Protection on at least an annual basis. A significant impact
34 Fontana Unified School District, Facilities Master Plan, January 1, 2015.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐92
may occur if a project site is included on any of the above lists and poses an environmental hazard to
surrounding sensitive uses.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Site A is not listed on lists of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As previously described,
implementation of mitigation measures MM HAZ‐1 and HAZ‐2 would ensure that potentially
contaminated soil is identified and remediated prior to the issuance of grading and building permits and
proper identification, handling, and disposal of contaminated soil not previously identified but
encountered during construction. Following implementation of MM HAZ‐1 and MM HAZ‐2,
implementation of the project at Site A would not result in a significant impact.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Site B is listed on multiple lists of hazardous
materials site including Mines Site Location Listing (MINES), Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST),
Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese), Hist Cortese, California Environmental Reporting
System (CERS), EnviroStor, Land Disposal Site (LDS), Emissions Inventory Database (EMI), Enforcement
Action Listing (ENF), California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS), and Management Unit Database
(WMUDS/SWAT) databases. As previously described, implementation of mitigation measures MM HAZ 1,
MM HAZ 2, and MM HAZ 4 would ensure that potentially contaminated soil is identified and remediated
prior to the issuance of grading and building permits and proper identification, handling, and disposal of
contaminated soil not previously identified but encountered during construction. Following
implementation of mitigation measures MM HAZ 1, MM HAZ 2, and MM HAZ 4, future development at
Site B would not result in a significant impact.
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?
A significant impact may occur if a project is located within a public airport land use plan area, or within
two miles of a public airport, and subject to a safety hazard.
SITE A
No Impact. The nearest airports to the project site are the Ontario International Airport, located
approximately 8 miles to the southwest, and the Flabob Airport, located approximately 8 miles to the
south. The project site is not located within the airport land use plans for either of these airports.35
Therefore, implementation of the project at Site A would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise
for people residing or working in the project area. No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures
are required.
35 San Bernardino Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans, https://lus.sbcounty.gov/planning‐
home/airport‐land‐use/, accessed May 23, 2023.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐93
SITE B
No Impact. The nearest airports to the project site are the Ontario International Airport, located
approximately 8 miles to the southwest, and the Flabob Airport, located approximately 8 miles to the
south. No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
A significant impact may occur if a project were to interfere with roadway operations used in conjunction
with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan or would generate traffic congestion that
would interfere with the execution of such a plan.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. Site A does not contain any critical emergency response facilities, nor does
it serve as an emergency or evacuation shelter. During construction, all materials and equipment would
be stored/staged onsite. Limited construction activities could extend into the Arrow Boulevard and/or
Tokay Avenue rights‐of‐way; however, for any work requiring a partial or full closure of a sidewalk or
vehicle travel lane, the construction contractor would be required to implement a traffic control plan that
complies with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The plan would be reviewed and
approved by the City to ensure that temporary closures would not interfere with emergency response to
or evacuation of the project area.
Additionally, as part of the City’s normal discretionary review process, the project’s application materials
and final site design plans would be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building
permits. The review would include evaluation of the adequacy and safety of the project’s proposed ingress
and egress, which would be required to adhere to the design standards and safety regulations pertaining
to access requirements of the City and the Fire Protection District. Furthermore, although the project
would add employees and temporary residents at the project site, as detailed under Checklist Section 17,
Transportation, the project would generate a low number of additional trips and would not significantly
impact the circulation system.
Based on the above, implementation of the project at Site A would not impair implementation of or
physically interfere with emergency response or evacuation. Impacts would be less than significant, and
no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. Site B does not contain any critical emergency response facilities, nor does
it serve as an emergency or evacuation shelter. Any future development at Site B would be required to
comply with the permitted land uses and development standards associated with the Light Industrial land
use designation and zoning. During construction, all materials and equipment would be stored/staged
onsite. Limited construction activities could extend into Tokay Avenue right‐of‐way; however, for any
work requiring a partial or full closure of a sidewalk or vehicle travel lane, the construction contractor
would be required to implement a traffic control plan that complies with the California Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices. The plan would be reviewed and approved by the City to ensure that temporary
closures would not interfere with emergency response to or evacuation of the project area.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐94
Additionally, as part of the City’s normal discretionary review process, the final site design plans for any
future development would be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits.
The review would include evaluation of the adequacy and safety of the proposed ingress and egress, which
would be required to adhere to the design standards and safety regulations pertaining to access
requirements of the City and the Fire Protection District. Based on the above, future development at Site
B would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with emergency response or evacuation.
Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
A significant impact may occur if a project is located in proximity to wildland areas and poses a potential
fire hazard, which could expose persons or structures, either directly or indirectly, in the area in the event
of a fire.
SITE A
No Impact. Site A is not located in or near a state responsibility area,36 nor in or near lands classified as a
very high fire hazard severity zone.37 The site is located in an urban, developed area of the City and is not
adjacent to wildlands. Although the adjacent Site B would not be developed and currently contains
grassland vegetation, the project’s landscape plan would be required to adhere to state and local
regulations regarding vegetation selection and defensible space. Therefore, implementation of the
project at Site A would not expose people or structures to loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
No Impact. As with Site A, Site B is not located in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as
a very high fire hazard severity zone. Any future development at Site B would be required to comply with
the permitted land uses and development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use
designation and zoning. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are required for the project at Site A and Site B:
MM HAZ‐1 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the Applicant shall prepare a Phase II
Subsurface Investigation that shall evaluate the potential environmental conditions
identified during the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. The Phase II Subsurface
Investigation shall be conducted according to ASTM International standards by a licensed
professional. If soil contamination is identified above the applicable screening levels for
proposed land uses established by the Regional Water Board, the findings of the Phase II
Subsurface Investigation shall be submitted to the local and state regulatory agencies for
determination of potential remediation requirements. Remediation shall be performed in
36 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Fire Resource Assessment Program, FHSZ Viewer,
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, accessed June 29, 2023.
37 City of Fontana, General Plan Land Use Map, Adopted November 13, 2018, as amended.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐95
accordance with the regulatory agency requirements for the protection of public health
and the environment. Remediation for identified contamination could include, but is not
to be limited to, source removal of contaminated materials, in‐situ treatment, and/or
institutional or engineering controls. Grading and building permits shall not be issued until
such time as the Applicant has provided the City with documentation that either: (1) soil
sampling has shown that the project site does not contain contaminated soil above
screening levels for the proposed land use(s) and the Phase II has determined the site is
suitable for development of the project; or (2) all remediation required by regulatory
agencies in response to the sampling protocol have been carried out and deemed effective.
MM HAZ‐2 The findings of the Phase II Subsurface Investigation shall be used for development of a
project‐specific Construction Risk Management Plan (CRMP). The CRMP shall delineate
specific soil management and disposal procedures, construction worker health and safety
requirements, and contingency measures in case previously unknown/unidentified
contamination is encountered during construction. The CRMP shall incorporate the soil
analytical data from the Phase II Subsurface Investigation to ensure that soil is stored,
managed, and disposed of in a manner protective of human health and the environment,
and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations for specific contaminants
identified. The CRMP shall include measures for identifying, testing, and managing soil
suspected of containing hazardous materials. The CRMP shall: (1) provide procedures for
evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of soil during project excavation; (2)
describe required worker health and safety provisions for all workers potentially exposed
to hazardous materials in accordance with federal and state worker safety regulations; and
(3) designate personnel responsible for implementation of the CRMP.
The following mitigation measure is required for the project at Site A:
MM HAZ‐3 Prior to the start of construction, all trash, including the container of unknown liquid, shall
be removed and disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local
regulations regarding the transport and disposal of hazardous and potentially hazardous
materials at facilities permitted to receive and dispose of such materials.
The following mitigation measure is required for the project at Site B:
MM HAZ‐4 At the time future development is proposed for Site B and prior to project approval, the
applicant shall engage a qualified consultant to conduct a site reconnaissance of Site B for
the purposes of updating the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Any follow‐up
recommendations associated with this update, e.g., a subsurface investigation and/or
contamination remediation, shall be executed prior to implementation of any future
development to ensure impacts are not significant. Such measures could include applying
the protocol listed for MM HAZ 1 and MM HAZ 2, above, if required, to new areas of Site
B beyond those area already identified in the original Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐96
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater
quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐
or off‐site?
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on‐ or off‐site?
iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐97
Checklist Discussion
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
A significant impact may occur if a project discharges water which does not meet the quality standards of
agencies which regulate surface water quality and water discharge into storm water drainage systems.
Significant impacts may also occur if a project does not comply with all applicable regulations with regard
to surface water quality as governed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). These
regulations include compliance with the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP)
requirements to reduce potential water quality impacts.
The project site is located within the Upper Santa Ana River (SAR) watershed.38 Major tributaries to the
SAR include San Antonio Creek, Chino Creek, San Timoteo Creek, Temescal Creek, Cucamonga Creek, Bear
Creek, and Lytle Creek. The City is located within the Lower Lytle Creek watershed, which forms the
northwest portion of the Santa Ana River Watershed and drains the eastern portion of the San Gabriel
Mountains.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The relatively flat Site A is undeveloped, vacant, and graded. Therefore,
under existing conditions, surface runoff flow is predominately retained on‐site and any overflow
discharges into the existing storm drain system on Arrow Boulevard.
The State of California is authorized to administer various aspects of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) under the Construction General Permit. SARWQCB administers the NPDES
permit in the region. Construction activities covered under the General Construction Permit include the
removal of vegetation, grading, excavating, or any other activity that causes the disturbance of one acre
or more. Construction of the project at Site A would disturb approximately seven acres of land and would,
therefore, be subject to NPDES permit requirements during construction activities. The Construction
General Permit requires recipients to reduce or eliminate non‐storm water discharges into stormwater
systems, and to develop and implement a SWPPP. The SWPPP is based on the principles of BMPs to control
and abate pollutants. The SWPPP must include BMPs to prevent project‐related pollutants from impacting
surface waters. The purpose of a SWPPP is to: 1) identify pollutant sources that may affect the quality of
discharges of storm water associated with construction activities; and 2) identify, construct, and
implement storm water pollution control measures to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges from
the construction site during and after construction.
The NPDES permit also requires a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to identify BMPs and other
control measures that minimize or eliminate pollutants from urban runoff during operation of new
development. Such operational BMPs implemented to address pollutant sources generally involve
maintenance of storm drain facilities, parking lots, vegetated areas, and educational programs. In
addition, the SARWQCB’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit requires the City to
ensure that new development is built using Low Impact Development (LID) techniques. LID techniques
include site design and operational BMPs that are intended to prevent the discharge of pollution within
38 Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015‐2035, Draft Environmental Impact Report, June 2018, Figure 5.8‐1.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐98
runoff originating from the project site. Based on preliminary plans, the project proposes to install drop
inlets and catch basins throughout the project site to collect stormwater runoff for ultimate discharge into
the City’s storm drain system within Tokay Avenue where it would then be conveyed south to the West
Fontana Channel. Final operational BMPs and stormwater collection and discharge design plans would be
established in a Final WQMP that would be submitted to the City Public Works Department for review
and approval, consistent with the requirements of the NPDES.
Based on the above, the discharge of potential water contaminants would be controlled through
adherence to existing regulations of the NPDES permit that require source control BMPs during
construction and operation of the project at Site A. Through adherence to the NPDES permit requirements
and implementation of BMPs for the control of erosion and pollutant discharge, the project would not
violate any water quality standards or discharge requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. The approximately 18‐acre Site B is part of a larger 57‐acre vacant mining
pit, which has at various times been the site of aggregate extraction and asphalt production. The eastern
portion of the pit, which includes Site B, served as the extraction area and is as much as 120 feet below
the surrounding grade. Site B consists of sparse weedy vegetation, manufactured sloped topography
consistent with decades of use as an extraction site, and a concrete v‐ditch in the northern portion to
capture and convey stormwater runoff from pooling at the bottom of the pit.
As with Site A, any future development at Site B would be subject to NPDES permit requirements during
construction activities. The Construction General Permit requires recipients to reduce or eliminate non‐
storm water discharges into stormwater systems, and to develop and implement a SWPPP, which would
include BMPs to: 1) identify pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges of storm water
associated with construction activities; and 2) identify, construct, and implement storm water pollution
control measures to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges from the construction site during and
after construction.
The NPDES permit for future development would also require a WQMP to identify BMPs and other control
measures that minimize or eliminate pollutants from urban runoff during operation of new development.
In addition, the SARWQCB’s MS4 Permit requires the City to ensure that new development is built using
LID techniques. Final operational BMPs and stormwater collection and discharge design plans would be
established in a Final WQMP that would be submitted to the City Public Works Department for review
and approval, consistent with the requirements of the NPDES.
Based on the above, the discharge of potential water contaminants would be controlled through
adherence to existing regulations of the NPDES permit that require source control BMPs during
construction and operation of future development at Site B. Through adherence to the NPDES permit
requirements and implementation of BMPs for the control of erosion and pollutant discharge, future
development would not violate any water quality standards or discharge requirements. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐99
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
A significant impact may occur if a project includes deep excavations resulting in the potential to interfere
with groundwater movement or included withdrawal of groundwater or paving of existing permeable
surfaces important to groundwater recharge.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the Chino Groundwater Basin, which is
part of the larger Upper Santa Ana Valley Basin.39 The project would receive water supply from Chino
Basin Watermaster and does not propose direct groundwater withdrawal. In addition, based on the
anticipated depth to groundwater of over 50 feet below grade,40 the project at Site A would not require
dewatering either temporarily during construction or permanently during operation. The project would
substantially increase the impermeable surface area of the project site as compared to the current
undeveloped conditions, which would reduce the overall amount of water percolating through the
subsurface beneath the site. In addition, the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin is adjudicated,
and is subject to the terms of the 1969 Stipulated Agreement managed by the SAR Watermaster. The SAR
Watershed includes programs for the long‐term management of area groundwater basins. The primary
means of ensuring long‐term groundwater level maintenance includes careful monitoring to ensure
groundwater levels are managed within a safe basin operating range and implementation of water
conservation programs. As a result, the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin is not overdrafted,
nor is it projected to become so.41
Furthermore, while the project at Site A would increase the water demand within the SAR service area,
as detailed in response to Checklist Question 19(b), SAR’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP),
which was adopted in June 2021, projects sufficient water supplies to meet anticipated demand increases
during normal, dry, and multiple‐dry years through the planning horizon and the project would have
sufficient supplies available.42 SAR would meet increased demand through planned sources such as
groundwater recharge, additional potable water made available through increased recycled water use,
additional supply made available through the desalination. The Fontana Water Company, also projects
sufficient supplies to meet contracted demands through the planning horizon in their UWMP.43
Based on the above, the project at Site A would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
substantially interfere with groundwater recharge such that sustainable management of the groundwater
basins would occur. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are
required.
39 Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015‐2035, Draft Environmental Impact Report, June 2018.
40 California’s Groundwater Live, Current Groundwater Levels,
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b3886b33b49c4fa8adf2ae8bdd8f16c3. Accessed June 29, 2023.
41 Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015‐2035, Draft Environmental Impact Report, June 2018.
42 Upper Santa River Watershed, 2020 Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan, June 2021.
43 San Gabriel Valley Water Company, Fontana Water Company Division, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2021.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐100
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. Like Site A, future development on Site B would receive water supply from
Chino Basin Watermaster and would not entail direct groundwater withdrawal as future development
would be required to comply with the permitted land uses and development standards associated with
the Light Industrial land use designation and zoning. While dewatering either temporarily during
construction or permanently during operation is not anticipated, the groundwater levels would be
confirmed through the required geotechnical investigation. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site;
A significant impact may occur if a project results in a substantial alteration of drainage patterns that
would result in a substantial increase in erosion or siltation during construction or operation of the project.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The relatively flat Site A is undeveloped, vacant, and graded. Therefore,
under existing conditions, surface runoff flow is predominately retained on‐site and any overflow
discharges into the to the south of Site A. The project would not alter the course of a stream or river and
the post‐development drainage pattern would remain substantially unchanged with the majority of the
site draining to the south of Site A, where new site draining would occur. As described further above in
response to Checklist Question 10(a), erosion and siltation during construction would be controlled and
prevented through BMPs that would be established in the project’s SWPPP consistent with the
requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit and the project’s grading permit. Erosion and
siltation during operation would be largely prevented as a result of the increase in impermeable surface
areas and lack of exposed soils under post‐development conditions. In addition, NPDES requires
preparation of a WQMP BMPs and SARWQCB’s MS4 Permit requires LID techniques designed to prevent
the discharge of sediments in site runoff. Therefore, the project at Site A would have a less than significant
impact, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Site B consists of sparse weedy vegetation,
manufactured sloped topography consistent with decades of use as an extraction site, and a concrete v‐
ditch in the northern portion to capture and convey stormwater runoff from pooling at the bottom of the
pit which would include a site‐ and development‐specific hydrology and drainage plan as well as
conformance with LID requirements as required by mitigation measure MM HYD 1. Therefore, with
implementation of mitigation measure MM HYD 1, impacts would be less than significant.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐101
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on‐ or off‐site;
A significant impact may occur if a project results in a substantial alteration of drainage patterns that
would result in a substantial increase in erosion or siltation during construction or operation of the project.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the project would not alter the existing overall drainage
pattern of Site A. Furthermore, although the primary focus of LID requirements is to prevent the discharge
of pollutants into receiving waters, implementation of LID BMPs have been shown to significantly reduce
runoff volume and reduce the need for flood control. The project would be required to implement LID
techniques consistent with the requirements of the SARWQCB, which would reduce the stormwater
discharges from the project site and prevent offsite flooding. In addition, the proposed catch basins and
inlets would be designed with an internal bypass or overflow system to prevent flooding due to large
storm events exceeding LID‐required design storm levels. To be consistent with the requirements of the
MS4 Permit, all stormwater BMPs would be designed to drain within 72 hours of the end of the rain event,
which would prevent ponding or flooding onsite. Therefore, the project at Site A would have a less than
significant impact, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Site B consists of sparse weedy vegetation,
manufactured sloped topography consistent with decades of use as an extraction site, and a concrete v‐
ditch in the northern portion to capture and convey stormwater runoff from pooling at the bottom of the
pit, which would include a site‐ and development‐specific hydrology and drainage plan as well as
conformance with LID requirements as required by mitigation measure MM HYD 1. Therefore, with
implementation of mitigation measure MM HYD 1, impacts would be less than significant.
