HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 Public Draft ISMND_Courtplace at Fontana Project_October 2022
CITY OF FONTANA
COURTPLACE AT FONTANA PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
October 2022
Prepared By:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
3880 Lemon Street, Suite 420
Riverside, CA 92501
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page i
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ............................. 1
1.1 Project Overview .................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ................................. 1
1.3 Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................. 1
1.4 Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................. 1
1.5 Environmental Resource Topics.............................................................................................. 2
1.6 Report Organization ............................................................................................................... 3
1.7 Initial Study Public Review Process ......................................................................................... 3
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT ...................................................................................... 4
2.1 Location, Setting, Proposed Project ........................................................................................ 4
2.2 Proposed Project .................................................................................................................... 5
Initial Study Checklist ................................................................................................................... 33
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................................. 35
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 37
Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................... 37
Agriculture and Forestry REsources .............................................................................................. 47
Air Quality .................................................................................................................................... 49
Biological Resources ..................................................................................................................... 65
Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................... 80
Energy.......................................................................................................................................... 83
Geology and Soils ......................................................................................................................... 89
Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................................................................................... 94
Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................. 108
Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................................................... 111
Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................... 119
Mineral Resources ..................................................................................................................... 120
Noise ......................................................................................................................................... 121
Population and Housing ............................................................................................................. 142
Public Services ........................................................................................................................... 144
Recreation ................................................................................................................................. 148
Transportation ........................................................................................................................... 149
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page ii
Tribal Cultural Resources............................................................................................................ 159
Utilities And Service Systems ...................................................................................................... 161
Wildfire ...................................................................................................................................... 165
Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................................ 168
4.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 171
Tables
Table 1: Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts ................................................................................ 5
Table 2: Project Residential Units Breakdown .......................................................................................... 6
Table 3: Phase I and II Required and Proposed Parking Spaces ................................................................. 7
Table 4: Common and Private Open Space .............................................................................................. 7
Table 5: Other Permits and Approvals.................................................................................................... 33
Table 6: Construction-Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day) ................................................... 54
Table 7: Long-Term Operational Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day) ................................................ 55
Table 8: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates ............................................................................................ 58
Table 9: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day) .......................... 59
Table 10: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day) ......................... 59
Table 11: Database Queries Species Occurrence Results ........................................................................ 71
Table 12: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................... 98
Table 13: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................... 99
Table 14: San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Consistency..................... 100
Table 15: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency ...................... 101
Table 16: Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures ....................................... 103
Table 17: BMP Inspection and Maintenance ........................................................................................ 114
Table 18: Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations ........... 125
Table 19: Existing Noise Measurements ............................................................................................... 129
Table 20: Sensitive Receptors .............................................................................................................. 133
Table 21: Typical Construction Noise Levels ......................................................................................... 135
Table 22: Project Construction Noise Levels ......................................................................................... 136
Table 23: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ................................................................. 139
Table 24: Traffic Intersections Study Area ............................................................................................ 151
Table 25: HCM-LOS & Delay Ranges – Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections ................................. 153
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page iii
Table 26: City of Fontana Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................ 154
Table 27: Cumulative Projects List ....................................................................................................... 154
Table 28: Intersection Analysis – Project Opening Year Plus Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
(for informational purposes only) ......................................................................................... 158
Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Location ..................................................................................................................... 9
Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity .......................................................................................................................... 11
Exhibit 3: Phasing Plan ........................................................................................................................... 13
Exhibit 4a: Level 1 Site Plan/Floor Plan .................................................................................................. 15
Exhibit 4b: Level 2 Site Plan/Floor Plan .................................................................................................. 17
Exhibit 4c: Level 3 Site Plan/Floor Plan ................................................................................................... 19
Exhibit 4d: Level 4 Site Plan/Floor Plan .................................................................................................. 21
Exhibit 4e: Roof Level Site Plan/Floor Plan ............................................................................................. 23
Exhibit 5a: Elevations............................................................................................................................. 25
Exhibit 5b: Elevations ............................................................................................................................ 27
Exhibit 6: Conceptual Landscape Plan .................................................................................................... 29
Exhibit 7: Driveway Alignment and Traffic Signal.................................................................................... 31
Exhibit 8a: Project Rendering ................................................................................................................. 41
Exhibit 8b: Project Rendering................................................................................................................. 43
Exhibit 8c: Project Rendering ................................................................................................................. 45
Exhibit 9: Noise Measurements ........................................................................................................... 131
Appendices
Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessments
Appendix B: Biological Resources Assessment and Jurisdictional Waters Delineation
Appendix C: Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix D: Noise Assessment
Appendix E: Traffic Impact Analysis
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page iv
This page intentionally left blank.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE OF THE
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1.1 Project Overview
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared by Kimley-Horn and
Associates (Kimley-Horn) for the City of Fontana (City) for the implementation of the proposed
Courtplace at Fontana Project (“Project or proposed Project”), located at 11196 Sierra Avenue,
in the southcentral portion of the City of Fontana This IS/MND was prepared pursuant with the
requirements set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to determine
significant impacts on specific environmental areas. Where a potentially significant impact may
occur, appropriate mitigation measures(s) have been identified to avoid or mitigate the potential
impact to a less than significant level.