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or;
A significant impact may occur if a project would increase the volume of storm water runoff to a level
which exceeded the capacity of the storm drain system serving a project site. A project‐related significant
adverse effect may also occur if a project would substantially increase the probability that polluted runoff
would reach the storm drain system.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the project would not alter the existing overall drainage
pattern of the site and would be required to implement LID techniques to reduce the stormwater
discharges from Site A. Accordingly, post‐development conditions would result in a lower impact to the
City storm drain system. As such, the project’s stormwater runoff volume at Site A would not exceed the
capacity of the City’s existing stormwater drainage system. In addition, as the project’s on‐site stormwater
drainage system would be installed concurrently with the construction of this project at Site A, it would
be adequately sized to accommodate the anticipated runoff volume.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐102
The proposed land uses that would occur under the project are typically expected to generate the
following pollutants: sediment/turbidity, nutrients, trash and debris, oxygen demanding substances,
bacteria and viruses, oil & grease, and pesticides. However, as discussed in response to Checklist Question
10(a), the project would be required to implement LID features at Site A to reduce the release of pollution
in stormwater runoff to the maximum extent practicable. The project’s proposed catch basins and drop
inlets are designed to screen trash and filter stormwater for pollutants prior to discharge in the public
storm drain system. Therefore, based on the above, the project at Site A would have a less than significant
impact, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Any future development at Site B would be
required to comply with the permitted land uses and development standards associated with the Light
Industrial land use designation and zoning, which would include a site‐ and development‐specific
hydrology and drainage plan as well as conformance with LID requirements as required by mitigation
measure MM HYD 1. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measure MM HYD 1, impacts would
be less than significant.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
A significant impact may occur if a project results in a substantial alteration of flood flows.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Zone X – Other Areas, which is a designation for areas determined to be outside the 100‐
year flood hazard area. The flood control channel, south of Site B, is described by FEMA as having a 0.2
percent‐annual‐chance of flood discharge, contained in the structure.44 However, the project at Site A
does not propose any infrastructure that would impede or redirect flood flows, such as a dam or levee.
Additionally, no streams or rivers are located on Site A and the site is not located within any high‐risk
coastal areas or floodway. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures
are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Site B is also located within FEMA Flood Zone
X – Other Areas, which is a designation for areas determined to be outside the 100‐year flood hazard
area.45 The flood control channel directly south of Site B is described as having a 0.2 percent‐annual‐
chance of flood discharge, contained in the structure. Even so, any future development at Site B would
include a site‐ and development‐specific hydrology and drainage plan as well as conformance with LID
44 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Los Angeles County, California, FEMA Map Number
06037C1636G, effective December 21, 2018, https://hazards‐
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd. Accessed June 29,
2023.
45 See also Federal Emergency Agency Map, Letter of Map Revision 21‐09‐1351P, effective October 3, 2022, which included
revisions to the southern portion of Site B to Zone X.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐103
requirements as required by mitigation measure MM HYD 1. Therefore, with implementation of
mitigation measure MM HYD 1, impacts would be less than significant.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
A significant impact may occur if a project site is sufficiently close to the ocean or other water body to be
potentially at risk of the effects of seismically‐induced tidal phenomena (seiche and tsunami) or if the
project site is located adjacent to a hillside area with soil characteristics that would indicate potential
susceptibility to mudslides or mudflows.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is outside the 100‐year flood hazard area, and the flood
control channel, south of Site B, is described as having a 0.2 percent‐annual‐chance of flood discharge,
contained in the structure.46 Additionally, Site A is approximately 65 miles from the Pacific Ocean and not
within an area potentially impacted by a tsunami. There are also no major water bodies, such as dams, in
the vicinity of Site A that would put the site at risk of inundation by seiche. The project’s catch basins and
inlets would be designed with an internal bypass or overflow system to prevent flooding due to large
storm events exceeding LID‐required design storm levels. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Site B is also located outside the 100‐year
flood hazard area, and the flood control channel directly south of Site B is described as having a 0.2
percent‐annual‐chance of flood discharge, contained in the structure. Even so, any future development
would include a site‐ and development‐specific hydrology and drainage plan as well as conformance with
LID requirements as required by mitigation measure MM HYD 1. Therefore, with implementation of
mitigation measure MM HYD 1, impacts would be less than significant.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
A significant air quality impact may occur if a project is not consistent with water quality control plans or
sustainable groundwater management plans.
SITE A
No Impact. SARWQCB’s Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (River Basin Plan)
contains policies for managing the region’s water quality and include water quality standards (water
quality objectives, beneficial uses, and anti‐degradation policy) for the region. The proposed development
would increase the amount of impervious surface area in the City. This impervious area includes paved
parking areas, walkways, and rooftops; all sources of runoff may carry pollutants and, therefore, has the
potential to degrade water quality, which would conflict with the implementation of the River Basin Plan.
46 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Los Angeles County, California, FEMA Map Number
06037C1636G, effective December 21, 2018, https://hazards‐
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd. Accessed June 2023.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐104
However, as detailed above, the project would be required to prepare and implement a WQMP identifying
anticipated pollutants associated with the project, as well as the specific site design and source/treatment
control measures that would be implemented to prevent the discharge of pollutants into surface and
groundwater. Preliminary project plans include the installation of catch basins and drop inlets designed
to screen trash and filter stormwater for pollutants prior to discharge in the public storm drain system.
On September 16, 2014, the State of California signed into law the Sustainable Groundwater Management
Act (SGMA). The SGMA provides a framework for long‐term sustainable groundwater management across
California and requires governments and water agencies of high and medium priority basins to halt
overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. Under the
roadmap laid out by the legislation, local and regional authorities in medium and high priority
groundwater basins have formed Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) that will oversee the
preparation and implementation of a local Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). The project site overlies
the Chino Groundwater Basin, which is part of the larger Upper Santa Ana Valley Basin. According to the
California Department of Water Resources, the Upper Santa Ana Valley Basin is designated as a Very Low
Priority Basin and, as such, does not require a GSA and no GSP is applicable to the project at Site A.47 In
addition, as detailed in response to Checklist Question 10(b), the project at Site A would not impede
sustainable management of the groundwater basin.
Based on the above, the project at Site A would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality plan or groundwater management plan. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation
measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Like Site A, Site B overlies the Chino
Groundwater Basin, which is designated as a Very Low Priority Basin and does not require a GSA and no
GSP is applicable to Site B. Even so, any future development would include a site‐ and development‐
specific hydrology and drainage plan as well as conformance with LID requirements as required by
mitigation measure MM HYD 1. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measure MM HYD 1,
impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is required for the project at Site B.
MM HYD‐1 At the time future development is proposed for Site B and prior to project approval, the
applicant shall engage a qualified engineer to prepare a site‐ and development‐specific
hydrology and drainage plan in conformance with applicable regulatory requirements and
in conformance with Low Impact Development requirements. The proposed development
shall adhere to the design recommendations associated with these plans to ensure
hydrology, water quality, and drainage impacts are not significant. Such measures could
include, but not necessarily limited to, the following:
Compliance with the Fontana Municipal Code and NPDES permit program, including
47 California Department of Water Resources, Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Basin Prioritization Dashboard,
https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp‐dashboard/final/. Accessed June 2023.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐105
a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and associated Best Management
Practices, to ensure pollutants do not discharge to a water body during construction‐
and operation‐related activities. In addition, long‐term water quality sampling and
monitoring shall be implemented in compliance with the NPDES Industrial General
Permit.
Prepare and implement a site‐ and development‐specific Water Quality
Management Plan in compliance with Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board and Fontana Municipal Code to minimize the release of potential waterborne
pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters and
other water pollutants through Best Management Practices.
Prepare and implement a soil erosion plan pursuant to the Fontana Municipal Code
to minimize soil and windborne erosion.
Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐106
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
Checklist Discussion
a) Physically divide an established community?
A significant impact may occur if a project were sufficiently large enough or otherwise configured in such
a way as to create a physical barrier within an established community (a typical example would be a
project which involved a continuous right‐of‐way such as a roadway which would divide a community and
impede access between parts of the community).
SITE A
No Impact. The approximately seven‐acre Site A is an undeveloped, vacant, graded, relatively flat field of
non‐native grassland and a row of eucalyptus trees along Arrow Boulevard. A couple of eucalyptus trees
are in the field. Land uses immediately surrounding Site A include a ready mix concrete supplier to the
west; commercial industrial business park, water utility building, and vacant land to the north across
Arrow Boulevard; single‐family residential and commercial land uses to the northeast across Arrow
Boulevard; vacant land to the east across Tokay Avenue; and Site B to the south.
The project proposed on Site A is an infill project currently served by fully improved public streets and
other infrastructure and does not involve the subdivision of land or the creation of streets that could alter
the existing surrounding pattern of development or an established community. The project does propose
a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from OS – Open Space to I‐L – Light
Industrial and Zone Change from OS‐R – Open Space Resource to M‐1 – Light Industrial with an Emergency
Shelter Overlay District. Regardless, the project has been designed to be consistent with the pattern of
development of the surrounding area providing adequate access, circulation, and connectivity consistent
with the City’s General Plan. Thus, the project at Site A would not physically divide an established
community. Therefore, there are no impacts related to dividing an established community, and no
mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
No Impact. The approximately 18‐acre Site B is part of a larger 57‐acre vacant mining pit identified as the
Fontana Pit and is also known as the Vulcan Pit. The eastern portion of the pit, which includes Site B,
served as the extraction area and is as much as 120 feet below the surrounding grade. Site B includes a
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐107
security fence around the northern, eastern, and southern perimeter and a raised earthen berm at the
eastern perimeter along Tokay Avenue, behind the security fence. Site B consists of sparse weedy
vegetation, manufactured sloped topography consistent with decades of use as an extraction site, and a
concrete v‐ditch in the northern portion to capture and convey stormwater runoff from pooling at the
bottom of the pit. There is an unpaved access road in the southern portion of Site B connecting the bottom
of the pit to the higher up at‐grade elevation as well as the outline of a percolation pond at the bottom of
the pit. Land uses immediately surrounding Site B include a ready mix concrete supplier and vacant mining
pit to the west; Site A to the north; single‐ and multi‐family residential land uses to the east across Tokay
Avenue; and single‐family residential land uses to the south across the flood control channel and BNSF
Railroad right‐of‐way.
Any future development at Site B would be required to comply with the permitted land uses and
development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use designation and zoning, and would
be designed to be consistent with the pattern of development of the surrounding area providing adequate
access, circulation, and connectivity consistent with the General Plan. Thus, future development of Site B
woud not physically divide an established community. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no
mitigation measures are required.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
A significant impact may occur if a project is inconsistent with the General Plan or zoning designations
currently applicable to the project site and would cause adverse environmental effects, which the General
Plan and zoning ordinance are designed to avoid or mitigate.
Regional Plans
Southern California Association of Governments 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS
On September 3, 2020, the SCAG Regional Council adopted the 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS, also known as
Connect SoCal. The 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS presents a long‐term transportation vision through the year 2045
for the six‐county region of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura
counties. The 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS contains baseline socioeconomic projections that are used as the basis
for SCAG’s transportation planning, and the provision of services by other regional agencies. SCAG’s
overarching strategy for achieving its goals is integrating land use and transportation. SCAG policies are
directed towards the development of regional land use patterns that contribute to reductions in vehicle
miles and improvements to the transportation system. Rooted in past RTP/SCS plans, Connect SoCal’s
“Core Vision” centers on maintaining and better managing the region’s transportation network,
expanding mobility choices by co‐locating housing, jobs, and transit, and increasing investment in transit
and complete streets. The plan’s “Key Connections” augment the “Core Vision” to address challenges
related to the intensification of core planning strategies and increasingly aggressive GHG reduction goals,
and include but are not limited to, Housing Supportive Infrastructure, Go Zones, and Shared Mobility.
Connect SoCal intends to create benefits for the SCAG region by achieving regional goals for sustainability,
transportation equity, improved public health and safety, and enhancement of the regions’ overall quality
of life. These benefits include but are not limited to a five percent reduction in VMT per capita and vehicle
hours traveled by nine percent, increase in work‐related transit trips by two percent, create more than
264,500 new jobs, reduce greenfield development by 29 percent, and, building off of the previous
RTP/SCS, increase the share of new regional household growth occurring in High Quality Transit Area’s by
six percent and the share of new job growth in High Quality Transit Areas by 15 percent.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐108
Air Quality Management Plan
See discussion under Checklist Question 3(a), above, for SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP.
Local Plans
City of Fontana General Plan 2015‐2035
The City of Fontana General Plan 2015‐2035 (General Plan) is a document consisting of sixteen elements,
including, Vision and Principals, Trends for Fontana’s Future, Engaging the Fontana Community,
Community and Neighborhoods, Housing, Building a Healthier Fontana, Conservation, Open Space, Parks
and Trails, Public and Community Services, Community Mobility and Circulation, Infrastructure and Green
Systems Element, Sustainability and Resilience, Economy, Education, and Workforce Development,
Downtown Area Plan, Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design, and Stewardship and Implementation.
Fontana Zoning and Development Code
The City’s Zoning and Development Code is contained in Chapter 30 of the FMC. It establishes official land
use zoning regulations and design guidelines that are consistent with the goals and policies of the City’s
General Plan. Regarding public projects, notwithstanding any other lawful exemptions to zoning
regulations, the provisions of the Zoning and Development Code do not apply to any development
standards or entitlement processes any buildings, improvements, lots, or premises, owned, leased,
operated, or controlled by the City or any City Project for public purposes by the City of Fontana. Such
projects would still require discretionary review by the City.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The following discussion compares the consistency of the proposed Care
Center at Site A with the regional and local plans summarized above.
Consistency with SCAG 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS
The project at Site A, which is comprised of the proposed Care Center, would be built over multiple phases,
and provide a total of up to 150 living units in up to 40,000 square feet of housing. Site A, which is located
in an existing urbanized area, has access to an established network of roads and freeways that provide
local and regional access to the area. Furthermore, the number of daily vehicle trips generated by the
project (390 daily vehicle trips) is below the threshold required to perform a VMT analysis, and as such,
would not conflict with RTP/SCS goals for reducing VMT and its related GHGs. Moreover, the project
would not impact the population or household projections, or associated goals contained in the RTP/SCS,
given the nature of the proposed land use, which is to provide temporary accommodations for the region’s
existing homeless population. The project would generate new employment opportunities both in the
short‐term for construction and long‐term for operation of the project. As shown in the RTP/SCS, the
employment growth forecast for the City shows an anticipated increase from 56,700 jobs in 2016 to
75,100 jobs by 2045, an approximately 32 percent increase (18,400 new jobs).48 The project’s
comparatively small employment growth would be consistent with the employment growth projections
in the RTP/SCS. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the applicable objectives of the 2020‐2045
RTP/SCS.
48 SCAG, Connect SoCal, Technical Report, Demographics and Growth Forecast, Adopted September 3, 2020.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐109
Consistency with SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP
See discussion under Checklist Question 3(a), above, for 2022 AQMP.
Consistency with City’s General Plan
Site A is within the OS ‐ Open Space General Plan land use designation, which includes natural areas;
publicly owned areas with slopes of 20 percent or greater or subject to wildfire; uses including quarries,
flood control channels, ground water percolation basins and agriculture. Only structures related to the
management of resources are permitted. The Applicant has requested a General Plan Amendment to
revise the land use designation of the entire project site from OS – Open Space to I‐L – Light Industrial,
which includes employee intensive uses, including business parks, research and development, technology
centers, corporate and support office uses, clean industry, supporting retail uses, truck and equipment
sales and related services are allowed. This land use designation restricts development intensity to a floor
area ratio (FAR) of 0.1 to 0.6 per acre. In addition, the project also proposes an Emergency Shelter Overlay
District, which is intended to provide for supportive and transitional housing uses on specific properties
within the light industrial zoning district.
The project proposes a Care Center to assist residents in the San Bernardino County area who are
homeless, at threat of being homeless, and/or are experiencing medical and/or mental challenges by
helping them with their housing stability, life skills and/or employment income stability, and self‐
sufficiency to return to a stable housing situation and overcome and avoid a return to homelessness. The
development on Site A would have a FAR of 0.15 at full buildout.
The Site A is located south of I‐G – General Industrial designated properties developed with commercial
industrial uses, where nearby parcels to the east, across Tokay Avenue, are designated WMXU‐1 –
Walkable Mixed‐Use Downtown and Corridors and R‐PC – Residential Planning Community and developed
with residential uses. The parcels directly adjacent to the west and south are designated OS – Open Space
and developed with a vacant mining pit.
Site A is an underutilized, undeveloped vacant infill site located within City limits. Therefore, it would be
appropriate to redesignate the project site from OS – Open Space to I‐L – Light Industrial for the
construction of the proposed Care Center. With approval of the General Plan Amendment and Emergency
Shelter Overlay District, the project would be consistent with this land use designation as the I‐L
designation, combined with the Emergency Shelter Overlay District standards, which allows for supportive
and transitional housing uses.
Other General Plan policies that are applicable to the project include policies related to the form,
character, and quality of life in the communities and neighborhoods where people live, which includes
working with regional partners to address homelessness in the City. The proposed administration building
would meet all the City Building Code and Title 24 requirements. The modular homes likewise would meet
HUD design requirements including any applicable energy efficiency and sustainability features. As such,
the building would incorporate eco‐friendly building materials, systems, and features wherever feasible,
water saving/low‐flow fixtures, non‐volatile organic compound paints/adhesives, drought‐tolerant
planting, and high‐performance building envelopment in conformance with Code requirements. The
project would enhance the character of the project site and its vicinity by constructing a Care Center
compatible with the existing commercial industrial and residential uses surrounding the site, and has been
designed to create a visually cohesive, high‐quality development. The initial development of the project
at Site A would be comprised of two phases wherein a total of 48 living units (provided in 24 modular
buildings that would be 10 feet by 40 feet each for a total of approximately 9,600 square feet of housing)
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐110
and a 6,000 square foot administration building, all one‐story in height, would be provided in Phase 1.