1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
This IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code [PRC]
Section 21000 et seq.) and its Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Section
15000 et seq.), to evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with the construction
and operation of Courtplace at Fontana. Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines,
the City of Fontana (City) is the lead agency for the Project. The lead agency is the public agency
that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.
As set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, an IS/MND can be prepared when the
Initial Study has identified potentially significant environmental impacts, but revisions have been
made to a project, prior to public review of the Initial Study, that would avoid or mitigate the
impacts to a level considered less than significant; and there is no substantial evidence in light of
the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant
effect on the environment.
1.3 Summary of Findings
Section 3.0 of this document contains the Environmental Checklist that was prepared for the
proposed Project pursuant to CEQA requirements. The Environmental Checklist indicates
whether the proposed Project would result in significant impacts with the implementation of
mitigation measures, as identified throughout this document.
1.4 Mitigation Measures
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15041, Authority to Mitigate, gives the lead agency for a project
the authority to require feasible changes in any or all activities involved in the project in order to
substantially lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment, consistent with applicable
constitutional requirements such as the “nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards. CEQA
Guidelines Section 15364 defines “feasible” as capable of being accomplished in a successful
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 2
manner within a reasonable period of time, considering economic, environmental, legal, social,
and technological factors. Mitigation measures will be adopted to reduce the environmental
impacts to less than significant levels and must be consistent with all applicable constitutional
requirements, including the following:
• There must be an essential nexus (i.e., connections) between the mitigation measure and
legitimate governmental interest.
• The mitigation measure be “roughly proportional” to the impacts of the project.
Several forms of mitigation under CEQA Section 15370 are summarized as follow:
• Avoiding the impact by not taking a certain action(s);
• Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation;
• Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impact environment;
• Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action; and
• Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or
environment.
Avoiding impacts is the preferred form of mitigation, followed by minimizing or rectifying the
impact to less than significant levels. Compensating for impacts would be pursued if no other
form of mitigation is not feasible.
1.5 Environmental Resource Topics
This IS/MND evaluates the proposed Project’s impacts on the following resource topics:
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 3
1.6 Report Organization
This document has been organized into the following sections:
• Section 1.0 – Introduction & Purpose of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration. This section provides an introduction and overview describing the
conclusions of the Initial Study.
• Section 2.0 – Description of Proposed Project. This section identifies key project
characteristics and includes a list of anticipated discretionary actions.
• Section 3.0 – Initial Study Checklist. The Environmental Checklist Form provides an
overview of the potential impacts that may or may not result from Project
implementation.
• Section 4.0 – Environmental Analysis. This section contains an analysis of environmental
impacts identified in the Environmental Checklist Form.
• Section 5.0 – References. The section identifies resources used to prepare the Initial
Study.
1.7 Initial Study Public Review Process
The Initial Study and a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt this MND will be distributed to responsible
and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, and other parties for a 20-day public review
period.
Written comments regarding this MND should be addressed to:
Salvador Quintanilla
Associate Planner
squintanilla@fontana.org
Planning Department
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 4
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
2.1 Location, Setting, Proposed Project
PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed Project site is located at 11196 Sierra Avenue, west of Sierra Avenue, and north of
Jurupa Avenue in the south-central portion of the City of Fontana, within San Bernardino County
(County). The Project site is located approximately 1.0-mile south of Interstate 10 (I-10),
approximately 2.5-miles north of State Route 60 (SR-60), 6.0-miles east of Interstate 15 (I-15) and
7.5-miles west of I-215. The Project site is depicted on the border of the Fontana U.S. Geological
Survey’s (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map in the northern portion of Section 30, Township 1
South, Range 5 West. The Project site is bounded by vacant land to the north, residential to the
south, future industrial development to the west, and Sierra Avenue and commercial to the east;
refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Location.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Project site is located 11196 Sierra Avenue, on a vacant rectangular-shaped stormwater
detention basin site on approximately 4.8 acres or 208,878 square feet (SF) composed of two
parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs]: 0255-101-22 and 0255-101-23). The Project site is
disturbed entirely. No native habitat exists onsite. The detention basin is periodically disced with
scattered natural grasses. As noted above, the site is surrounded by vacant land to the north,
residential to the south and west (as noted above, land to the west of the Project site has been
previously approved for industrial development by Western Properties), and Sierra Avenue and
commercial to the east. The soils on site are mapped as Delhi fine sand soils; refer to Exhibit 2,
Local Vicinity.
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT
The City’s General Plan Land Use Map was updated and adopted on March 2, 2021. In addition,
the City’s Zoning District Map was updated on March 2, 2021. The proposed Project is designated
under the General Plan Land Use Map as Walkable Mixed-Use Corridor and Downtown
(WMXU-1) with a zoning district of Form-Based Code (FBC). Adjacent land use and zoning
designations are listed in the following Table 1, Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 5
Table 1: Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts
Location General Plan Land Use Designation Existing Zoning District
Project Site (WMXU-1) Walkable Mixed-Use Corridor & Downtown (FBC) Form-Based Code
North (WMXU-1) Walkable Mixed-Use Corridor & Downtown (FBC) Form-Based Code
South (WMXU-1) Walkable Mixed-Use Corridor & Downtown (FBC) Form-Based Code
East (C-G) Community Commercial (C-2) General Commercial
West Specific Plan #5 – Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan #5 – Southwest
Industrial Park
Sources:
City of Fontana, State of California General Plan Land Use Map (Updated March 2, 2021), accessible at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28163/General-Plan-Land-Use-Map-3-2-2021?bidId=. Accessed on March 24, 2021.
City of Fontana. (2021). Zoning District Map. Available at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/30623/Zoning-District-Map-3-2-
21?bidId=. Accessed on March 24, 2021.
2.2 Proposed Project
The proposed Project would modify the two existing parcels via a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) to
allow for a two phased affordable housing project. The Project proposes multi-level residential
affordable apartment buildings with associated green space, community gathering areas, vehicle
parking, landscaping, and security fencing on the approximately 4.8-acres of land.
This affordable housing project proposes a total of 106 residential units organized in three court-
style buildings. Phase I will include 50 units within two three-story buildings “Building A1 and A2”
fronting Sierra Avenue, the main access road. Phase II will include 56 units within one four-story
building “Building B” located behind Buildings A1 and A2.
CONSTRUCTION
• Phase I is anticipated to begin in the second half of 2023, and construction of Phase I is
anticipated to be completed by the first quarter of 2025.
• Phase II is anticipated to begin in the second half of 2024 and construction of Phase II is
anticipated to be completed by the first quarter of 2026.
Phase I (Buildings A1 and A2)
Phase I will include filling in the basin at grade and subsequently the construction of buildings
“A1 and A2.” Building “A1 and B2” include a leasing/management office and community building,
as well as the various residential units. Phase I will have an approximate mix of 14% 1 bedroom/1
bath, 60% 2 bedroom/1 bath, and 26% 3 bedroom/2 bath units.
Phase II (Building B)
Phase II (Building “B”) would be organized around a community courtyard and has an
approximate mix of 13% 1 bedroom/1 bath, 63% 2 bedroom/1 bath and 25% 3 bedroom/2 bath
units.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 6
Only Building B would be served by an elevator. Both buildings would have a combination of
covered parking at grade and open parking along the perimeter. A breakdown of the proposed
Project is provided below in Table 2, Project Residential Units Breakdown.
Table 2: Project Residential Units Breakdown
Phase I (Buildings A1 and B2)
Unit Type Unit Area (SF) Story/Level Units Total Unit Area (SF) Unit
Mix L1 L2 L3 L4
A1 (1BR/1BA Unit) 584 2 3 2 - 7 4,200 14%
B1 (2BR/1BA Unit) 885 10 10 10 - 30 26,550 60%
C1 (3BR/2BA Unit) 1,085 3 5 5 - 13 5,425 26%
Phase I Total 15 18 17 0 50 44,743 100%
Phase II (Building B)
Unit Type Unit Area (SF)
Story/Level
Units
Total Unit
Area (SF)
Unit
Mix L1 L2 L3 L4
A1 (1BR/1BA Unit) 584 1 2 2 2 7 4,088 13%
B1 (2BR/1BA Unit) 885 5 10 10 10 35 30,975 63%
C1 (3BR/2BA Unit) 1,085 2 3 3 3 11 11,935 25% C2 (3BR/2BA Unit) 1,110 1 1 1 3 3,330
Phase II Total 8 16 16 16 56 50,328 100%
Phase I & II Grand Total 23 34 33 16 106 95,071 -
Source: Design and Architecture. February 3, 2022.
BR = bedroom, BA = bathroom, SF = square feet
Total may exceed 100% due to rounding.
Refer to Exhibit 3, Phasing Plan, Exhibits 4a-4e, Site Plan/Floor Plan, and Exhibits 5a and 5b,
Elevations.
SITE ACCESS
Vehicular and pedestrian site access is provided via two driveways on Sierra Avenue; Driveway 1
is an exit-only driveway including a vehicular gate, located at the northeast corner of the site.
Driveway 2 is a full movement driveway located on the southeast corner of the site. The Project
site includes a wrap-around access road to be designed according to the City of Fontana
standards.
PARKING
A breakdown of Project related parking is provided in Table 3, Phase I and Phase II Required and
Proposed Parking Spaces:
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 7
Table 3: Phase I and II Required and Proposed Parking Spaces
Standard Parallel Compact Guest ADA ADA
Van
Pkg.
Prov.
Pkg
Req.
PHASE I (Buildings A1 and B2)
Tuck-Under Parking - - - - - - - -
Open Parking (1 USPS Space) 39 7 - 8 10 4 68 -
Phase I Total Parking 39 7 0 8 10 4 68 63
PHASE II (Building B)
Tuck-Under Parking 2 - - - 9 2 13 -
Open Parking (1 USPS Space) 38 - 20 - - - 58 -
Phase II
Total Parking 40 0 20 0 9 2 71 69
PHASE I & II (Total Parking Count)
Tuck-Under Parking 2 - - - 9 2 13 -
Open Parking (1 USPS Space) 77 7 20 8 10 4 126 -
Grand Total Parking 79 7 20 8 19 6 139 132
Source:
Design and Architecture. February 3, 2022.