Phase 2A would develop approximately one acre and would include a sports court, open space, gathering
places, and an 18,200‐square‐foot pad for future transitional housing. The project would maintain at least
a 15‐foot setback from the eastern property line. Up to a total of five subsequent future phases would be
constructed to bring the Care Center total to up to 150 living units in 40,000 square feet of housing to Site
A with either modular homes or stick built construction for the future housing phases.
Additionally, the project would be consistent with General Plan policies related to public safety as the
entire community would be secured by a perimeter gate and each care neighborhood would be secured
by a gate and would only be accessible through the administration building. The project would also include
other security features such as video surveillance of the property, alarm systems for the proposed
administrative building, and lighting at street level. The project would also protect water quality through
use of BMPs during construction and operation to control site runoff. The project would also be in
conformance with CBC requirements that would ensure that impacts would remain less than significant.
Overall, with approval of the General Plan Amendment and Emergency Shelter Overlay District, the
project would result in a less than significant impact as it would not conflict with the applicable policies in
the General Plan.
Consistency with City’s Zoning and Development Code
Land Use
All on‐site development activities are subject to the Fontana Zoning and Development Code (“Zoning
Code”) of the FMC. The Zoning Code includes development standards for the various districts in the City.
The project site is zoned OS‐R – Open Space Resource. The OS‐R zone was established to accommodate
quarries, flood control channels, groundwater percolation basins, and agriculture. The OS‐R category
allows for the continued productive use of natural resources and the character of these areas is intended
to remain as open space.49 The project proposes a Zone Change from OS‐R – Open Space Resource to M‐
1 – Light Industrial as well as an Emergency Shelter Overlay District. The M‐1 zone is an industrial zoning
district that accommodates employee‐intensive uses, such as business parks, research and technology
centers, offices, and supporting retail uses, high cube/warehousing which does not permit heavy
manufacturing, processing of raw materials, or businesses logistics which generate high volumes of truck
traffic.50 The Emergency Shelter Overlay District is intended to provide for supportive and transitional
housing uses on specific properties within the light industrial land use designation.51 Therefore, the
project’s proposed land use would be allowed with approval of the Zone Change with an Emergency
Shelter Overlay District.
Lot Size and Lot Coverage
The Emergency Shelter Overlay District requires each lot to have 20,000 square feet of land area with a
minimum lot width of 150 feet and a minimum lot depth of 150 feet. The project site, which totals
approximately seven acres, is approximately 635 feet wide and approximately 305 feet deep, therefore,
complies with the lot area requirement.52
49 FMC Section 30‐602(3).
50 FMC Section 30‐522(1).
51 FMC Section 30‐651.
52 FMC Table No. 30‐655.A.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐111
The Emergency Shelter Overlay District allows a maximum FAR of 0.50 and 60 percent lot coverage. The
project site, which totals approximately seven acres, would have an FAR of 0.15 and would not exceed
the 60 percent maximum lot coverage, therefore, complies with the lot coverage requirements.53
Height
The Emergency Shelter Overlay District permits a maximum height of 100 feet.54 Development at Site A
would include one‐story buildings that would generally range from 10 – 15 feet in height, and as such, the
proposed building heights conform with the height requirements.
Setbacks
The Emergency Shelter Overlay District is required to provide front, rear, interior side, and corner/street
side yard setbacks. The project includes a 20‐foot setback for the proposed parking area from the northern
property line adjacent to Arrow Boulevard (Primary Highway) and a minimum of 15‐foot setback from the
eastern property line for the proposed parking area and modular buildings adjacent to Tokay Avenue
(south of Arrow Boulevard is classified as a “Local Street” and north is classified as “Collector Street”). The
provision of these setbacks minimizes the project’s potential impacts upon surrounding properties, while
remaining consistent with the intent of Zoning Code’s yard setback requirements.55
Parking
The Emergency Shelter Overlay District requires for transitional housing 1 space per room, family, or
resident; 1 space per employee; 1 space per three rooms, families, or residents for guests; bike rack for 5
bicycles; and 1 van space.56 The project at Site A would provide a surface parking lot and vehicle drive aisle
that would be sited between the administration building and Arrow Boulevard. Vehicles accessing the site
would use the proposed driveway along Arrow Boulevard and exit the site via the proposed driveway
along Tokay Avenue. An on‐site drive aisle would allow vehicles to drive to the administration building or
the surface parking lot. The surface parking lot includes 65 parking spaces at a bike rack for 5 bicycles near
the administration building. Subsequent phases of development may include new vehicular access points
along Arrow Boulevard and additional surface parking lots to meet FMC requirements. The initial phases
of development include 48 living units, and therefore, would require 48 parking spaces for facility parking
and 16 parking spaces would guests and 1 van parking space. Given the nature of the land use, most of
the residents would not have personal vehicles, resulting in excessive parking spaces that can be utilized
by staff as well. As such, the project at Site A is reasonably expected to provide ample parking space and
not result in on‐street parking.
Landscaping and Open Space
The Emergency Shelter Overlay District requires the landscaping be used alone or in conjunction with
other features to reduce potential visual and light and glare conflicts. Landscape setbacks along public
rights‐of‐way should incorporate landscape buffers with undulating and variable height earth‐mounding
(berms), and/or low walls, preferably in a three‐tier planting design that includes groundcover and
flowering plants, shrubs and vines, and trees. Landscaping shall be in scale with adjacent structures,
streets, and public spaces, and be sized appropriately when fully grown.57
53 FMC Table No. 30‐655.A.
54 FMC Table No. 30‐655.A.
55 FMC Table No. 30‐655.B.
56 FMC Table No. 30‐655.C.
57 FMC Section 30‐655(f).
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐112
Each care neighborhood would have its own open space and access to on‐site amenities, such as sport
courts, gathering places, exercise equipment, and walking trails. Phase 2B would include the construction
of sports court for use by residents. Benches would be included with Phase 1 and Phase 2A construction.
Phase 1 would include approximately 65,000 square feet of landscaping, and Phase 2A would include
approximately 25,000 square feet of landscaping for a total of approximately 90,000 square feet of
landscaping in the initial development phases. On‐site landscaping would include a three‐tier planting
design of groundcover, shrubs, and trees. Trees would be in the open space areas and new street trees
along Arrow Boulevard and Tokay Avenue would be planted.
The Zone Change would not cause a significant environmental impact, especially as Site A is surrounded
by a commercial industrial to the north, residential development to the east, and a vacant mining pit to
the west and south.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis above, with approval of the General Plan Amendment and the Zone Change as well
as an Emergency Shelter Overlay District, the development of Site A would be substantially consistent
with applicable goals, policies, and objectives in local and regional plans that govern development on Site
A. Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable land use plans adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and as such, impacts would be less than significant, and
no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. The following discussion compares the consistency of the project at Site B
with the regional and local plans summarized above.
Consistency with SCAG 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS
Site B, which is in an existing urbanized area, has access to an established network of roads and freeways
that provide local and regional access to the area. Site B would be developed consistent with the Light
Industrial land use designation and corresponding zoning as well as consistent with the RTP/SCS
projections. Future development of Site B would generate new employment opportunities both in the
short‐term for construction and long‐term for operation of a project. As shown in the RTP/SCS, the
employment growth forecast for the City shows an anticipated increase from 56,700 jobs in 2016 to
75,100 jobs by 2045, an approximately 32 percent increase (18,400 new jobs).58 Site B’s future
employment growth would be consistent with the employment growth projections in the RTP/SCS.
Consistency with SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP
See discussion under Checklist Question 3(a), above, for 2022 AQMP.
Consistency with City’s General Plan
The project proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the entire project
site from OS – Open Space to I‐L – Light Industrial. Future uses at Site B would be consistent with the Light
Industrial land use designation and corresponding zoning. With approval of the General Plan Amendment,
future development would be consistent with the I‐L land use designation.
58 SCAG, Connect SoCal, Technical Report, Demographics and Growth Forecast, Adopted September 3, 2020.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐113
Like Site A, Site B is an underutilized, undeveloped vacant infill site located within City limits. Therefore, it
would be appropriate to redesignate the project site from OS – Open Space to I‐L – Light Industrial for
future development as industrial and commercial land uses are in the vicinity and the former mining pit
is abandoned and can no longer be feasibly or economically utilized for extraction.
Other General Plan policies that are applicable to Site B include policies related to the form, character,
and quality of life in the communities and neighborhoods where people live. Future development would
meet all the CBC and Title 24 requirements. As such, future construction would incorporate eco‐friendly
building materials, systems, and features wherever feasible, water saving/low‐flow fixtures, non‐volatile
organic compound paints/adhesives, drought‐tolerant planting, and high‐performance building
envelopment in conformance with Code requirements. Future development would enhance the character
of Site B and its vicinity by constructing a project compatible with the existing commercial industrial and
residential uses surrounding the site, and would be designed to create a visually cohesive, high‐quality
development.
Additionally, future development would be consistent with General Plan policies related to public safety
by implementing possible security features such as video surveillance, alarm systems, and lighting at
street level. Future development would also protect water quality through use of BMPs during
construction and operation to control site runoff and would also be in conformance with California
Building Code requirements that would ensure that impacts would remain less than significant.
Overall, with approval of the General Plan Amendment future development for Site B would result in a
less than significant impact as it would not conflict with the applicable policies in the General Plan.
Consistency with City’s Zoning and Development Code
Land Use
Like Site A, Site B is zoned OS‐R – Open Space Resource. The project proposes a Zone Change from OS‐R
– Open Space Resource to M‐1 – Light Industrial. Future uses at this site would be consistent with the
Light Industrial land use designation and corresponding zoning. The OS‐R zone was established to
accommodate quarries, flood control channels, groundwater percolation basins, and agriculture. The OS‐
R category allows for the continued productive use of natural resources and the character of these areas
is intended to remain as open space; however, as the mining pit has been abandoned and no longer be
utilized for extraction, it is no longer in state of productive use. The M‐1 zone is an industrial zoning district
that accommodates employee‐intensive uses, such as business parks, research and technology centers,
offices, and supporting retail uses, high cube/warehousing which does not permit heavy manufacturing,
processing of raw materials, or businesses logistics which generate high volumes of truck traffic.
Therefore, future proposed land uses would be allowed with approval of the Zone Change.
Lot Size and Lot Coverage
The M‐1 zone requires each lot to have 20,000 square feet of land area with a minimum lot width of 150
feet and a minimum lot depth of 150 feet. The project site, which totals approximately 18 acres, is
approximately 647 feet wide and approximately 1,266 feet deep, therefore, complies with the M‐1 zone
lot area requirement.59
59 FMC Table No. 30‐536A.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐114
The M‐1 zone allows a maximum FAR of 0.60 and 60 percent lot coverage. Any future development on
would be required to conform to the M‐1 zone lot FAR and lot coverage.60
Height
M‐1 zone permits a maximum height of 75 feet.61 Any future development on Site B would be required to
conform with the building heights of the M‐1 zone height requirements.
Setbacks
The M‐1 zone is required to provide street, interior, and rear yard setbacks. The M‐1 zone is required to
have a 5‐foot setback from the northern property line adjacent to Site A and a 20‐foot setback from the
eastern property line adjacent to Tokay Avenue (south of Arrow Boulevard is classified as a “Local Street”
and north is classified as “Collector Street”), as well as a 5‐foot interior and rear setbacks from the vacant
mining pit along the western perimeter and the BNSF Railroad right‐of‐way along the southern
perimeter.62 Any future development on Site B would be required to conform any setback requirements.
Parking
Any future development on the project site would conform with the M‐1 zone parking requirements.
Landscaping and Open Space
The M‐1 zone requires the total of all landscaped areas to be no less than 15 percent of the total area of
the site not covered by buildings, structures, or areas used for outside storage or loading. All yards and
setback areas, and all other portions of a lot not paved or occupied by a structure, or areas used for outside
storage or loading, shall be landscaped with plant material and irrigated. Furthermore, the site shall be
landscaped with a combination of 24‐inch box size trees, decorative hardscape, shrubs, and groundcover.
Any future development on the project site would conform with the M‐1 zone landscape requirements.
The Zone Change would not cause a significant environmental impact, especially as the site is surrounded
by Site A to the north, which would also be rezoned to Light Industrial, residential development to the
east, and the balance of the vacant mining pit to the west.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis above, with approval of the General Plan Amendment and the Zone Change future
development of Site B would be required to be substantially consistent with applicable goals, policies, and
objectives in local and regional plans that govern development on Site B. Any future development at Site
B would be required to comply with the permitted land uses and development standards associated with
the Light Industrial land use designation and zoning. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant,
and no mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
None required for either Site A or Site B.
60 FMC Table No. 30‐536A.
61 FMC Table No. 30‐536A.
62 FMC Table No. 30‐536B.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐115
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be a value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan,
or other land use plan?
Checklist Discussion
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?
A significant impact may occur if a project is located in an area used or available for extraction of a
regionally‐important mineral resource and the project converted an existing or potential future regionally‐
important mineral extraction use to another reuse or if the project affected access to a site used or was
potentially available for regionally‐important mineral resource extraction.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. Site A is located within an area designated by the Department of
Conservation as MRZ‐2 – Areas of Identified Mineral Resource Significance and is designated as an area
where geologic data indicate that significant Portland Cement Concrete‐Grade aggregate resources are
present.63 Moreover, Site A is designated OS – Open Space and zoned OS‐R Open Space Resource, the
purpose of which is to prevent premature development of significant aggregate and agricultural resource
areas according to the General Plan Conservation Element.
The project would redesignate and rezone Site A to I‐L and M‐1 for light industrial, respectively, as well as
an Emergency Shelter Overlay District. Site A has not historically been used for mineral resources. Site A
was used for dryland farming at least through 1938, but the agricultural use was removed and replaced
with two residential building by 1949.64 The project would develop Site A with the proposed Care Center,
which includes transitional housing for residents experiencing homelessness. The project would not
involve mineral extraction activities, nor are any such activities presently occurring on Site A. Accordingly,
the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region
63 California Department of Conservation, Updated Mineral Land Classification Map for Portland Cement Concrete‐Grade
Aggregate in the San Bernardino Production‐Consumption (P‐C) Region, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California
2008.
64 Table 5‐2 in the Phase I ESA, included as Appendix D to this Initial Study.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐116
and residents of the state. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures
are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. Like Site A, Site B is located within an area designated by the Department
of Conservation as MRZ‐2 – Areas of Identified Mineral Resource Significance and is designated as an area
where geologic data indicate that significant Portland Cement Concrete‐Grade aggregate resources are
present.65 Moreover, Site B is designated OS – Open Space and zoned OS‐R Open Space Resource, the
purpose of which is to prevent premature development of significant aggregate and agricultural resource
areas according to the General Plan Conservation Element.
The gravel mine operation was in operation from approximately the 1940s until the 1990s, and the gravel
mine did not expand onto Site B until sometime between 1975 and 1985. Site B was used as an extraction
area for the mine’s operation and is as much as 120 feet below the surrounding grade. Site B consists of
sparse weedy vegetation, manufactured sloped topography consistent with decades of use as an
extraction site, and a concrete v‐ditch in the northern portion to capture and convey stormwater runoff
from pooling at the bottom of the pit. Whereas the existing General Plan designation and zoning are
intended to preclude premature development of a mineral resource area, the mining operation has long
ceased at Site B and the mine remains vacant as it can no longer be feasibly or economically utilized for
mineral extraction. As such, the redesignation and rezoning to Light Industrial would not constitute
premature development of a significant aggregate resource area as the mining operation is no longer
viable following multiple decades of extraction activities. Any future development at Site B would be
required to comply with the permitted land uses and development standards associated with the Light
Industrial land use designation and zoning. Therefore, as mining operations are no longer viable, impacts
would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
A significant impact may occur if a project is located in an area used or available for extraction of a locally‐
important mineral resource extraction and the project converted an existing or potential future locally‐
important mineral extraction use to another use or if the project affected access to a site used or
potentially available for locally‐important mineral resource extraction.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in response to Checklist Question 12(a), above, Site A is not,
nor has been, utilized for mineral extraction and is not located within an oil field or drilling area. The
project would develop Site A with the proposed Care Center, which includes transitional housing for
residents experiencing homelessness. The project would not involve mineral extraction activities, nor are
any such activities presently occurring on Site A. As such, the project at Site A would not result in the loss
65 California Department of Conservation, Updated Mineral Land Classification Map for Portland Cement Concrete‐Grade
Aggregate in the San Bernardino Production‐Consumption (P‐C) Region, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California
2008.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐117
of availability of a locally‐important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in response to Checklist Question 12(a), above, Site B is no
longer utilized for mineral extraction and the operation is no longer viable following multiple decades of
extraction activities. Moreover, Site B is not in an oil field or drilling area. Any future development at Site
B would be required to comply with the permitted land uses and development standards associated with
the Light Industrial land use designation and zoning. Therefore, as the mining operation is no longer viable,
impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
None required for either Site A or Site B.
Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐118
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
2 miles of a public airport or public use airport,
expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
The following is based on the findings of the Homeless Prevention Resources & Care Center, Noise Impact
Study, City of Fontana, CA, prepared by MD Acoustics, July 6, 2023 (“Noise Study”). The Noise Study is
available in Appendix E to this Initial Study.
Checklist Discussion
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?
Fundamentals of Noise
Sound is technically described in terms of amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit
of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). The decibel 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. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound
level at all frequencies, a special frequency‐ dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to
human sensitivity. The A‐weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating
against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.