As noted in Table 3, the Project will adequately provide the 139 parking spaces of the 132 spaces
required to accommodate residents and visitors.
LANDSCAPING
As noted in Table 4, Common and Private Open Space, open space provided is broken down
between common and private open space. As noted in Table 4, approximately 20,334 SF of
combined open space will be provided; refer to Exhibit 6, Conceptual Landscape Plan.
Additionally, the Project will provide 31 trees.
Table 4: Common and Private Open Space
Type Open Space Required (SF) Open Space Provided (SF)
Common Open Space 6,784 8,033
Private Open Space 10,263 12,301
Total 17,047 20,334
Source:
Design and Architecture. March 31st, 2021.
SHARED SPACE
The Project proposes two large open lawns (27 feet X 29.5 feet and 35 feet x 21.5 feet), one tot-
lot with play equipment (for children aged 5-12 years old), a pool/shaded trellis, two barbeque
court yards with picnic tables and benches, and two community rooms.
WATER
The Project site is proposed to be self-contained and will not include any off-site flows from
adjacent properties. All proposed waters would flow into on-site detention basin that is proposed
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 8
west of Building B and down drains/area drains. All proposed storm water would flow into
proposed infiltration chambers located within the perimeter improvements. The Best
Management Practice (BMP)-treated volume is proposed to then be infiltrated into the soils.
Storm water flows above the required treatment volume would bypass to the storm City CIP
Storm drain facilities proposed around the perimeter of the development.
ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
The on-site water, sanitary sewer, storm drain, and parking improvements would be considered
private and would be the responsibility of the property maintenance company (PMC). The PMC
would be contracted and would be signing a separate maintenance agreement. All landscaping
and/or common area maintenance would be the responsibility of the PMC or by an appointed
professional landscaping consultant.
The proposed onsite detention basin is anticipated to be completed before any of the two Project
phases begin. The detention basin is part of the City’s public works project which is separate from
the proposed Project; however, it is located on the same site.
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
The proposed Project would construct public street improvements including driveway
connections along Sierra Avenue, adding an additional turning lane within the existing roadway
with, associated parkway improvements, and street signalization at the main Project driveway at
Sierra Avenue; refer to Exhibit 7, Driveway Alignment and Traffic Signal.
PROJECT APPROVALS
The City as the Lead Agency is responsible for reviewing and approving the MND. The Project
requires the following approvals:
1. Design Review Permit (DRP) No. 20-034
2. Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) No. 20-006
Other permits required for the Project may include, but are not limited to, the following: issuance
of encroachment permits for driveways and utilities; security and parking area lighting permits;
building permits; grading permits; tenant improvement permits; and permits for new utility
connections.
Project Site
EXHIBIT 1: Regional Location Courtplace at Fontana Project
Source: ESRI World Street Map K:\RIV_GIS\195184001 - Fontana Southridge\MND 01 Regional Location.mxd
0 21
Miles
Fontana
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 10
This page intentionally left blank
Juniper Avenue
Sierra Avenue
Jurupa Avenue
Underwood Drive
EXHIBIT 2: Local VicinitySource: ESRI World Imagery K:\RIV_GIS\195184001 - Fontana Southridge\MND 02 Local Vicinity.mxd
0 350175
Feet
PROJECT SITE
Courtplace at Fontana Project
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 12
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT 3: Phasing PlanCourtyard at Fontana Project
Source: DNA Design and Architecture, March 31, 2021. K:\RIV_GIS\195184001 - Fontana Southridge\MND 03 Phasing Plan.mxd
0 10050
Feet
Source: DNA Design and Architecture, February 3, 2021
33
0
'
-
0
"
Sie
r
r
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Existing
Driveway
Existing
Driveway
121'-8"
Median (E)
Proposed New
Median
183'-0"182'-7"255'-8"
Building A2
Building B
Building A1
PHASE 1DETENTION BASIN PHASE 2
Courtplace at Fontana Project
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 14
This page intentionally left blank.
EXHIBIT 4a: Level 1 Site Plan/Floor PlanCourtyard at Fontana ProjectCourtplace at Fontana Project
Sie
r
r
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Community
Room
Community
Room
Trash Rm. 2
Bike Room
USPS Pkg
Loading
122'-6"68'-5"70'-0"39'-5"
88'-6"29'-11"67'-0"
14
9
'
-
5
"
8'-
3
"
12
0
'
-
1
"
17
'
-
8
"
69
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
5
"
Mail
Laundry
Room
Elev. #1 & 2
R19'-0
"
R1
9
'
-
0
"
Transformer
C1
A2
Stair #1
Trash Rm 1A
Vehicular
Security Gate
Vehicular Security Gate
(Exit Only)
10'-0" SETBACK
Maint. Room
43'
-
1
"
Building A1
3 Stories
30'-0" PARKING SETBACK
74
'
-
1
"
55
'
-
2
"
5'-0" SETBACK
5'-
0
"
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5'-
0
"
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
Line of
Dedication
Leasing
Office
31'-6"
21
9
'
-
2
"
377'-9"
135'-4"30'-0"
101'-9"
Elec. Rm.
Stair #2
B2
C1
B2
B1
C1
B1 B1
B1
B2
24'-9"
15
0
'
-
6
"
Elec.
Rm.
60
'
-
7
"
38
'
-
8
"
23
'
-
6
"
32
'
-
0
"
32
'
-
0
"
A1
C1
Bike Room
Laundry
RoomB2
Stair #3
Storage
Building A
3 Story Wing
Building B
4 Stories
Stair #2
Phase
Line
R19
'
-
0
"
R1
9
'
-
0
"
R19'-0"
R19'-
0
"
183'-0"182'-7"255'-8"
330
'
-
0
"
C2
B2 B2
B2
B2
B2
Stair #1
Stair #4
Stair #5
63'-4"
B2
B2
27'-2"
Gate
Conf.
S.S.
Office
Learning
A.Mgr.
Mgr.
A2
42"42"42"
20
1413
15161718
UP
1921
1413
15161718
UP
192021
UP
UP
UP
Building A2
3 Stories
Elec.
Room
45
'
-
4
"
40'
-
1
0
"
15
'
-
4
"
54
'
-
4
"
15'-1"
10
7
'
-
8
"
72
'
-
1
0
"
Vehicular
Security Gate
10'-0"
Elev. +0'
Elev. +0'
Elev. +0'
Tr. Rm. 1B
Note At Intersections:
19' Inside Turning Radius
49' Outside Turning Radius
30'-0"
30
'
-
0
"
30'
-
0
"
PHASE IDETENTION BASIN PHASE II
Source DNA Design and Architecture, February 3, 2022
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 16
This page intentionally left blank.
Source: DNA Design and Architecture, February 3, 2022
122'-6"68'-5"120'-0"39'-5"
88'-4"30'-1"67'-0"
14
9
'
-
5
"
12
0
'
-
1
"
17
'
-
8
"
69
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
5
"
C1
A2
Roof
Vehicular
Gate
10'-0" SETBACK
Building A1
3 Stories
30'-0" PARKING SETBACK
63
'
-
4
"
5'-0" SETBACK
5'-
0
"
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5'-0
"
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
Line of
Dedication
21
9
'
-
2
"
377'-9"
122'-3"70'-3"
101'-9"
Stair #2
B2
C1
B2
60
'
-
7
"
38
'
-
8
"
23
'
-
6
"
B2
Stair #3
Phase
Line
C2
B2 B2
B2
B2
B2
Stair #1
Stair #4
Stair #5
28'-6"
B2
B2
Elev. #1 & 2
Stair #1
B1
C1
B1 B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
C1
A1
B2
C1
B1
Roof
Trash Vest.
Building B
4 Stories
Stair #2
B2
C1
A1
24'-9"
15
0
'
-
6
"
Roof
Roof
Roof
C1
C2
A2
A2
Roof
UP
DN
UP
DN
DNUP
DNUP
DN
UP
43
'
-
1
"
74
'
-
1
"
183'-0"182'-7"255'-8"
33
0
'
-
0
"
55
'
-
6
"
49'-8"
55
'
-
4
"
Building A2
3 Stories10'-0"
Elev. +12'
Elev. +12'
Elev. +10'
Ele
v
.
+
1
2
'
Ele
v
.
+
1
2
'
Elev. +12'
PHASE 1PHASE 2DETENTION BASIN
EXHIBIT 4b: Level 2 Site Plan/Floor PlanCourtyard at Fontana Project
Source: DNA Design and Architecture, March 31, 2021.K:\RIV_GIS\195184001 - Fontana Southridge\MND 04b Level 2 Floor Plan.mxd
0 10050
FeetCourtplace at Fontana Project
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 18
This page intentionally left blank.
EXHIBIT 4c: Level 3 Site Plan/Floor PlanCourtyard at Fontana Project 0 10050
Feet
Source: DNA Design and Architecture, February 3, 2022
C1
A2
Building A1
3 Stories
Line of
Dedication
Stair #2
B2
C1
B2
60
'
-
0
"
B2
Stair #3
Phase
Line
C2
B2 B2
B2
B2
B2
Stair #1
Stair #4
Stair #5
B2
B2
Elev. #1 & 2
Stair #1
B1
C1
B1 B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
C1
A1
B2
C1
B1
Trash Vest.
Building B
4 Stories
Stair #2
B2
C1
A1
C1
C2
Roof
A2
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
122'-6"68'-5"120'-0"39'-5"
88'-4"30'-1"67'-0"
149
'
-
5
"
12
0
'
-
1
"
17
'
-
8
"
69
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
5
"
10'-0" SETBACK
30'-0" PARKING SETBACK
63
'
-
4
"
5'-0" SETBACK
5'-0
"
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5'-0
"
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
21
9
'
-
2
"
377'-9"
122'-3"70'-3"
101'-9"
60
'
-
7
"
38
'
-
8
"
28'-6"
24'-9"
15
0
'
-
6
"
43
'
-
1
"
74
'
-
1
"
183'-0"182'-7"255'-8"
33
0
'
-
0
"
55
'
-
6
"
49'-8"
55
'
-
4
"
Building A2
3 Stories10'-0"
Elev. +22'
Elev. +22'
Elev. +20'
Ele
v
.