Noise, on the other hand, is typically defined as unwanted sound. A typical noise environment consists of
a base of steady “background” noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources.
Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These can vary from
an occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtually continuous noise from, for example, traffic on a major
highway.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐119
Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people.
Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise upon people
is largely dependent 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 – An Leq, or equivalent energy noise level, is the average acoustic energy content of noise for
a stated period. Thus, the Leq of a time‐varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if
they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community
impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or
the night.
Lmax – The maximum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period.
Lmin – The minimum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period.
CNEL – The Community Noise Equivalent Level is a 24‐hour average Leq with a 5 dBA “weighting”
during the hours of 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the
hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime,
respectively.
Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise
levels during the day, night, or over a 24‐hour period. For residential uses, environmental noise levels are
generally considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60–70 dBA range, and high
above 70 dBA. Noise levels greater than 85 dBA can cause temporary or permanent hearing loss. Examples
of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings with noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet suburban
residential streets with noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep.
Examples of moderate level noise environments are urban residential or semi‐commercial areas (typically
55– 60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments
adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with noisier urban residential or residential‐
commercial areas (60–75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65–80 dBA).
It is widely accepted that in the community noise environment the average healthy ear can barely perceive
CNEL noise level changes of 3 dBA. CNEL changes from 3 to 5 dBA may be noticed by some individuals
who are extremely sensitive to changes in noise. A 5 dBA CNEL increase is readily noticeable, while the
human ear perceives a 10 dBA CNEL increase as a doubling of sound.
Regulatory Setting
State of California
The State of California has established noise insulation standards as outlined in Title 24 which in some
cases requires acoustical analyses to outline exterior noise levels and to ensure interior noise levels do
not exceed the interior threshold. The state mandates that the legislative body of each county and city
adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize
the land use compatibility guidelines published by the State Department of Health Services. The guidelines
rank noise land use compatibility in terms of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally
unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable. However, the City has not adopted the state’s noise standards
and instead uses a threshold of 65 dBA CNEL and 65 dBA Leq12 for sensitive uses.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐120
City of Fontana
Existing planning policies and noise regulations applicable to noise within the City are presented in the
Noise and Safety Element of the City’s General Plan and within the FMC.
City of Fontana General Plan
The primary noise sources in the project site area are transportation noise and stationary noise sources.
Transportation noise refers to noise from automobile use, trucking, and nearby airport operations. Typical
stationary noise sources include but are not limited to HVAC systems, pump stations, cooling
towers/evaporative condensers, lift stations, emergency generators, boilers, steam valves, steam
turbines, generator, fans, air compressors, heavy equipment, conveyor systems, transformers, pile
drivers, grinders, drill rigs, gas or diesel motors, welders, cutting equipment, outdoor speakers, blowers,
and pneumatic equipment.
The Noise and Safety Element of the City’s General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions that are
intended to avoid or reduce noise impacts related to transportation, stationary, and construction‐related
noise sources. An action associated with Goal 8, the General Plan states that the following uses shall be
considered noise‐sensitive and discouraged in areas exceeding 65 dBA CNEL: residential uses, hospitals,
rest homes, long‐term care facilities, and mental care facilities; and the following uses shall be considered
noise‐sensitive and discouraged in areas exceeding 65 Leq12 (Equivalent Continuous Sound Level): schools,
libraries, places of worship, and passive recreation uses.
The General Plan also requires site‐specific noise studies for proposed development projects and
procedures for an applicant to follow to reduce impacts related to heavy construction equipment moving
and operating on a project site during construction, grading, demolition, and paving.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
The City’s Noise Ordinance consists of Sections 18‐61 to 18‐67 of the FMC. These sections include noise‐
related definitions, discuss consequences for violation of the code, lists specifically prohibited noises, and
outlines the allowed procedure for the use of sound trucks and sound amplifying aircraft.
Section 18‐63 states that any noise that disturbs persons of ordinary sensibilities is unlawful. It also
outlines the penalties for violating the Noise Ordinance.
Section 18‐36 lists specific prohibited noises as they disturb a person of ordinary sensibilities. These
sources including horns and signaling devices, sound amplifying equipment, animals, exhausts, vehicle
and load defects, loading and unloading activities, construction during the hours of 6:00 PM to 7:00 AM
on weekdays and 5:00 PM to 8:00 AM on Saturday, noise near schools, courts, places of worship, and
hospitals, transportation of metal pillars, specific construction equipment between 6:00 PM and 7:00 AM,
and blowers between the hours of 6:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays and 5:00 PM to 8:00 AM on
Saturdays.
Section 30‐469 outlines residential noise standards for interior and exterior uses. Within a residential
zone, no use shall create a noise greater than 65 dB at an exterior use and 45 dB at an interior use. The
code does not specify the weighting scale or specific location of the measurement, but generally
environmental noise standards are in dBA and taken at the property line of a useable area.
Section 30‐542 is similar to Sections 30‐469 and 30‐470 for noises occurring on industrial properties.
Daytime residential levels, however, are limited to 70 dBA at any residential property line and 65 dBA at
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐121
night at any residential property line. This section also prohibits vibration which can be felt beyond the
property line.
Section 30‐943(a)(6) outlines noise restrictions for extraction permits including daytime limits of 55 dBA
at residential properties, 60 dBA at commercial properties at any time, and 70 dBA at industrial properties
at any time. These limits are reiterated in Section 9‐62(c)(3)(d)(3).
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The following noise analysis summarizes the findings of the Noise Study for
the proposed Care Center at Site A based on the noise standards above.
Existing Conditions
The State of California defines sensitive receptors as those land uses that require serenity or otherwise
adversely affected by noise events or conditions. Schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, single and
multiple‐family residential areas, including transient lodging, motels and hotel uses make up most of these
types of areas. The nearest sensitive receptors include adjacent residences to the east across Tokay
Avenue.
Noise measurements were taken on March 31, 2023, to obtain a baseline of the existing noise
environment. Four short‐term 15‐minute noise measurements were conducted at and near the project
site, and long‐term data was extrapolated based on traffic patterns. Appendix A to the Noise Study
includes photos, the field sheet, and measures noise data. Figure 9, Noise Measurement Locations,
illustrates the location of the noise measurements taken for the project’s Noise Study. The results of the
short‐term noise data are presented on Table 12, Short‐Term Noise Measurement Data.
Table 12
Short‐Term Noise Measurement Data
Location Start Time Stop Time Leq Lmax Lmin Estimated
CNEL a
NM1 3:21 PM 3:36 PM 73.3 94.5 54.1 75.2
NM2 4:07 PM 4:22 PM 72.2 88.6 57.0 72.6
NM3 4:42 PM 4:57 PM 58.1 77.8 43.6 58.5
NM4 5:21 PM 5:36 PM 54.7 71.7 45.9 55.4
Notes:
Noise measurements were obtained on March 31, 2023. Noise monitoring locations are illustrated in Figure 9.
a CNEL estimates are based off typical traffic patterns.
Noise data indicates the ambient noise level ranged from 54 to 73 dBA Leq at the surrounding uses. NM1
represents the roadway noise along Citrus Avenue and NM2 represents the roadway noise along Arrow
Boulevard. NM3 is the noise level at the residences east of the project site. NM4 was taken on the western
boundary of Site A.
Project Construction Noise
The degree of construction noise may vary for different areas of the project at Site A and also vary
depending on the construction activities. The EPA has compiled data regarding the noise characteristics
of typical construction activities, which are utilized in the Noise Study and these noise characteristics are
shown on Table 6 of the Noise Study.
Figure 9Noise Measurement Locations
džŚŝďŝƚ
DĞĂƐƵƌĞŵĞŶƚ>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ
ϭϵ
^ƚƵĚLJDĞƚŚŽĚĂŶĚWƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞ
η с^ŚŽƌƚͲdĞƌŵ
DŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ
Site A
ϭ
Ϯ
ϰ
ϯ
,ŽŵĞůĞƐƐŶĞƐƐWƌĞǀĞŶƚŝŽŶZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐΘĂƌĞĞŶƚĞƌEŽŝƐĞ/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚLJŝƚLJŽĨ&ŽŶƚĂŶĂ͕
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐123
Construction is anticipated to occur during the permissible hours as described in FMC Section 18‐36, which
are noted above in the regulatory setting discussion. Construction noise is considered a short‐term impact
and would be considered significant if construction occurs outside the allowable times as described in the
FMC. Construction noise would have a temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise level above
the existing within the project vicinity. Sensitive land uses surrounding Site A include existing residential
to the southeast and northeast. These uses are an average of 350 feet away from construction activities
and as close as 60 feet from construction activities.
Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full
power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Noise levels are in Table 13,
Construction Noise Levels at Existing Adjacent Residences. A likely worst‐case construction noise scenario
assumes equipment operating as close as 60 feet and an average of 350 feet from the nearest sensitive
receptor. The Lmax levels represent maximum levels when construction occurs adjacent to the residential
receptors. Leq levels represent the average construction noise level during each phase.
Table 13
Construction Noise Levels at Existing Adjacent Residences
Phase dBA Lmax dBA Leq
Site Preparation 81.9 62.7
Grading 82.9 64.9
Building Construction 81.9 63.7
Paving 81.9 62.2
Architectural Coating 75.9 51.5
Notes: Construction equipment is based on the CalEEMod defaults used in the project’s AQ/GHG/EA Study.
The grading and building phases of on‐site construction activities would generate the highest temporary
noise levels. The loudest construction equipment on Site A would be tractors, graders, scrapers, rollers,
and dozers. Construction noise would range from 76 to 83 dBA Lmax and 52 to 65 dBA Leq at the nearest
sensitive receptors. These estimated noise levels would fall within the City’s 65 dBA Leq residential limit,
and the overall noise level would increase by a maximum of 8 dB Leq at the adjacent residential properties
during construction. Construction activities are required to adhere to the City’s construction‐related noise
reduction measures that are required by the General Plan. Specifically, the Applicant or its Successor is
required to adhere to the following procedures as an existing regulatory compliance measure:
Construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be properly outfitted and maintained with noise‐
reduction devices to minimize construction generated noise.
Laydown and construction vehicle staging areas shall be located away from noise sensitive land
uses.
Stationary noise sources such as generators shall be located away from noise sensitive land uses.
Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent shall
be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow surrounding property owners to contact
the job superintendent 24 hours a day to report noise and other nuisance‐related issues, if
necessary. The point of contact shall be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and have authority
to commit additional assets to control dust after hours, on weekends, and on holidays. In the
event that the City of Fontana receives a pattern of noise complaints, appropriate corrective
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐124
actions shall be implemented, such as on‐site noise monitoring during construction activities, and
a report of the action shall be provided to the reporting party.
As noted above, construction noise is considered a short‐term impact and would be considered significant
if construction occurs outside the allowable times as described in the FMC; however, project construction
would only occur during the allowable times as set forth in FMC Section 18‐36. Moreover, the project’s
construction‐related noise would also be considered less than significant through adherence to the above
enumerated regulatory compliance measure from the City’s General Plan. Therefore, impacts are
considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Project Operational Noise – Off‐Site Traffic Noise
The main source of noise due to traffic near Site A is due to traffic from Arrow Boulevard. The project trip
generation provided in the project’s trip generation analysis prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan
Engineers (Appendix F to this Initial Study) estimates the project would generate 390 daily trips. The
potential off‐site noise impacts caused by the increase in vehicular traffic as a result of the project were
calculated at a distance of 50 feet. The noise level at 50 feet is representative of approximate distances
to existing commercial uses close to Arrow Boulevard impacted by the project. The noise contours were
calculated for the existing conditions and the existing conditions plus project. There would be a small
increase in traffic noise of 0.1 dBA at 50 feet from the centerline of Arrow Boulevard as a result of the
project’s 390 daily trips.66 As it takes a change in noise level of 3 dB for the human ear to perceive a
difference, this project’s increase to off‐site traffic noise, therefore, would be less than significant, and no
mitigation measures are required.
Project Operational Noise – Stationary Noise
Stationary noise impacts would be considered significant if they result in exceedances of 65 dBA Leq at
residential uses according to FMC Section 30‐469 as discussed in the regulatory setting above, or if the
noise causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person according to FMC Section 18‐63 as
discussed above. Implementation of the project at Site A may result in stationary noise related to outdoor
activities, idling vehicles, and HVAC systems. The future worst‐case noise level projections were modeled
using referenced sound level data for the various stationary on‐site sources. The model assumes that the
noise sources are operating simultaneously and continuously (worst‐case scenario) when the noise would,
more realistically, be intermittent and lower in noise level. The project‐only noise level at the nearest
residential uses would be 41 dBA Leq and will be well below the City’s residential noise standard.67 The
operational noise levels at the adjacent property lines are not anticipated to increase the existing ambient
noise specifically from development of Phase 1 and Phase 2A. Subsequent future phases would be even
farther away from noise sensitive land uses located east of Site A. Therefore, impacts from stationary
noise would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project would redesignate and rezone
Site B from Open Space to Light Industrial. Any future development at Site B would be required to comply
with the permitted land uses and development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use
designation and zoning. Moreover, to ensure noise impacts are not significant, mitigation measure MM
66 Table 3 in the Noise Study, available as Appendix E to this Initial Study.
67 Receptor 5 on Table 4 and Exhibit F in the Noise Study, available as Appendix E to this Initial Study.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐125
NOI 1 requires a site‐ and development‐specific noise and vibration impact assessment for any future
development at Site B, which is also required by the City’s General Plan. Therefore, with implementation
of mitigation measure MM NOI 1, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
A significant impact may occur if a project were to generate excessive vibration during construction or
operation.
Fundamentals of Vibration
Vibration is an oscillatory motion that can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, and
acceleration. Unlike noise, vibration is not a common environmental issue, as it is unusual for vibration
from vehicle sources to be perceptible. Common sources of vibration may include trains, construction
activities, and certain industrial operations.
High levels of vibration may cause damage to buildings or even physical personal injury. However,
vibration levels rarely affect human health outside the personal operation of certain construction
equipment or industrial tools. Instead, most people consider environmental vibration to be an annoyance
that may affect concentration or disturb sleep. Background vibration in residential areas is usually not
perceptible, and perceptible indoor vibrations are generally caused by sources within buildings
themselves, such as slamming doors or heavy footsteps. Vibration from traffic on smooth roadways is
rarely perceptible, even from larger vehicles such as buses or trucks; the threshold of human perception
of vibration is approximately 0.01‐0.02 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV).68
Vibration Threshold Criteria
The thresholds from the Caltrans’ Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (2013)
provide general thresholds and guidelines as to the vibration damage potential from vibratory impacts,
which are shown on Table 14, Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria.
Table 14
Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria
Structure and Condition
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08
Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1
Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25
Older residential structures 0.5 0.3
New residential structures 1.0 0.5
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5
Note: “Transient sources” create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. “Continuous/frequent intermittent
sources” include impact pile drivers, pogo‐stick compactors, crack‐and‐seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory
compaction equipment.
Source: Caltrans, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2013, Table 19.
68 Caltrans, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2013.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐126
City of Fontana Municipal Code
FMC Section 30‐470 states that any vibration occurring on a residential property which can be felt beyond
the property line is prohibited.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The following vibration analysis summarizes the findings of the Noise Study
for the proposed Care Center at Site A.
Project Construction Vibration
Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent land uses. The construction of
the project would not require the use of equipment such as pile drivers, which are known to generate
substantial construction vibration levels. The primary vibration source during construction may be from a
vibratory roller. A vibratory roller has a vibration impact of 0.210 in/sec PPV at 25 feet, which is
perceptible, but below any risk to architectural damage. Table 15, Vibration Source Levels for Construction
Equipment, gives approximate vibration levels for construction activities. This data provides a reasonable
estimate for a wide range of soil conditions.
Table 15
Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment Peak Particle Velocity
(inches/second) at 25 feet
Approximate Vibration Level
LV (dVB) at 25 feet
Pile driver (impact) 1.518 (upper range) 112
0.644 (typical) 104
Pile driver (sonic) 0.734 upper range 105
0.170 typical 93
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Hydromill 0.008 in soil 66
(slurry wall) 0.017 in rock 75
Vibratory Roller 0.21 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006.
All proposed construction is at least 100 feet from any existing structures. At a distance of 100 feet, a
vibratory roller would yield a worst‐case 0.046 in/sec PPV, which may be perceptible, but below any risk
of damage (0.5 in/sec PPV is the threshold of old residential structures as shown on Table 14, above).
Therefore, the construction‐related vibration impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation
measures are required.
Project Operational Vibration
There are no vibrational uses proposed, and no vehicles visiting Site A would produce significant vibration
at 100 feet away as even construction‐related vibration would not be significant. Thus, given the nature
of the proposed Care Center at Site A, the project is not anticipated to result in significant operational
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐127
vibration that would be perceptible beyond the project’s property lines. Therefore, the operation‐related
vibration impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project would redesignate and rezone
Site B from Open Space to Light Industrial. Any future development at Site B would be required to comply
with the permitted land uses and development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use
designation and zoning. Moreover, to ensure noise impacts are not significant, mitigation measure MM
NOI 1 requires a site‐ and development‐specific noise and vibration impact assessment for any future
development at Site B, which is also required by the City’s General Plan. Therefore, with implementation
of mitigation measure MM NOI 1, impacts would be less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
A significant impact would occur if the project were located in the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport
land use plan and would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
SITE A
No Impact. The nearest airports to Site A are the Ontario International Airport, located approximately 8
miles to the southwest, and Flabob Airport, located approximately 8 miles to the south. Site A is not
located within the airport land use plans for either of these airports, nor is Site A is a noise contour
associated with either airport.69 Therefore, the project at Site A would not expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive airport noise levels. No impact would occur, and no mitigation
measures are required.
SITE B
No Impact. The nearest airports to Site B are the Ontario International Airport, located approximately 8
miles to the southwest, and Flabob Airport, located approximately 8 miles to the south. Site B is not
located within the airport land use plans for either of these airports, nor is Site B is a noise contour
associated with either airport.70 No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures.
The following mitigation measure is required for the project at Site B:
MM NOI‐1 Prior to approval of development at Site B, a noise and vibration impact assessment shall be
conducted to the satisfaction of the City and enumerate mitigation measures, as necessary,
69 San Bernardino Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans, https://lus.sbcounty.gov/planning‐
home/airport‐land‐use/, accessed June 29, 2023.
70 San Bernardino Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans, https://lus.sbcounty.gov/planning‐
home/airport‐land‐use/, accessed June 29, 2023.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐128
to ensure noise and vibration impacts are less than significant. Such measures could include,
but not necessarily limited to, the following:
The project contractor for development at Site B shall use power construction
equipment with state‐of‐the‐art noise shielding and muffling devices.
A temporary noise control barrier shall be installed along the northern and/or eastern
property line of Site B’s construction site across from the residential land uses. The noise
control barrier shall be engineered to reduce construction‐related noise levels at the
adjacent residential structures to meet City noise standards. The barrier shall be
engineered to applicable codes and remain in place until all construction activities at Site
B are completed.
Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐129
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant Impact
with the
Incorporated
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Checklist Discussion
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)?
A significant impact may occur if a project were to locate new development such as homes, businesses or
infrastructure, with the effect of substantially inducing growth that would otherwise not have occurred
as rapidly or in as great a magnitude.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes a Care Center to assist residents in the San Bernardino
County area who are homeless, at threat of being homeless, and/or are experiencing medical and/or
mental challenges by helping them with their housing stability, life skills and/or employment income
stability, and self‐sufficiency to return to a stable housing situation and overcome and avoid a return to
homelessness. As such, the project at Site A proposes transitional housing.
According to SCAG’s 2020year‐roundSCS growth forecast data, the City’s population in 2016 was
approximately 211,000 people and is projected to increase by 75,700 people (36 percent increase) to a
population of 286,700 people by 2045.71 Moreover, the City’s number of households in 2016 was
approximately 51,500 households and is projected to increase by 26,300 households (51 percent increase)
to a total of 77,800 households by 2045.72 While the Care Center proposes transitional housing with
transitional residents, for the purpose of this population and housing analysis, it is assumed that the living
units would be occupied year‐round with residents and that these residents would be new residents to
71 SCAG, 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal), Current Context Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, adopted
September 3, 2020, Table 14, page 39, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file‐
attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics‐and‐growth‐forecast.pdf?1606001579. Accessed July 2023.
72 SCAG, 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal), Current Context Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, adopted
September 3, 2020, Table 14, page 39, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file‐
attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics‐and‐growth‐forecast.pdf?1606001579. Accessed July 2023.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐130
the City and the living units would constitute new households to the City. Accordingly, the initial phases
of development would include 48 single occupancy living units, which would result in 48 residents. This
increase would represent approximately 0.06 percent of the population growth forecast between 2016
and 2045 in the City and 0.2 percent of the household growth forecast between 2016 and 2045 in the
City. At full buildout, the project at Site A would include up to 150 living units, and while subsequent care
neighborhoods and associated living units would be a mix of single occupancy and family units, it is
conservatively assumed that the balance of 102 living units would average 2 residents per unit. Thus, at
full buildout, the on‐site population would be approximately 252 residents.73 This increase would
represent approximately 0.3 percent of the population growth forecast between 2016 and 2045 in the
City and 0.6 percent of the household growth forecast between 2016 and 2045 in the City. This population
estimate at full buildout would also represent approximately 0.09 percent of the City’s population in 2045
and approximately 0.2 percent of the City’s households in 2045. Thus, even with conservatively counting
the residents of the Care Center as new residents to the City and the proposed living units as households,
the project would be within SCAG’s 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS growth forecasts for the City.
The Care Center would result in employees working at the Care Center as well as professionals visiting the
Care Center, such as for healthcare checkups, which would be accommodated by existing employee labor
pool in the surrounding region. Given the nature and scale of the project at Site A, the project would not
induce substantial population growth. Workers during the construction phase would most highly likely
come from the surrounding communities in the region and would not require any new short‐term or long‐
term housing or relocation of construction workers to the City. Moreover, the project would not result in
the extension of roads or other infrastructure that would indirectly induce substantial population growth.
Therefore, impacts related to population growth would be less than significant, and no mitigation
measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. Any future development at Site B would be required to comply with the
permitted land uses and development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use designation
and zoning. Given the type of land uses that could be developed at Site B and the growth projections of
the City that are discussed above for Site A, future development at Site B would be consistent with
population and housing projections, and would not be expected to result in substantial unplanned direct
or indirect growth given the urbanized area and available labor pools. Therefore, impact would be less
than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
A significant impact may occur if a project would result in displacement of existing people or housing units,
necessitating construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
73 2 persons per unit for 102 living units equals 204 residents plus 48 residents from Phase 1 equals 252 residents in this
estimated scenario.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐131
SITE A
No Impact. The project would not displace existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere because Site A is proposed on vacant land that has no existing housing.
Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
No Impact. Future development on Site B would not displace existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere because Site B is proposed on vacant land that has no
existing housing. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
None required for either Site A or Site B.
Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐132
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any
of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
Checklist Discussion
a) Fire Protection?
A significant impact may occur if a project creates the need for new or physically altered fire facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
response times or other performance objective.
Fire protection services are provided by the Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD) of the San Bernardino
County Fire Department. Adequate fire facilities and services are provided by the Fire Station 71 located
at 16980 Arrow Boulevard, approximately 1.3‐miles east of the project site.74
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site, which is in an urbanized area and currently vacant, would
be developed with a Care Center built out over multiple phases and provide a total of up to 150 living
units in up to 40,000 square feet of housing and an administration building.
As identified in Section 5‐425 of the FMC, the City has adopted the 2022 California Fire Code, which
contains regulations related to construction, maintenance and design of buildings and land uses. The
project would be required to adhere to all Fire Code requirements. Specifically, the project would provide:
fire sprinklers inside all buildings and structures,
paved access roads,
74 City of Fontana, Locate Facilities In Our Community,
https://fontanaca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5fe8e97ef3ee4c91aa49942467b9acf2. Accessed
June 2023.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐133
an automatic irrigation system would maintain healthy vegetation, and
no trees or tree‐form shrubs would extend beyond the property line.
The project has incorporated these features and would be in compliance with the 2022 California Fire
Code in terms of quality, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, and safety. In addition, the landscape
plans for the project provide for a low fuel planting scheme that would avoid fuel loading in future years.
Furthermore, as discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, the project would not significantly
increase the population in the City.
Therefore, with implementation of applicable federal and state regulations, including the California Fire
Code, and compliance with existing codes and standards, including the FMC, would minimize the potential
for occurrence of fire on the project site. Furthermore, the project’s final development plan would also
be reviewed and approved by the City’s Fire Prevention Office. Therefore, the impacts on the demand for
additional fire facilities or services would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. Any future development at Site B would be consistent with the Light
Industrial land use designation and corresponding zoning.
Like Site A, future development on Site B would be required to adhere to all Fire Code requirements.
Future development would be in compliance with the California Fire Code in terms of quality,
effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, and safety. In addition, as discussed in Section 14, Population and
Housing, the project at Site B would not significantly increase population in the City due to the urbanized
setting and available labor pools in the region.
Any future development at Site B would be required to comply with the permitted land uses and
development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use designation and zoning, which would
include plan review and approval by FFPD. Therefore, as no development is proposed at Site B by the
project, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Police Protection?
A significant impact may occur if a project creates the need for new or physically altered police facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objective.
Police protection services are provided by the Fontana Police Department (FPD). FPD headquarters is
located at 17005 Upland Avenue, approximately 1.4 miles northeast of the project site.75 As of 2022, FPD
has 209 sworn officers. The current response time for priority one emergency calls within the City is 4.25
minutes.76 The current City population estimate for 2023 is 213,851 people, and, therefore, FPD currently
75 City of Fontana, Locate Facilities In Our Community,
https://fontanaca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5fe8e97ef3ee4c91aa49942467b9acf2. Accessed
June 2023.
76 City of Fontana Police Department Monthly Report, June 2023, available at:
https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/42072/June‐2023‐Report‐for‐City‐Council‐Rev. Accessed July 2023.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐134
operates with 0.98 officers per 1,000 residents.77 The City strives to maintain a minimum ratio of 1.4
officers per 1,000 residents; however, the officer‐to‐population ratio is just one criterion used to
determine the number of officers necessary to meet City public safety needs.78 The City collects
Development Impact Fees for FPD services with all new developments, and these fees help offset the cost
of providing police services on a project‐by‐project basis.79
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site, which is in an urbanized area and currently vacant, would
be developed with a Care Center built out over multiple phases and provide a total of up to 150 living
units in up to 40,000 square feet of housing and a 6,000‐square‐foot administration building. The project
incorporates design features to deter crime through the design of buildings and public spaces. Specifically,
the project has incorporated lighting at street level for security and the entire community would be
secured by a perimeter gate. Each care neighborhood would be secured by gates and would only be
accessible through the administration building. The project would also include other security features
such as video surveillance of the property and alarm systems for the proposed administrative building.
Furthermore, the project at Site A would not result in substantial population growth. With
implementation of design features, compliance with existing codes and standards, and through FPD
practices, there would be a less than significant impact on the demand for additional police facilities or
services, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. Future uses at Site B would be consistent with the Industrial land use
designation and corresponding zoning and associated development standards. As such, future
development would incorporate design features to deter crime through the design of buildings and public
spaces, security lighting, secured perimeter, and other security features typical of contemporary light
industrial developments. Furthermore, any future development at Site B would not result in substantial
population growth given the projections for the City. With implementation of design features, compliance
with existing codes and standards, and through FPD practices, there would be a less than significant
impact on the demand for additional police facilities or services, and no mitigation measures are required.
Therefore, as no development is proposed at Site B by the project, no impact would occur, and no
mitigation measures are required.
c) Schools?
A significant impact may occur if a proposed project includes substantial employment or population
growth, which could generate demand for school facilities that exceeds the capacity of the school
district(s) responsible for serving the project site.
77 California Department of Finance, E‐5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020‐2023, May
2023, available at: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e‐5‐population‐and‐housing‐estimates‐for‐
cities‐counties‐and‐the‐state‐2020‐2023/. Accessed July 2023.
78 City of Fontana General Plan Update 2015‐2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report, June 2018, pages 5.12‐1 and 5.12‐3.
79 City of Fontana General Plan Update 2015‐2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report, June 2018, page 5.12‐3.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐135
The project site is within the boundaries of the Fontana Unified School District (FUSD), which operates 30
elementary schools, seven (7) middle school, five (5) high school, and four (4) alternative schools.80 The
schools serving the project site would be Tokay Elementary School (K‐5), Almeria Middle School, and Miller
High School.81
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not propose any new permanent housing. The project
proposes a Care Center to assist residents in the San Bernardino County area who are homeless, at threat
of being homeless, and/or are experiencing medical and/or mental challenges by helping them with their
housing stability, life skills and/or employment income stability, and self‐sufficiency to return to a stable
housing situation and overcome and avoid a return to homelessness. As such, the housing would be
transitional. As discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, the project would not significantly
increase population, including student population in the City and therefore would not cause a
substantially impact to FUSD schools. Furthermore, in accordance with state law pursuant to Government
Code Section 65996 and Senate Bill 50, California legislation holds that an acceptable method of offsetting
a project’s effect on the adequacy of school facilities is payment of a school impact fee prior to issuance
of a building permit. Once paid, the school impact fees would serve as mitigation for any project‐related
impacts to school facilities. As such, the City is legally prohibited from imposing any additional mitigation
related to school facilities, as payment of the school impact fees constitutes full and complete mitigation.
Therefore, physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities
would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. Future uses at this site would be consistent with the Light Industrial land
use designation and corresponding zoning and associated development standards. Like Site A, any impacts
from Site B would be offset through payment of school impact fees per Senate Bill 50. Once paid, the
school impact fees would serve as mitigation for any project‐related impacts to school facilities. As such,
the City is legally prohibited from imposing any additional mitigation related to school facilities, as
payment of the school impact fees constitutes full and complete mitigation. Therefore, physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities would be less than significant,
and no mitigation measures are required.
d) Parks?
A significant impact to parks may occur if implementation of a project includes a new or physically altered
park or creates the need for a new or physically altered park, the construction of which could cause
substantial adverse physical impacts.
The nearest park, operated by the Facilities and Parks Division, to the project site is Central City Park,
located at 8380 Cypress Avenue, approximately 1.0 east of the project site.82 Central City Park is comprised
80 Fontana Unified School District, https://www.fusd.net/domain/149. Accessed June 2023.
81 Fontana Unified School District,
https://fusd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Viewer/index.html?appid=078dcb92aa5c4e1a89a1a628f0f6e5ff. Accessed June 2023.
82 City of Fontana, Facilities and Parks, Central City Park, https://www.fontanaca.gov/3356/Central‐City‐Park. Accessed June
2023.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐136
of a community garden, filed lighting, horseshoe pits, misting stations, a playground, restrooms, a football
filed, a soccer field, and trails. 83
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not propose any new permanent housing. The project
proposes a Care Center to assist residents in the San Bernardino County area who are homeless, at threat
of being homeless, and/or are experiencing medical and/or mental challenges by helping them with their
housing stability, life skills and/or employment income stability, and self‐sufficiency to return to a stable
housing situation and overcome and avoid a return to homelessness. As such, housing would be
transitional. Each care neighborhood within Site A would have its own open space and access to on‐site
shared amenities, such as sport courts, gathering places, exercise equipment, and walking trails. The initial
phases of development at Site A would provide approximately 90,000 square feet of landscaping.
Furthermore, as discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, the project would not significantly
increase population in the City and therefore would not substantially impact parks. Moreover, given the
nature of the proposed use, it is unlikely that residents of the Care Center would utilize local parks as
recreational needs would be met by the project design. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant,
and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. Future uses at this site would be consistent with the Light Industrial land
use designation and corresponding zoning and associated development standards. Future development
at Site B would not significantly increase population in the City given the projections for the City and the
type of land use that could be developed. Thus, future development would not substantially impact parks.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
e) Other public facilities?
A significant impact may occur if a project generates a demand for other public facilities (such as libraries)
that exceeds the capacity available.
The project site would be served by the Fontana Lewis Library and Technology Center, which is branch of
the San Bernardino County Library, located at 8437 Sierra Avenue, approximately 1.4 miles northeast of
the project site.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not propose any new permanent housing. The project
proposes a Care Center to assist residents in the San Bernardino County area who are homeless, at threat
of being homeless, and/or are experiencing medical and/or mental challenges by helping them with their
housing stability, life skills and/or employment income stability, and self‐sufficiency to return to a stable
housing situation and overcome and avoid a return to homelessness. As such, housing would be
transitional. As discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, the project would not significantly
83 City of Fontana, Locate Parks and Recreation Activities In Our Community,
https://fontanaca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=3556c5cb958944d2b5e63aac9bdd1eb3. Accessed
June 2023.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐137
increase population in the City and therefore would not substantially impact the Fontana Lewis Library
and Technology Center. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures
are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. Future uses at this site would be consistent with the Light Industrial land
use designation and corresponding zoning and associated development standards. Future development
at Site B would not significantly increase population in the City given the projections for the City and the
type of land use that could be developed. Thus, future development would not substantially impact other
public facilities such as libraries. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation
measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
None required for either Site A or Site B.
Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐138
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
16. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities,
such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Checklist Discussion
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur
or be accelerated?
and
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
A significant impact may occur if a project would include substantial employment or population growth
which could generate an increased demand for park or recreational facilities that would exceed the
capacity of existing parks and causes premature deterioration of the park facilities.
As previously discussed in Section 15, Public Services, operated by the Facilities and Parks Division, to the
project site is Central City Park, located at 8380 Cypress Avenue, approximately 1.0 east of the project
site.84 Central City Park is comprised of a community garden, filed lighting, horseshoe pits, misting
stations, a playground, restrooms, a football filed, a soccer field, and trails. 85
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, the project would not
significantly increase the population in the City. The project proposes a Care Center to assist residents in
the San Bernardino County area who are homeless, at threat of being homeless, and/or are experiencing
medical and/or mental challenges by helping them with their housing stability, life skills and/or
84 City of Fontana, Facilities and Parks, Central City Park, https://www.fontanaca.gov/3356/Central‐City‐Park. Accessed June
2023.
85 City of Fontana, Locate Parks and Recreation Activities In Our Community,
https://fontanaca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=3556c5cb958944d2b5e63aac9bdd1eb3. Accessed
June 2023.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐139
employment income stability, and self‐sufficiency to return to a stable housing situation and overcome
and avoid a return to homelessness. As such, the housing would be transitional. Each care neighborhood
would have its own open space and access to on‐site shared amenities, such as sport courts, gathering
places, exercise equipment, and walking trails. Furthermore, the initial development phases would
provide approximately 90,000 square feet of landscaping in the initial development phases.
Given the nature of the proposed use, it is unlikely that residents of the Care Center would utilize local
parks as most residents would not have personal vehicles to travel to local parks and recreational areas,
and moreover, recreational needs would be met by the project design in the form of on‐site amenities
and open space specifically designed for residents’ recreational use. Even so, the project would not create
unanticipated demand on City parks or cause substantial deterioration of existing parks such that new
park facilities would be needed. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation
measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. Future uses at this site would be consistent with the Light Industrial land
use designation and corresponding zoning and associated development standards. Future development
at Site B would not significantly increase population in the City given the projections for the City and the
type of land use that could be developed. Thus, future development would not substantially impact
recreation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
None required for either Site A or Site B.
Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐140
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
The following is based in part on the findings of the Traffic Impact and VMT Assessment for the Proposed
Homelessness Prevention Resource and Care Center Project, Fontana, California, prepared by Linscott Law
& Greenspan, April 26, 2023 (“Traffic Assessment”). The Traffic Assessment is available in Appendix F to
this Initial Study.