+
2
2
'
Ele
v
.
+
2
2
'
Elev. +22'
PHASE 1PHASE 2DETENTION BASIN
Courtplace at Fontana Project
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 20
This page intentionally left blank.
EXHIBIT 4d: Level 4 Site Plan/Floor PlanCourtyard at Fontana Project 0 10050
Feet
DNA Design and Architecture, February 3, 2022
Building A1
3 Stories
Line of
Dedication
Phase
Line
Elev. #1 & 2
Stair #1
B1
C1
B1 B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
C1
A1
B2
C1
B1
Roof
Trash Vest.
Building B
4 Stories
Stair #2
B2
C1
A1
60
'
-
0
"
122'-6"68'-5"120'-0"39'-5"
88'-4"30'-1"67'-0"
14
9
'
-
5
"
12
0
'
-
1
"
17
'
-
8
"
69
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
5
"
10'-0" SETBACK
30'-0" PARKING SETBACK
63
'
-
4
"
5'-0" SETBACK
5'-
0
"
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5'-
0
"
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
21
9
'
-
2
"
377'-9"
122'-3"70'-3"
101'-9"
60
'
-
7
"
38
'
-
8
"
28'-6"
24'-9"
15
0
'
-
6
"
43
'
-
1
"
74
'
-
1
"
183'-0"182'-7"255'-8"
33
0
'
-
0
"
55
'
-
6
"
49'-8"
55
'
-
4
"
Building A2
3 Stories10'-0"
Building A
3 Stories
Roof
Roof
Roof
Solar PV Panels
Roof
Solar PV Panels
Solar PV Panels
Elev. +30'
PHASE IDETENTION BASIN PHASE II
Courtplace at Fontana Project
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 22
This page intentionally left blank.
DNA Design and Architecture, February 3, 2022EXHIBIT 4e: Roof Level PlanCourtyard at Fontana Project
Source: DNA Design and Architecture, March 31, 2021.K:\RIV_GIS\195184001 - Fontana Southridge\MND 04e Roof Level Plan.mxd
0 10050
Feet
Line of
Dedication
Stair #1
Building B
4 Stories
Phase
Line
Roof
Roof
Mechanical
Condensers
Mechanical
Condensers
Building A
3 Stories
Roof
Roof
Roof
60
'
-
0
"
122'-6"68'-5"120'-0"39'-5"
88'-4"30'-1"67'-0"
14
9
'
-
5
"
12
0
'
-
1
"
17
'
-
8
"
69
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
5
"
10'-0" SETBACK
30'-0" PARKING SETBACK
63
'
-
4
"
5'-0" SETBACK
5'-
0
"
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5'-0
"
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
21
9
'
-
2
"
377'-9"
122'-3"70'-3"
101'-9"
60
'
-
7
"
38
'
-
8
"
28'-6"
24'-9"
15
0
'
-
6
"
43
'
-
1
"
74
'
-
1
"
183'-0"182'-7"255'-8"
33
0
'
-
0
"
55
'
-
6
"
49'-8"
55
'
-
4
"
10'-0"
Solar PV Panels
Roof
Solar PV Panels
Solar PV Panels
Mechanical
Condensers
Solar PV Panels
Solar PV Panels
PHASE 1PHASE 2DETENTION BASIN
Courtplace at Fontana Project
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 24
This page intentionally left blank.