Checklist Discussion
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
A significant impact may occur if a project would conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy
designed to maintain adequate effectiveness of an overall circulation system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not propose elements or aspects that would conflict with
adopted alternative transportation policies. Transit services are currently provided to the City and the
project vicinity by Omnitrans, a public transit agency serving the San Bernardino Valley. The nearest transit
access is from a bus stop at Arrow Boulevard and Citrus Avenue, located 0.2 mile east, that is served by
Omnitrans’ Route 10. Route 10 runs between the cities of Fontana and Highland. This route travels along
Arrow Boulevard in the vicinity of the project site to Citrus Avenue, and then west/east along Walnut
Street and Baseline Avenue. Route 10 operates on approximately 60‐minute headways on the weekdays
and weekends. On a long‐term basis, the project may result in an increased demand for public
transportation from temporary residents and employment opportunities generated by the use; however,
such an increase would be insignificant given the comparatively small employment growth potential from
the project and the Care Center proposed for Site A. The project’s impact on transit and related alternative
transportation programs and policies, therefore, would be less than significant.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐141
In the area of the project site, Arrow Boulevard is classified as “Primary Highway” and Tokay Avenue south
of Arrow Boulevard is classified as a “Local Street” and “Collector Street” north of Arrow Boulevard by the
General Plan’s Community Mobility and Circulation Element.86 The existing mobility and circulation
available in close proximity to the project site would result in no traffic impacts as a result of the project.
Pedestrian circulation would be provided via proposed public sidewalks along Arrow Boulevard and Tokay
Avenue. The existing sidewalk system within the project vicinity provides direct connectivity to the
surrounding commercial industrial and residential developments. There are currently no existing bike
lanes on Arrow Boulevard and Tokay Avenue in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, impacts on
pedestrian and bicycle transportation from the project at Site A and related alternative transportation
programs and policies would be less than significant.
As previously discussed under Checklist Question 11(b), above, the project is subject to SCAG’s 2020‐2045
RTP/SCS, also known as Connect SoCal. The 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS presents a long‐term transportation vision
through the year 2045 for the six‐county region of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, and Ventura counties. The 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS contains baseline socioeconomic projections
that are used as the basis for SCAG’s transportation planning, and the provision of services by other
regional agencies. SCAG’s overarching strategy for achieving its goals is integrating land use and
transportation. As discussed previously, the project would not conflict with the applicable objectives of
the 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS.
A Traffic Assessment was prepared for the project, which studied potential traffic impacts. According to
the City of Fontana Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of
Service Assessment, dated October 21, 2020, the following criteria should be utilized to determine if a TIA
is required for a project.
A TIA must be prepared when a proposed change in land use, development project, or at local
discretion, a group of projects are forecast to equal or exceed the CMP threshold of 250 two‐way
peak hour trips generated, based on trip generation rates published for the applicable use or uses
in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual or other approved data
source. Pass‐by trips shall not be considered in the threshold determination. However, industrial,
warehousing and truck projects shall convert trucks to PCE’s before applying the above threshold.
If a project is forecast to generate between 100 and 249 two‐way peak hour trips, a traffic impact
analysis will be required, but the extent of the analysis will be lesser.
If a project generates between 50 and 100 two‐way peak hour trips, a focused traffic analysis will
be required.
If a project generates less than 50 peak hour trips, a traffic analysis shall not be required, and a
trip generation memo will be considered sufficient unless the City has specific concerns related
to project access and interaction with adjacent intersections.
Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one‐way vehicular movements, either
entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation equations and/or rates used in the traffic
86 City of Fontana, General Plan, Chapter 9 Community Mobility and Circulation Element, November 13, 2018.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐142
forecasting procedure are found in the 11th Edition of Trip Generation (2021), published by the Institute
of Transportation Engineers (ITE).
Table 16, Project Trip Generation Forecast, summarizes the trip generation rates used in forecasting the
vehicular trips generated by the project and presents the forecast daily and peak hour project traffic
volumes for a “typical” weekday. As shown in the upper portion of Table 16, given that the ITE Trip
Generation Manual does not include a specific land use category for homeless prevention related
facilities, the trip generation potential of Site A has been estimated using ITE Land Use 254: Assisted Living
trip rates. It should be noted that the ITE definition for Assisted Living is very similar to the project as it
consists of “a residential setting that provides either routine general protective oversight or assistance
with activities necessary for independent living to persons with mental or physical limitations… The
complex commonly provides separate living quarters for each resident… Staff may be available 24 hours
a day, but skilled medical care is not required.”
Table 16
Project Trip Generation Forecast
ITE Land Use Code Daily
2‐Way
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Trip Generation Factors:
254: Assisted Living (TE/Bed) 2.60 60% 40% 0.18 39% 61% 0.24
Project
Care Center (150 DU/Beds) 390 16 11 27 14 22 36
Project Trip Generation Forecast 390 16 11 27 14 22 36
Notes: TE/Bed = Trip Ends per Bed
Source: Linscott, Law, & Greenspan, April 2023.
A review of the lower portion of Table 16 indicates that Site A is forecasted to generate approximately
390 daily trips, with 27 trips (16 inbound, 11 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 36 trips (14
inbound, 22 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” week. Therefore, based on the
aforementioned City criteria, the trips associated with Site A are below the 50 peak hour trip threshold
requiring the preparation of a TIA report.
Because of its low trip generation and proximity to existing mobility and circulation options, the project
would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and
no mitigation measures would be required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Future development for Site B is not
anticipated to propose elements or aspects that would conflict with adopted alternative transportation
policies. Transit services are currently provided to the City and the project vicinity by Omnitrans, a public
transit agency serving the San Bernardino Valley. Like Site A, the nearest transit access for Site B is from a
bus stop at Arrow Boulevard and Citrus Avenue, located 0.2 mile east, that is served by Omnitrans’ Route
10. On a long‐term basis, development of a project at Site B may result in an increased demand for public
transportation; however, given the nature of the land use that could be developed, such an increase
would be insignificant given the comparatively small employment growth potential of Site B. Site B’s
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐143
impact on transit and related alternative transportation programs and policies, therefore, would be less
than significant.
As outlined in the FMC, new development must provide all necessary rights‐of‐way and curb, gutter,
sidewalk, street paving and driveway approaches meeting the standards of new street improvements in
accordance with the trafficways plan.87 Therefore, future development of Site B would provide pedestrian
circulation via a proposed public sidewalk along Tokay Avenue. The existing sidewalk system within the
project vicinity provides direct connectivity to the surrounding commercial industrial and residential
developments. There are currently no existing bike lanes on Tokay Avenue in the vicinity of Site B.
Therefore, impacts on pedestrian and bicycle transportation and related alternative transportation
programs and policies would be less than significant.
Because of its proximity to existing mobility and circulation options, future development at Site B would
likely not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. However, to ensure impacts are not significant,
mitigation measure MM TRA 1 requires a traffic impact and VMT assessment be conducted for any future
development at Site B. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measure MM TRA 1, impacts would
be less than significant.
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
A significant impact may occur if a project’s vehicle miles traveled substantially increase compared to
existing counts.
On December 28, 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted revised CEQA Guidelines.
Among the changes to the guidelines was the removal of vehicle delay and level of service (LOS) from
consideration for transportation impacts under CEQA. With the adopted guidelines, transportation
impacts are to be evaluated based on a project’s effect on VMT. The City adopted new transportation
impact criteria in 2020 to be consistent with the CEQA revisions. These new guidelines are contained
within the City of Fontana TIA Guidelines for VMT and Level of Service Assessment and provide screening
criteria and methodology for VMT analysis.
Per the TIA Guidelines for VMT and Level of Service Assessment, there are three types of screening to
screen projects from project‐level VMT assessments. The three screening steps are described below. It
should be noted that a project only needs to satisfy one of the three screening steps.
Step 1: Transit Priority Area Screening
Projects located within a transit priority area (TPA) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact
absent substantial evidence to the contrary. This presumption may NOT be appropriate if the project:
1. Has a FAR of less than 0.75;
2. Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required
by the City requirements;
87 FMC Section 25‐92.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐144
3. Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead
agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization); or
4. Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate‐ or high‐income
residential units.
Step 2: Low VMT Area Screening
Residential and office projects located within a low VMT‐generating area may be presumed to have a less
than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition, other employment‐
related and mixed‐use land use projects may qualify for the use of screening if the project can reasonably
be expected to generate VMT per resident, per worker, or per service population that is similar to the
existing land uses in the low VMT area. A low VMT area is defined as an individual traffic analysis zone
(TAZ) where total daily Origin/Destination VMT per service population is fifteen percent (15%) lower than
the County average total daily Origin/Destination VMT per service population.
Step 3: Low Project Type Screening
Local serving retail projects 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. In addition to local
serving retail, the following uses can also be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent
substantial evidence to the contrary as their uses are local serving in nature:
Local‐serving K‐12 schools
Local parks
Day care centers
Local‐serving gas stations
Local‐serving banks
Local‐serving hotels (e.g. non‐destination hotels)
Student housing projects on or adjacent to college campuses
Local‐serving assembly uses (places of worship, community organizations)
Community institutions (Public libraries, fire stations, local government)
Local serving community colleges that are consistent with the assumptions
noted in the RTP/SCS
Affordable or supportive housing
Assisted living facilities
Senior housing (as defined by HUD)
Step 4: Project net daily trips less than 500 ADT
Projects that generate fewer than 500 average daily trips (ADT) would not cause a substantial increase in
the total citywide or regional VMT and are therefore presumed to have a less than significant impact on
VMT. Local serving retail generally improves the convenience of shopping close to home and has the effect
of reducing vehicle travel.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The following analyzes the proposed Care Center at Site A with the VMT
screening steps outlined above.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐145
Step 1: Based on the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) screening tool, Site A is not
located within a TPA. As a result, Screening Step 1 screening criteria is not satisfied.
Step 2: Based on the SBCTA screening tool, Site B is in TAZ #53723201. Per the SBCTA screening tool, the
TAZ VMT/service population is 25.7 VMT per service population and the County average VMT/service
population is 32.7 VMT per service population. Comparison of the two VMT values indicates that the TAZ
VMT is 21.41% lower than the County VMT average. Therefore, Screening Step 2 is satisfied.
Step 3: Site A is considered supportive housing and assisted living facility based on the “Low Project Type
Screening” criteria. As a result, Screening Step 3 is satisfied.
Step 4: Site A would consist of a maximum of 150 living units for homelessness prevention and is
forecasted to generate 390 daily trips (refer to Table 16). Therefore, based on the aforementioned criteria,
Screening Step 4 is satisfied.
Conclusion: Based on the City’s guidelines, Site A satisfies Step 2, Step 3, and Step 4. Therefore, Site A is
screened out from a full VMT analysis and is presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT per
the City of Fontana TIA Guidelines for VMT and Level of Service Assessment. No mitigation measures are
required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The following analyzes the project at Site B
with the VMT screening steps outlined above.
Step 1: Based on the SBCTA screening tool, Site B is not located within a TPA. As a result, Screening Step
1 is not satisfied.
Step 2: Based on the SBCTA screening tool, Site A is in TAZ #53723201. Per the SBCTA screening tool, the
TAZ VMT/service population is 25.7 VMT per service population and the County average VMT/service
population is 32.7 VMT per service population. Comparison of the two VMT values indicates that the TAZ
VMT is 21.41% lower than the County VMT average. Therefore, Screening Step 2 is satisfied.
Step 3: No development is proposed at Site B. As a result, Screening Step 3 is not satisfied.
Step 4: No development is proposed at Site B. As a result, Screening Step 4 is not satisfied.
Conclusion: Based on the City’s guidelines, future development at Site B would appear to satisfy Step 2
and screen out from a full VMT analysis; however, to ensure impacts are not significant to confirm if future
development proposal does screen out, mitigation measure MM TRA 1 requires a traffic impact and VMT
assessment be conducted for any future development at Site B. Therefore, with implementation of
mitigation measure MM TRA 1, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
A significant impact may occur if a project includes new roadway design or introduced a new land use or
project features into an area with specific transportation requirements, characteristics, or project access
or other features designed in such a way as to create hazardous conditions.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐146
SITE A
No Impact. The project proposes a land use that would utilize the existing roadway network. Vehicles
accessing the site would use the proposed driveway along Arrow Boulevard and exit the site via the
proposed driveway along Tokay Avenue. The project’s driveways would conform to the City’s design
standards and would provide adequate sight distance, sidewalks, and pedestrian movement controls
meeting the City’s requirements to protect pedestrian safety. No significant impacts related to
substantially increasing roadway hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses would
occur. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures would be required.
SITE B
No Impact. Future proposed development of Site B would utilize the existing roadway network, which
would be Tokay Avenue, and driveways from a future development would be required to conform to the
City’s design standards and provide adequate sight distance, sidewalks, and pedestrian movement
controls meeting the City’s requirements to protect pedestrian safety. Therefore, no impact would occur,
and no mitigation measures are required.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
A significant impact may occur if a project design does not provide emergency access meeting the
requirements of the Fire Department or in any other way threatens the ability of emergency vehicles to
access and serve the project site or adjacent uses.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities would occur entirely within the boundaries of the
project site and no off‐site staging or parking that could interfere with emergency access in the vicinity of
the site would be allowed. Should temporary lane closures be required during construction, at least one
lane of travel would be maintained at all times and closures would comply with the Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook) (as adopted by the City), which contains
standards for street improvements and traffic control. The project at Site A would construct two new
driveways. Vehicles accessing the site would use the proposed driveway along Arrow Boulevard and exit
the site via the proposed driveway along Tokay Avenue. All project circulation features would be designed
in accordance with FFPD requirements for site access, including an adequately‐sized fire lane throughout
the project site. No permanent lane closures or re‐routing of any public roadways are proposed or would
be required by the project and the existing roadways would continue to provide emergency access to the
project site and vicinity during construction and operation. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. Future construction activities would likely occur within the boundaries of
the project site and no off‐site staging or parking that could interfere with emergency access in the vicinity
of the site would be allowed. Should temporary lane closures be required during construction, at least
one lane of travel would be maintained at all times and closures would comply with the Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook) (as adopted by the City), which contains
standards for street improvements and traffic control. All project circulation features are required to be
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐147
designed in accordance with FFPD requirements for site access, including an adequately‐sized fire lane
throughout the project site. In addition, any future development at Site B would be required to comply
with the permitted land uses and development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use
designation and zoning. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures
are required.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure shall be required for the project at Site B:
MM TRA‐1 Prior to approval of development at Site B, a traffic impact assessment and Vehicle Miles
Traveled screening assessment shall be conducted in accordance with City guidelines.
Mitigation measures shall be required as necessary based on the findings of the assessment
to ensure impacts are reduced to less than significant, and any future development that
would result in unavoidable/unmitigatable significant impact shall be prohibited. Such
measures could include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:
The Applicant of future development at Site B shall obtain haul route approval from
the City and adhere to limiting all haul route hours to off‐peak hours and staggering
haul trucks to minimize cumulative traffic and congestion impacts.
Traffic signs shall be installed around the Site B construction site to ensure pedestrian,
bicycles, and vehicle safety is maintained.
Adherence and implementation of VMT mitigation strategies including programs and
employee education that promote travel behavior changes and overall trip reductions
through facilitating employee carpools, incentivizing transit, company organized
rideshare, on‐site bicycle parking and storage, etc.
Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐148
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Consultation with a California Native American tribe that has
requested such consultation may assist a lead agency in determining whether the project may
adversely affect tribal cultural resources, and if so, how such effects may be avoided or mitigated.
Whether or not consultation has been requested, would the project cause a substantial adverse change
in a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object, with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, which is any of the following:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
Checklist Discussion
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: Listed or
eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1 (k)?
and
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: A resource
determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐149
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Gatto. Native Americans: CEQA and CEQA Public Resources Code Section
21080.31, subdivisions (b), (d)), requires a lead agency to consult with any California Native American tribe
that requests consultation and is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a
project.
California Government Code Section 65352.3 (adopted pursuant to the requirements of Senate Bill (SB)
18) requires local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with tribal organizations prior to
adopting or amending a general or specific plan, or to designate open space that includes Native American
Cultural Places. The tribal organizations eligible to consult have traditional lands in a local government’s
jurisdiction, and are identified, upon request, by the NAHC. As noted in the California Office of Planning
and Research’s Tribal Consultation Guidelines (2005), “the intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native
American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the
purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to cultural places.”
As previously discussed, the project site is located within a developed urban setting and has not been
determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or California Register of
Historic Resources. Furthermore, the NAHC SLF search results, which were received on April 18, 2023,
were negative for cultural resources within the project site and the surrounding quarter‐mile radius.
However, the NAHC response included a list of 31 entities representing nearby Native American groups
who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. The City initiated tribal
notifications as required under AB 52 and SB 18 and solicited requests for consultations on the project
starting on March 27, 2023 (see Appendix G for the tribal correspondence). While AB 52 requires tribes
to respond within 30 days, the project is also subject to SB 18 because of the General Plan Amendment,
which provides tribes with 90 days to respond. This 90‐day window closed on June 26, 2023. During the
AB 52 and SB 18 review period tribes were given the opportunity to complete a review of the project
based on the documents provided by the City and their individual records to gather information on the
Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR) sensitivity of the project’s vicinity. The following seven tribes responded:
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (Agua Caliente);
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Gabrieleno Band);
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California (Tongva);
Morongo Band of Mission Indians (Moronga Band);
Quechan Indian Tribe (Quechan Tribe);
Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians (RBLI); and
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI).
The Agua Caliente, Tongva, Quechan Tribe, and RBLI stated that the project was outside of their territorial
boundaries and deferred to other tribes in the area.
The SMBMI communicated that the project area exists within Serrano ancestral territory. However, due
to the nature and location of the project, and given the Cultural Resource Management Department’s
present state of knowledge of the area, SMBMI does not have any concerns with the project’s
implementation, as planned, at this time. Regardless, SMBMI requested implementation of mitigation
measures to address possible future concerns with regards to TCRs.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐150
The Gabrieleno Band and Morongo Band both requested consultation with the City and the requests were
addressed through discussions with representatives and email correspondence.
The project’s Cultural Assessment (Appendix C to this Initial Study), previously discussed in response to
Cultural Resources topic above describes that the project vicinity was traditionally occupied by two native
groups: the Gabrielino and the Serrano (by 1975, most Serrano lived on two Southern California
reservations: Morongo and San Manuel). The groups are from the Takic (Uto‐Aztecan or Shoshonean)
linguistic group and resembled one another in terms of culture and tradition, often interacting across their
permeable ethnographic boundaries. The cultural territories of the Gabrielino and Serrano are located
within the vicinity of the project area, and the land is still considered part of their traditional use area. The
following is a brief discussion of each native group.
Gabrielino
The name “Gabrielino” is Spanish in origin and refers to the people who occupied lands surrounding the
historic‐era Mission San Gabriel. At the time of Spanish contact, the Gabrielino territory expanded
throughout present‐day Los Angeles and Orange counties and into the southwest portion of San
Bernardino County, and included the Santa Ana River, San Gabriel River, and Los Angeles River
watersheds.
Gabrielino territory provided access to a wide range and variety of resources which guided their
settlement patterns. The Gabrielino resided in permanent villages that were surrounded by smaller
seasonal resource‐gathering camps. Villages were composed of multiple families/clans, where the
seasonal camps were mostly tended to by smaller family groups. Larger primary settlements and
subsistence villages were continuously occupied along prominent watersheds and included coastal areas
from San Pedro to Topanga Canyon. Secondary gathering camps were typically inland, near sage stands,
pine forests, and oak groves.
The tribe, through a written correspondence, dated April 3, 2023, expressed concern as subsurface
activities are planned to occur for this project that has the potential to impact TCRs. Due to the project
site being located within and around sacred communities, adjacent to sacred water courses and major
traditional trade routes, there is a high potential to impact TCRs still present within the soil from the
thousands of years of prehistoric activities that occurred within and around these Tribal Cultural
landscapes.
Gabrielino requested mitigation measures to address these concerns, among which includes the
allowance for a representative to be part of the monitoring of all ground disturbances.
Serrano
The term “Serrano” is Spanish for mountaineers, or highlanders, and is a name that reflects the
ethnographic cultural territory in and around the San Bernardino Mountains. The Serrano referred to
themselves as “Takhtam,” meaning the people, where Individuals identified by the name of their
particular clan or village, frequently referred to as “tribes.”
The presence of a perennial water source was the determining factor in the nature, duration, and
distribution of Serrano villages. Most Serrano village‐hamlets were in the foothill Upper Sonoran life‐zone
while a few were on the desert floor, near permanent water sources, or in the forest Transition zone.
Small villages were more common, although there were larger villages in the Summit Valley and the Cajon
Pass.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐151
By 1975, most Serrano lived on two Southern California reservations (Morongo and San Manuel), where
with other native Californians, they participated in ceremonial and political affairs on a pan‐reservation.
Only slightly over 100 people claimed Serrano descent, reduced from a pre‐contact figure of
approximately 1,500, and even fewer speak their native language: however, all recall with pride their
history. Ethnic identity is strong, and they remain a readily identifiable cultural entity.
The Morongo Band, through a written correspondence, dated May 17, 2023, expressed concern as TCRs
are non‐renewable resources and therefore of high importance to the Morongo Tribe. Projects within this
area are potentially sensitive for cultural resources regardless of the presence or absence of remaining
surface artifacts and features. The Morongo Band has recommended tribal participation (i.e., tribal
monitors) during all ground disturbing activities.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project at Site A proposes a Care Center
that would construct an administration building and transitional housing for up to 150 living units in up to
40,000 square feet of housing at full buildout on seven acres of undeveloped land. Based on the outcome
of the required AB 52 and SB 18 tribal notification and consultation process that was conducted for the
project, potentially significant impacts may occur to TCRs as determined by SMBMI, the Gabrieleno Band,
and the Morongo Band. Therefore, mitigation measures are required, which are detailed below. Further,
the City has adopted standard conditions of approval to address potential cultural and tribal cultural
resources which would govern any development on Site A. The City’s standard conditions of approval
related to tribal cultural resources that would apply to the project at Site A entail the following:
Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, cease construction activities in
the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural and
archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the
qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources are Native American in
origin, interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area Tribes) shall coordinate with the
landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request
preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of
the project while evaluation takes place.
Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not
feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavation to
remove the resource along the subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All tribal cultural
resources shall be returned to the Tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native
American in origin shall be curated at a public, non‐profit institution with a research interest in
the materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the
archaeological material, they shall be offered to the Tribe or a local school or historical society in
the area for educational purposes.
Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects shall
be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary
disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary
objects shall be taken. Principal personnel shall meet the Secretary of the Interior standards for
archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years’ experience as a principal investigator working with
Native American archaeological sites in Southern California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐152
ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified.
The project’s mandatory adherence to these standard conditions of approval and mitigation measure MM
TCR‐1 would ensure that if any tribal cultural resources are encountered during construction, the project
would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project at Site B proposes a redesignation
and rezoning of Site B to Light Industrial. Any future development at Site B would be required to comply
with the permitted land uses and development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use
designation and zoning. Future development at Site B would also be required to adhere to the standard
conditions of approval listed above for Site A as well as mitigation measure MM TCR‐1, which would
ensure that if any tribal cultural resources are encountered during construction, such activities would not
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure in addition to the City’s standard conditions of approval are required
for the project at Site A and Site B:
MM TCR‐1: The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI),
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Gabrieleno Band), and Morongo Band
of Mission Indians (Moronga Band) shall be contacted of any pre‐contact and/or historic‐
era cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided
information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to
significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA
(as amended, 2015), a cultural resource Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created
by the archaeologist, in coordination with the above identified Tribes, and all subsequent
finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that
represents each respective above identified Tribe in this measure for the remainder of
the project, should any of these three Tribes elect to place a monitor on‐site.
Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐153
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Checklist Discussion
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?
A significant impact may occur if a project would require or result in the relocation or construction of
water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication
facilities to such a degree that the construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The following analysis is for the proposed Care Center at Site A.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐154
Water and Water Treatment Facilities
The Fontana Water Company (FWC) would provide public water service to the project. As Site A is
currently vacant, the project would require construction of new, on‐site water distribution lines to serve
the new development. Impacts associated with the installation of water distribution lines would primarily
involve trenching to place the water distribution lines below surface and would be limited to on‐site water
distribution, and minor off‐site work associated with connections to the public main. Prior to ground
disturbance, project contractors would coordinate with FWC to identify the locations and depth of all
lines. Furthermore, FWC would be notified in advance of proposed ground disturbance activities to avoid
water lines and disruption of water service and including off‐site connection to existing water lines. Any
construction activities within the public street rights‐of‐way have the potential to create intermittent and
short‐term inconvenience hazards for motorists and pedestrians. However, all water utility construction
work that occurs within a public street right of way must adhere to the construction control practices that
reduce impacts that are specified in the State of California Department of Transportation Construction
Manual, published by Caltrans.88
The construction of the proposed water service connections also has the potential to cause environmental
effects associated with short‐term air pollutant, noise emissions, and water quality effects that are an
inherent part of the project’s construction process. The project’s construction air quality, noise emissions,
and water quality effects were previously disclosed in subsections for Air Quality, Hydrology and Water
Quality, and Noise, above. All associated impacts were determined to be less than significant for Site A
without the need for mitigation measures.
While the project would result in an incremental increase in demand for water treatment services, the
project water demand, which is further discussed under the response to Checklist Question 19(b), below,
would not result in or require new or expanded water treatment facilities beyond those facilities already
planned as part of the FWC’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).89 Accordingly, impacts
related to the construction of new water facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation
measures are required.
Wastewater and Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Inland Empire Utility Agency (IEUA) operates four Regional Water Recycling Plants (RPs), including RP‐1,
RP‐4, RP‐5, and the Carbon Canyon Water Recycling Facility (CCWRF).90 As described in response to
Checklist Question 19(c), below, wastewater from Site A would be treated at IEUA’s RP‐4, which treats
local wastewater generated by the City and has adequate capacity to serve the project at Site A. Sewer
line infrastructure would be provided via connection to an existing 8‐inch diameter vitrified clay pipe (VCP)
sewer pipeline located in Arrow Boulevard.91 As the project site is currently vacant, the project would
require construction of new on‐site wastewater infrastructure to serve the new development, and
potential upgrade and/or relocation of existing off‐site infrastructure. Impacts associated with
wastewater infrastructure would primarily be confined to trenching for miscellaneous utility lines and
connections to public infrastructure. Installation of wastewater infrastructure would be limited to on‐site
wastewater distribution, and minor off‐site work associated with connections to the public main.
88 California Department of Transportation, Construction Manual, December 2022.
89 Fontana Water Company, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2021.
90 Fontana Water Company, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2021.
91 City of Fontana Open GIS Data, Sewer Network, https://data‐
fontanaca.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/FontanaCA::sewernetwork/explore?location=34.097688%2C‐
117.456574%2C17.00. Accessed June 2023.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐155
Although no upgrades to the public main are anticipated, minor off‐site work along the project frontage
would be required to connect to the public main. All off‐site work would be performed in consultation
and under the approval of the City Engineering Department. While the project at Site A would result in an
incremental increase in demand for wastewater treatment services, the project wastewater treatment
demand, which is further discussed under Checklist Question 19(c), below, would not result in or require
new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. Accordingly, impacts related to the construction of new
wastewater facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Storm Water Drainage Facilities
The project at Site A would involve the construction of an on‐site stormwater drain system, including catch
basins and underground storm drainpipes, to capture storm water runoff from across Site A and convey
this runoff to the southerly perimeter of Site A and into the existing pit in Site B. The water quality effects
associated with the project’s proposed stormwater drainage system were previously addressed under
Hydrology and Water Quality. The construction of the proposed stormwater service connections also has
the potential to cause environmental effects associated with short‐term air pollutant, noise emissions,
and water quality effects that are an inherent part of the project’s construction process. The project’s
construction air quality, noise emissions, and water quality effects were previously disclosed in
subsections for Air Quality, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Noise, above. All associated impacts were
determined to be less than significant for Site A without the need for mitigation measures. Accordingly,
impacts related to the construction of new stormwater facilities would be less than significant, and no
mitigation measures are required.
Dry Utilities
Electricity
SCE would provide electrical services to the project site. However, the project at Site A would require the
installation of new on‐site electrical distribution facilities and connection to the off‐site electrical system.
All electrical facility installation and connection to the existing system would be done in coordination and
under the approval of the SCE. As detailed in response to subsection Energy, the incorporation of the Title
24 energy conservation standards into the project would ensure that the project would not result in the
inefficient, unnecessary, or wasteful consumption of energy, including electricity. As such, it is anticipated
that SCE’s existing and planned electricity capacity and electricity supplies would be sufficient to support
the project’s electricity demand. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation
measures are required.
Natural Gas
SCGC would supply the project from the existing natural gas facilities. However, the project at Site A would
require construction of new on‐site gas distribution lines to serve the new development and connection
to the existing off‐site natural gas facilities. The project would connect to existing natural gas facilities in
coordination with and under the supervision of SCGC. Construction activities typically do not involve the
consumption of natural gas. Accordingly, there would be no demand generated by construction and no
new natural gas facilities would be required.
During operation, natural gas service would be provided in accordance with the SCGC’s policies and
extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) at the time contractual
agreements are made. The project would be responsible for paying connection costs to connect its on‐
site service meters to existing infrastructure. SCGC undertakes expansion and/or modification of the
natural gas infrastructure to serve future growth within its service area as part of the normal process of
providing service. There would be no disruption of service to other consumers during the installation of
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐156
these improvements. As detailed in response to subsection Energy, the estimated natural gas demand of
the project during operation would represent an insignificant percentage of the forecasted consumption
of natural gas in SCGC’s planning area. Furthermore, as discussed in response to subsection Energy, the
incorporation of the Title 24 energy conservation standards into the project at Site A would ensure that
the project would not result in the inefficient, unnecessary, or wasteful consumption of energy, including
natural gas. As such, it is expected that SCGC’s existing and planned natural gas capacity and supplies
would be sufficient to serve the project’s demand. Based on the above, the expansion of off‐site natural
gas sources would not be required. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation
measures are required.
Telecommunication Facilities
Construction‐related activities, including grading and excavation, could encroach on telecommunication
facilities. However, before construction begins, the project Applicant or its Successor would be required
to coordinate with applicable regulatory agencies and telecommunication providers to locate
telecommunication facilities. Therefore, the location of new telecommunication facilities would not result
in significant environmental effects. Furthermore, telecommunication services are provided by private
companies, the selection of which is at the discretion of the Applicant or its Successor on an ongoing basis.
Accordingly, project impacts to telecommunication facilities would be less than significant, and no
mitigation measures are required.
Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication
facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts
would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. The following analysis is for the project at Site B.
Water and Water Treatment Facilities
Like Site A, the FWC would provide public water service to Site B. Site B is part of a larger 57‐acre vacant
mining pit, and future development would require construction of new, on‐site water distribution lines to
serve the new development. Any future development at Site B would be required to comply with the
permitted land uses and development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use designation
and zoning. As Site B is currently vacant, future development would require construction of new, on‐site
water distribution lines to serve the new development. Impacts associated with the installation of water
distribution lines would primarily involve trenching to place the water distribution lines below surface and
would be limited to on‐site water distribution, and minor off‐site work associated with connections to the
public main. Prior to ground disturbance, project contractors would coordinate with FWC to identify the
locations and depth of all lines.
While future development would result in an incremental increase in demand for water treatment
services, the anticipated water demand would not result in or require new or expanded water treatment
facilities beyond those facilities already planned as part of the FWC’s 2020 UWMP given the developable
area of Site B and the nature of the land uses that could be developed in comparison to the existing
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐157
infrastructure in the City.92 Accordingly, impacts related to the construction of new water facilities would
be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Wastewater and Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Similar to Site A, wastewater from Site B would be treated at IEUA’s RP‐4, which treats local wastewater
generated by the City. Sewer line infrastructure would be provided via connection to an existing 8‐inch
diameter VCP sewer pipeline located in Tokay Avenue.93 Future development would require construction
of new on‐site wastewater infrastructure to serve the new development, and potential upgrade and/or
relocation of existing off‐site infrastructure. Impacts associated with wastewater infrastructure would
primarily be confined to trenching for miscellaneous utility lines and connections to public infrastructure.
Installation of wastewater infrastructure would be limited to on‐site wastewater distribution, and minor
off‐site work associated with connections to the public main. Although no upgrades to the public main
are anticipated, minor off‐site work along the project frontage would be required to connect to the public
main. All off‐site work would be performed in consultation and under the approval of the City Engineering
Department. While future development at Site B would result in an incremental increase in demand for
wastewater treatment services, the anticipated demand would not result in or require new or expanded
wastewater treatment facilities given the developable area of Site B and the nature of the land uses that
could be developed in comparison to the existing infrastructure in the City. Accordingly, impacts related
to the construction of new wastewater facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation
measures are required.
Storm Water Drainage Facilities
Future development of Site B would involve the construction of an on‐site stormwater drain system,
including catch basins and underground storm drainpipes, to capture storm water runoff from across the
site and convey this runoff to existing storm drain facilities beneath Tokay Avenue. The construction of
stormwater service connections also has the potential to cause environmental effects associated with
short‐term air pollutant, noise emissions, and water quality effects that are an inherent part of the
project’s construction process, which are required in previously identified mitigation for Site B
development. Accordingly, impacts related to the construction of new stormwater facilities would be less
than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Dry Utilities
Electricity
SCE would provide electrical services for any future development on Site B. Any future development
would require the installation of new on‐site electrical distribution facilities and connection to the off‐site
electrical system. All electrical facility installation and connection to the existing system would be done in
coordination and under the approval of the SCE. Future development at Site B would incorporate Title 24
energy conservation standards to ensure the development does not result in inefficient, unnecessary, or
wasteful consumption of energy. As with Site A, it is reasonably anticipated that SCE’s existing and planned
electricity capacity and electricity supplies would be sufficient to support future development at Site B
given the developable area of Site B and the nature of the land uses that could be developed in comparison
92 Fontana Water Company, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2021.
93 City of Fontana Open GIS Data, Sewer Network, https://data‐
fontanaca.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/FontanaCA::sewernetwork/explore?location=34.097688%2C‐
117.456574%2C17.00. Accessed June 2023.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐158
to the existing infrastructure in the City. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant, and no
mitigation measures are required.
Natural Gas
SCGC would supply any future development on Site B. Any future development would require
construction of new on‐site gas distribution lines to serve the new development and connection to the
existing off‐site natural gas facilities. Future development of Site B would connect to existing natural gas
facilities in coordination with and under the supervision of SCGC. Future development at Site B would
incorporate Title 24 energy conservation standards to ensure the development does not result in
inefficient, unnecessary, or wasteful consumption of energy. As with Site A, it is reasonably anticipated
that SCGC’s existing and planned natural gas capacity and supplies would be sufficient to support future
development at Site B given the developable area of Site B and the nature of the land uses that could be
developed in comparison to the existing infrastructure in the City. Accordingly, impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Telecommunication Facilities
Like Site A, any future development at Site B would be required to coordinate with applicable regulatory
agencies and telecommunication providers to locate telecommunication facilities. Any future
development at Site B would be required to comply with the permitted land uses and development
standards associated with the Light Industrial land use designation and zoning. Therefore, the location of
new telecommunication facilities would not result in significant environmental effects. Furthermore,
telecommunication services are provided by private companies, the selection of which is at the discretion
of the Applicant or its Successor on an ongoing basis. Accordingly, impacts to telecommunication facilities
would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Therefore, future development at Site B would not require or result in the relocation or construction of
new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
A significant impact may occur if a project were to increase water consumption to such a degree that new
water sources would need to be identified, or that existing resources would be consumed at a pace greater
than planned for by purveyors, distributors, and service providers.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. FWC would provide water service to the project at Site A. FWC addresses
water supply needs through preparation of an UWMP, which projects future water use demands and
identifies water supplies to meet these demands and is updated at least every five years. Similarly, the
City must consult with the FWC regarding development projects exceeding the thresholds noted in the
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15155 to ensure that sufficient water supplies are available to serve the
project. FWC’s 2020 UWMP, which was adopted in June 2021, estimated water supply and demand during
normal, dry, and multiple‐dry years through 2045 (the planning horizon year for the 2020 UWMP).