DNA Design and Architecture, February 3, 2022
S H E E T # :
RELATED COMPANIES18201 VON KARMAN AVE. STE 900IRVINE, CA 92612949-660-7272
OWNER (APPLICANT):
S C A L E : :DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURE2062 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE SUITE 140IRVINE, CA 92612714-389-1890
Development Package
11196 SIERRA AVENUEFONTANA, CA 92337PROPERTY ADDRESS:0 10 20 40 A
AB
KEY PLANNORTH
2
1
1"=10 EXHIBIT 5a: ElevationsCourtyard at Fontana Project
12'
-
0
"
10'-0
"
12'-0
"
9'-0
"
9'-0
"
10
'
-
0
"
L1 Level
L2 Level
L3 Level
L3 Plate
PL
SETBACK
5'-0"
PL
58'-6"
BUILDING A1
149'-0"69'-0"
SETBACK
5'-0"
El. 38'-0"
L1 Level
L2 Level
L3 Level
L3 Plate
El. 36'-6"
BUILDING A2
43'-9"
El. 40'-0"
BUILDING A2
98'-8"
PL
9'-0
"
10
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
SETBACK
10'-0"
L1 Level
L2 Level
L3 Level
L3 Plate
BUILDING B
122'-3"44'-8"
PL
SETBACK
5'-0"69'-0"
9'-0
"
10
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
L1 Level
L2 Level
L3 Level
L3 Plate El. 36'-6"
El. 45'-0"
El. 51'-0"
El. 40'-0"El. 36'-6"El. 38'-0"
BUILDING A1
68'-0"19'-8"
El. 36'-6"
10'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
9'-
0
"
L1 Level
L2 Level
L3 Level
L3 Plate
12
'
-
0
"
9'-0
"
10
'
-
0
"
L1 Level
L2 Level
L3 Level
L3 Plate
9'-0
"
10
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
L1 Level
L2 Level
L3 Level
L3 Plate
9'-0
"
10
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
L1 Level
L2 Level
L3 Level
L3 Plate
El. 36'-6"El. 38'-0"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
9'-
0
"
L1 Level
L2 Level
L3 Level
L4 Level
L4 Level Plate
10
-
5
-
1
B
9
-
1O-
1
E
11
-
SOUTH ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
1
2
9-
5
-
3A
2
A
4
A
9-5-
10
-
1E
2
A
1
E
2
A
5
-
1
C
1
E
7
F
1
A
7F
10
-
1
A
10
-
1
B
15
-
14
-
4
A
7
F
3
A
ENLARGED SOUTH ELEVATION6 ENLARGED EAST ELEVATION4 ENLARGED EAST ELEVATION3
3
4
6
13
-
11-1E
11
-
-
D
-
D
3
C
1
C
8
F
2
A
9
-
1
E
16
-
11
-
1G
1
E
16-
-
D
1
E
11-
4
A
2
A
10
-
6D2A
6
D
10
-
5
5 ENLARGED SOUTH ELEVATION
1"= 10'1"= 10'1"= 10'
1"= 10'1"= 20'
1"= 20'
4
B
1
C
1
G
-
H
-
D
7
F
14
-
1B
15
-
-J
16-
16
-
1
C
-
D
10-
5-3E 12-
11-1A -H
9-1G
10
-
5
-
16
-
-
D
-
F
Courtplace at Fontana Project
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 26
This page intentionally left blank.
DNA Design and Architecture, February 3, 2022 S H E E T # :IRVINE, CA 92612714-389-1890 A3.1
KEY PLANNORTHEXHIBIT 5b: ElevationsCourtyard at Fontana Project
Source: DNA Design and Architecture, March 31, 2021.K:\RIV_GIS\195184001 - Fontana Southridge\MND 05a Elevations.mxd
BUILDING A1
188'-0"
PL
9'-0
"
10'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
SETBACK
10'-0"
L1 Level
L2 Level
L3 Level
L3 Plate
10
'
-
0
"
10'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
9'-
0
"
L1 Level
L2 Level
L3 Level
L4 Level
L4 Level Plate
PL
SETBACK5'-0"
69'-0"44'-8"
BUILDING B
122'-3"
El. 40'-0"El. 36'-6"
El. 45'-0"
El. 51'-0"
El. 40'-0"
10
'
-
0
"
10'
-
0
"
L1 Level
L2 Level
L3 Level
L4 Plate
9'-0
"
9'-0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10'
-
0
"
L1 Level
L2 Level
L3 Level
L4 Plate
PL
SETBACK5'-0"
PL
50'-4"
BUILDING B
219'-2"50'-8"
SETBACK5'-0"
10
'
-
0
"
L4 Level L4 Level
10
'
-
0
"
El. 45'-0"
El. 51'-0"
El. 47'-6"
El. 45'-0"
El. 51'-0"
9'-0
"
10
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
L1 Level
L2 Level
L3 Level
L3 Plate
El. 40'-0"
El. 36'-6"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
L1 Level
L2 Level
L3 Level
L4 Plate
9'-
0
"
10'
-
0
"
L4 Level
El. 45'-0"
El. 51'-0"
10
'
-
0
"
10'
-
0
"
L1 Level
L2 Level
L3 Level
L4 Plate
9'-0
"
10
'
-
0
"
L4 Level
WEST ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
Elevations - Farmhouse Style
2
1
1
E
2
A
1C
7
F
1
C
1E
2
A
8
F
1
E
-D6D1A
1
B
10-1C
2
A
11
-
1
E
2
A
9
-
1
E
-D6D4B
1
B
10-
8
F
35
5 3
1C1E2A1E
7
F
-
D
10-5-
1
A
-H
11-
1E11-11-1C -D7F
2
A
1C -D3C 10-1A 11-7F 2A1B6D 10-
1
E
-
D
5
-
ENLARGED WEST ELEVATION4
ENLARGED NORTH ELEVATIONENLARGED NORTH ELEVATION
4
1E
14
-
15
-
1"= 10'
1"= 20'
1"= 20'
1"= 10'
1"= 10'
1
E
2
A
10
-
1
C
10
-
1
B
7
F
4B
4
B
1
C
1
G
4
B
1A
1
A
-
H
10
-
1
G
11
-
6
D
2
A
1A16-
5
-
-J 11-
1
G
Courtplace at Fontana Project
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 28
This page intentionally left blank.