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐159
FWC’s water supply is produced from Lytle Creek surface flow, and from wells in the Lytle Basin, Rialto
Basin, Chino Basin, and another groundwater basin known as No Man’s Land. Water from the California
State Water Project is purchased from the IEUA and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District. FWC’s
demands, which were developed considering variables like climate, population growth, and customer
behaviors are projected to increase during the next 25 years. The FCW’s 2020 UWMP water demand
projection for 2045 is approximately 51,943 acre‐feet/year (af/y) for average years, 38,742 af/y for single‐
dry years, and 48,859 af/y for multiple‐dry years.94 The project at Site A, which is comprised of a Care
Center, would represent a small percent of the water supply in 2045 in average years, single‐dry years,
and multiple‐dry years. Furthermore, FWC also has an agreement with the Cucamonga Valley Water
District during water shortages or under emergency situations to access imported water when needed.95
As stated above, the FWC expects to have adequate water supplies to meet all its demands until at least
2045; therefore, the FWC has sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements/resources and no new or expanded entitlements are needed. Therefore, impacts would be
less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. FWC would provide public water service to future development on Site B.
Any future development at Site B would be required to comply with the permitted land uses and
development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use designation and zoning. A Water
Supply Assessment would also be prepared if the proposed future development if the size of the
development triggers an assessment as based on existing state law. Even so, as stated above, the FWC
expects to have adequate water supplies to meet all its demands until at least 2045; therefore, the FWC
has sufficient water supplies available to serve a future development project from existing
entitlements/resources and no new or expanded entitlements are needed. Therefore, impacts would be
less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
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?
A significant impact may occur if a project would increase wastewater generation to such a degree that
the capacity of facilities currently serving the project site would be exceeded.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. The City’s Public Works Department Sewer Maintenance provides sewer
infrastructure to the project area. Sewage from the project site would be conveyed via an existing 8‐inch
diameter VCP sewer pipeline located in Arrow Boulevard. The flow from the existing 8‐inch VCP line feeds
into an 8‐inch VCP line on Tokay Avenue, then into an existing 8‐inch VCP line in Valencia Court before
eventually discharging into a 10‐inch VCP sewer line, which leads to RP‐4. The RP‐4 facility has an existing
treatment capacity of approximately 14 million gallons of wastewater per day and treats approximately
10 million gallons of wastewater per day on average; therefore, the RP‐4 facility has approximately 4
million gallons (14 million gpd – 10 million gpd = 4 million gpd) of excess treatment capacity under existing
94 Fontana Water Company, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2021.
95 Fontana Water Company, Water Quality & Supply, Water Sources, https://www.fontanawater.com/water‐quality‐
supply/water‐sources/. Accessed June 2023.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐160
conditions.96 The project at Site A, which is comprised of a Care Center, would represent a small percent
of wastewater discharge. Therefore, RP‐4 has adequate capacity to serve the project’s demand in addition
to its existing commitments and the project would not require the construction of new or expanded
wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation
measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. Similar to Site A, the City’s Public Works Department Sewer Maintenance
provides sewer infrastructure to the project area, which includes Site B. Sewage from a future
development at Site B would be conveyed to RP‐4, which has approximately 4 million gallons of excess
treatment capacity under existing conditions.97 Any future development at Site B would be required to
comply with the permitted land uses and development standards associated with the Light Industrial land
use designation and zoning. Therefore, as RP‐4 has adequate capacity, future development of Site B would
not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
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?
A significant impact may occur if a project were to increase solid waste generation to a degree that existing
and projected landfill capacity would be insufficient to accommodate the additional solid waste.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. During construction and operation, the project would generate solid waste
that is typical of a Care Center and would be consistent with all federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations regarding proper disposal. As described in the General Plan, Chapter 10, Infrastructure and
Green Systems, the City is currently served by Mid‐Valley Sanitary Landfill, owned and operated by San
Bernardino County, which accepts up to 7,500 tons per day of solid waste and is anticipated to close in
2045.98
Solid waste collection service is provided by Burrtec Waste Industries. Burrtec provides sustainable waste
and recycling services in addition to having an extensive network of processing facilities that would
manage the project site waste stream and includes solid waste, recyclables, green waste, food waste,
construction and demolition waste, electronic waste and a number of other materials. As discussed below
in response to Checklist Question 19(e), the California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) was
enacted to reduce, recycle, and reuse solid waste generated in the state to the maximum extent feasible.
Specifically, AB 939 required cities and counties to identify an implementation schedule to divert 50
percent of the total waste stream from landfill disposal. AB 939 also required each city and county to
promote source reduction, recycling, and safe disposal or transformation. Furthermore, AB 1327 requires
each local jurisdiction to adopt an ordinance requiring commercial, industrial, or institutional building,
marina, or residential buildings having five or more living units to provide an adequate storage area for
96 Fontana Water Company, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2021.
97 Fontana Water Company, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2021.
98 Cal Recycle, SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Mid‐Valley Sanitary Landfill,
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662. Accessed June 2023.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐161
the collection and removal of recyclable materials. All solid waste‐generating activities within the City,
including the project, would continue to be subject to the requirements set forth in AB 939 and AB 1327.
Therefore, it is assumed that the project would divert 50 percent of its solid waste generated, thereby
diverting this waste from landfills and have adequate areas for collection and removal of recyclable
materials. Thus, project implementation would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. Similar to Site A, all solid waste‐generating activities within the City,
including any future development for Site B, would continue to be subject to the requirements set forth
in AB 939 and AB 1327. Therefore, any future development on Site B would divert 50 percent of its solid
waste generated, thereby diverting this waste from landfills. Any future development at Site B would be
required to comply with the permitted land uses and development standards associated with the Light
Industrial land use designation and zoning. Therefore, future development at Site B would not impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no
mitigation measures are required.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
A significant impact may occur if a project would generate solid waste that was not disposed of in
accordance with applicable regulations. Solid waste generated onsite by the project would be disposed of
in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, related to solid waste, such as AB
939.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact. AB 939 requires cities to reduce the solid waste stream in landfills by 50
percent, which means that half of the project’s solid waste generated must be recycled rather than
disposed of in a landfill. The project would be required to comply with AB 939 requirements and
approximately 50 percent of the project’s waste at Site A would be diverted for reuse or recycling; the
remaining solid waste generated during operation would be disposed of in landfills. As detailed on the
City’s Public Works Department website, the City has met this goal since 2000.99 In addition, the CALGreen
Code requires all developments to divert 50 percent of non‐hazardous construction and demolition debris
for all projects and 100 percent of excavated soil and land clearing debris for all non‐residential projects.
The project at Site A must comply with the City’s waste disposal requirements as well as the CALGreen
Code, and as such, would not conflict with any federal, state, or local regulations related to solid waste.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact. Similar to Site A, future development on Site B would be required to comply
with AB 939 requirements and approximately 50 percent of future waste would be diverted for reuse or
recycling; the remaining solid waste generated during operation would be disposed of in landfills. Also,
99 City of Fontana, Public Works, Environmental, Trash and Recycling Services, https://www.fontanaca.gov/541/Trash‐and‐
Recycling‐Services. Accessed June 2023.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐162
future development on Site B must comply with the City’s waste disposal requirements as well as the
CALGreen Code, and as such, would not conflict with any federal, state, or local regulations related to
solid waste. Any future development at Site B would also be required to comply with the permitted land
uses and development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use designation and zoning.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
None required for either Site A or Site B.
Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐163
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
20. WILDFIRE: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power
lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post‐fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
Checklist Discussion
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
and
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?
and
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?
and
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐164
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?
A significant impact may occur if a project were located in or near state responsibility areas or lands
classified as very high fire hazard severity zones and were to: interfere with roadway operations used in
conjunction with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan or would generate traffic
congestion that would interfere with the execution of such a plan; expose people to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or in the path of an uncontrolled spread of a wildfire; would require the
installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risks or that may result
in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment; or expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post‐fire slope stability,
or drainage changes.
SITE A
No Impact. Site A is not located in or near a state responsibility area,100 nor is Site A in or near lands
classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone.101 Therefore, implementation of the project at Site A
would not exacerbate any existing wildfire risks or expose people or the environment to adverse
environmental effects related to wildfires. No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are
required.
SITE B
No Impact. As with Site A, Site B is not located in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as
a very high fire hazard severity zone. Furthermore, no development is proposed for Site B under the
project. Therefore, implementation of the project at Site B would also not exacerbate wildfire risks or
expose people or the environment to effects related to wildfires and no impact would occur, and no
mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
None required for either Site A or Site B.
Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank
100 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Fire Resource Assessment Program, FHSZ Viewer,
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, accessed June 29, 2023.
101 City of Fontana, General Plan Land Use Map, Adopted November 13, 2018, as amended.
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐165
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project:
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal,
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects.)
c) Have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Checklist Discussion
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?
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a) requires a finding of significance if a project “has the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the environment.” In practice, this is the same standard as a significant
effect on the environment, which is defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 as “a substantial or
potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the
project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic
significance.”
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project would alter the existing
undeveloped conditions of the Site A through grading activities and construction of a Care Center built
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐166
out over multiple phases to provide a total of up to 150 living units in up to 40,000 square feet of housing
as well as an administration building and recreational amenities on‐site. As discussed in subsection
Biological Resources, above, the project would remove seven acres of non‐native grassland and a
numerous eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.) trees from Site A. Although no birds were observed nesting on Site
A, the existing non‐native grassland and trees could provide potential roosting and nesting habitat for
birds common to the Fontana area. As such, should construction occur during the avian nesting season
(February 15 – September 1) and active nests are present, significant impacts to nesting birds could occur.
With implementation of mitigation measure MM BIO‐2, impacts to nesting birds at Site A would be less
than significant.
No candidate, sensitive, or special‐status plant species, nor their habitats, were observed within 50 feet
of Site A during the field survey. None of the candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species identified
during the database review were assessed as having moderate‐to‐high potential to occur given available
habitat conditions at Site A and individual species habitat requirements. No rivers or streams are located
on or in the vicinity of Site A, no potentially jurisdictional features were identified within Site A during the
field survey, and are not identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by CDFW or
USFWS. Thus, the project at Site A would have no impact on riparian habitat or sensitive natural
communities and would not alter any stream habitat or disrupt wildlife dispersal and migration.
As discussed in the subsection Cultural Resources, above, there are no known prehistoric or historic
archaeological sites on Site A. These results, compounded with the previous disturbance of past land uses,
have reduced the potential for subsurface cultural materials within Site A. However, there is some
potential to encounter subsurface cultural materials and mitigation measure MM CUL‐1 is required.
Therefore, based on the Cultural Assessment, impacts to historic resources would be less than significant
with implementation of mitigation measure MM CUL‐1. Regarding archaeological resources, in
accordance with standard conditions of approval for grading permits, the City requires adherence to
regulatory compliance measures and procedures related to the incidental discovery of archaeological
resources discovered during construction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with
implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO‐2 and MM CUL‐1.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Biological Report did not detail existing
conditions of Site B. However, because Site B is located on the same project site as Site A, the literature
review conducted to identify candidate, sensitive, and special‐status species with the potential to occur
within the greater project area is applicable to Site B. Furthermore, existing inundation within a low‐lying
portion of Site B may potentially be classified as a wetland. Any future development at Site B would be
required to comply with the permitted land uses and development standards associated with the Light
Industrial land use designation and zoning as well as mitigation measure MM BIO 1, which requires a field
survey by a biologist to detail the existing biological species, habitats, and communities present at Site B
and identify any sensitive or special status species that may be present. Should such species be identified,
mitigation measure MM BIO‐1 also requires proper avoidance and protection measures to be
implemented at the direction of a qualified biologist. In the event that development is proposed for Site
B, implementation of mitigation measure MM BIO‐1 would ensure that impacts to candidate, sensitive,
and special‐status species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands potentially occurring at Site B
would be less than significant as well as ensure that impacts related to conflicts with local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources would be less than significant. Moreover, mitigation measure
MM BIO 2 would be required for Site B, which would ensure impacts to nesting birds at Site B would be
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐167
less than significant. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation
measure MM BIO 1 and MM BIO 2 for Site B.
As discussed in the subsection Cultural Resources, there are no known prehistoric or historic
archaeological sites on the project site. These results, compounded with the high amount of disturbance
due to the past use as a mining pit, have reduced the potential for subsurface cultural materials within
the project site. Any future development at Site B would be required to comply with the permitted land
uses and development standards associated with the Light Industrial land use designation and zoning and
as well as mitigation measures MM CUL 1 and MM CUL 2. These measures require further surveys and an
intensive pedestrian survey to addend the cultural resources report prior to issuance of any ground‐
disturbance‐related permits or other construction‐related activities within Site B. Future development at
Site B would also be subject to the City’s standard conditions of approval for cultural and tribal cultural
resources. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures
MM CUL 1 and MM CUL 2.
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)?
Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when evaluated together, are
considerable or would compound or increase other environmental effects. In the preceding topical
analyses, cumulative impacts of the project have been considered where appropriate. For example, the
evaluation of air quality impacts considered the project’s cumulative contribution to federal or state
nonattainment pollutants within the Basin, and the evaluation of traffic impacts considered the future
traffic growth conditions that could be expected to result from regional and local growth in the vicinity.
As discussed throughout this Initial Study, no significant impacts after mitigation are identified for the
project.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Mitigation measure MM BIO‐2 prohibits
construction activities during nesting season unless surveys are conducted to identify nesting bird surveys
prior to vegetation removal and ground‐disturbing activities, which would ensure impacts remain less
than significant. Furthermore, there is some potential to encounter subsurface cultural materials and
mitigation measure MM CUL‐1 is required. Following implementation of MM HAZ‐1, MM HAZ‐2, and MM
HAZ‐3, construction of the project at Site A would not create a significant hazard to the public or
environment involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Implementation of
mitigation measure MM TCR‐1 addresses possible future concerns raised by particular tribes with regards
to TCRs. These mitigation measures would ensure that impacts are not cumulatively considerable or
cumulatively significant. Therefore, the project would not have cumulatively considerable impacts.
Additionally, any successive projects of the same type and nature would reflect a development that is
consistent with the underlying land use designation and FMC, and thus would be subject to the same
regulations and requirements, including development standards and conditions of approval. The impacts
of each subsequent project would be mitigated if necessary, such as the project at Site A, and thus would
likely not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. As such, the project would not have the
potential to contribute to significant cumulative impacts. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐168
than significant with previously identified mitigation and no further mitigation measures would be
required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Any future development at Site B would be
required to comply with the permitted land uses and development standards associated with the Light
Industrial land use designation and zoning and mitigation measures MM AQ 1, MM BIO 1, MM BIO 2, MM
CUL 1, MM CUL 2, MM GEO 1, MM GEO 2, MM GHG 1, MM HAZ 1, MM HAZ 2, MM HAZ 4, MM HYD 1,
MM NOI 1, and MM TCR 1, which would ensure future development at Site B’s potentially significant
impacts would be less than significant and not cumulatively considerable or cumulatively significant.
Additionally, any successive projects of the same type and nature would reflect a development that is
consistent with the underlying land use designation and FMC, and thus would be subject to the same
regulations and requirements, including development standards and conditions of approval. The impacts
of each subsequent project would be mitigated if necessary, such as the project at Site B, and thus would
likely not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. As such, the project would not have the
potential to contribute to significant cumulative impacts. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less
than significant with previously identified mitigation and no further mitigation measures would be
required.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
A significant impact may occur if a project has the potential to result in significant impacts, as discussed
in the preceding sections.
SITE A
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in subsection Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, following implementation of mitigation measures MM HAZ‐1, MM HAZ‐2, and MM
HAZ‐3 construction of the project at Site A would not create a significant hazard to the public or
environment involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. As discussed in
subsections Hydrology and Water Quality and Transportation, the project would not expose persons to
flooding or transportation hazards. The subsection Geology and Soils explains that residents, employees,
and guests to the project at Site A could be exposed to strong seismic earth shaking due to the potential
for earthquakes in Southern California. The soils and geologic conditions on the site would be alleviated
through required compliance with the CBC. Thus, the project would not result in adverse effects on human
beings from geotechnical considerations. Therefore, the project would not create environmental effects
that would cause substantial adverse effects on humans. No further mitigation measures would be
required.
SITE B
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in subsection Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, following implementation of mitigation measures MM HAZ‐1, MM HAZ‐2, and MM
HAZ‐4 construction of any future development at Site B would not create a significant hazard to the public
or environment involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. As discussed in
subsections Hydrology and Water Quality and Transportation, the project would not expose persons to
CITY OF FONTANA II. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Arrow Blvd & Tokay Ave Land Use Redesignation and Homelessness Prevention Resources and Care Center Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2023
II‐169
flooding or transportation hazards, which would be confirmed through mitigation measures MM HYD 1
and MM TRA 1. Additionally, employees and guests to a future development at Site B could be exposed
to strong seismic earth shaking due to the potential for earthquakes in Southern California. The soils and
geologic conditions on the site would be alleviated through required compliance with the CBC and
mitigation measure MM GEO 1. Thus, the project would not result in adverse effects on human beings
from geotechnical considerations. Therefore, future development at Site B is reasonably anticipated to
not create environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on humans. No further
mitigation measures would be required.