PHASE 1PHASE 2
BBQ PLAZA / OUTDOOR EATING
TOT LOT - 2yr - 12yr
POOL - 27’ x 50’ / TRELLIS AREAS
POOL FENCE/GATE
TEEN AREA
GRASS AREA
OUTDOOR SEATING / LOUNGE SEATING
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
EXHIBIT 7: Conceptual Landscape PlanCourtyard at Fontana Project
Source: Design and Architecture, March 31, 2021.K:\RIV_GIS\195184001 - Fontana Southridge\MND 07 Conceptual Landscape Plan.mxd
0 10050
Feet
6DNA Design and Architecture, February 3, 2022
Courtplace at Fontana Project
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 30
This page intentionally left blank.
EXHIBIT 9: Driveway Alignment and Traffic SignalCourtyard at Fontana Project
Source: TJW ENGINEERING, INC - Alignment Study Sierra Avenue From Jurupa Avenue to Underwood Drive
I 0 240120
FeetCourtplace at Fontana Project87
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 32
This page intentionally left blank.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 33
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
1. Project title:
Courtplace at Fontana
2. Lead agency name and address:
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
3. Contact person and phone number:
Salvador Quintanilla
PH: (909) 350-7608
4. Project location:
11196 Sierra Avenue, City of Fontana.
Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0255-101-22, -23.
5. Project applicant’s/sponsor's name and address:
Related California
18201 Von Karman Suite 900
Irvine, CA 92612
Attn: Kevin Lao
Email: Klao@related.com
PH: (206) 818-4546
6. General Plan designation:
Current: (WMXU-1) Walkable Mixed-Use Corridor & Downtown
7. Zoning designation:
Current: (FBC) Form-Based Code (Transitional District)
8. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Table 5: Other Permits and Approvals
Agency Permit or Approval
Fontana Planning Commission Design Review, Mitigated Negative Declaration
Fontana Water Company Letter of authorization/consent for proposed improvements to
provide water supply connection to new development.
Southern California Edison
Company (SCE)
Letter of authorization/consent for proposed improvements to
provide electrical supply connection to new development.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 34
9. Project summary:
The proposed Project consists of the construction of an approximately 104,250-square-feet
of affordable housing totaling 106 units across three buildings. The Project will be
constructed in two phases. Phase I would include Buildings “A1 and A2” and Phase II would
include Building “B” and a detention basin. The proposed Project would be located on an
approximately 4.8-acre site currently utilized as a stormwater detention basin which would
be filled to grade. The Project would include recreational space, common and private open
space, perimeter fencing, community gathering space, and perimeter landscaping.
10. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
Project area requested consultation pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a
plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of signific ance of
impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
NOTE: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project
proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to
tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process.
(See PRC Section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage
Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources
Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that PRC
Section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
The City has completed the Assembly Bill (AB) 52 tribal consultation. On March 8, 2021, the
City initiated tribal consultation with interested California Native American tribes consistent
with AB52. The City requested consultation from the following tribes: the Gabrieleño Band
of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (San Manuel), Soboba
Band of Luiseño Indians, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, and the San Gabriel Band
of Mission Indians. As part of tribal consultation, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2
would be implemented. Please refer to Section 5, Cultural Resources for further details on
Tribal Consultation.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 35
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Agricultural and Forestry
Resources
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems
Wildfire
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation (check one):
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)
has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on
attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only
the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing
further is required.
CERTIFICATION:
Signature
Date
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 36
This page intentionally left blank.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 37
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
AESTHETICS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
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? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not
limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point).
If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X
Regional Context
The City of Fontana is located within southern San Bernardino County and is adjacent to major
highways, including Interstate 10 (I-10), Interstate 15 (I-15), and State Route 210 (SR-210). The
City encompasses approximately 52 square miles including the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI).
The City is bordered by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the west, City of Rialto to the east, City
of Riverside to the southeast, and City of Jurupa Valley to the south.
Scenic Views
Under CEQA, a scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly
valued landscape for the benefit of the public. The City is located on the desert valley floor
between the San Gabriel Mountains– the highest point in the City – to the north and the Jurupa
Hills the south. Panoramic scenic view corridors towards the mountains and views of the City
from the mountains dominate the City’s visual landscape character. Fontana’s open space
consists of a mix of foothill natural areas, utility corridors, and parks. 1
1 City of Fontana. 2019. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 – Draft Environmental Impact Report. Available at
https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015---2035. Accessed January 14, 2021.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 38
Scenic Resources within Scenic Highways
A highway is designated as “scenic” depending on how much of the natural landscape can be
seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development
intrudes upon the traveler’s enjoyment of the view. The California Scenic Highway Program was
created by the Legislature in 1963 to protect and enhance scenic highway corridors from change
which would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. This program provides
guidance for signage, aesthetics, grading, and screening to help maintain the scenic value of the
roadway.2 No highways within the City are eligible or are officially designated state or county
scenic highways.3 Therefore, the provisions of the California Scenic Highway Program do not
apply.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan does not officially designate any scenic vistas near
the Project site, but the San Bernardino Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, and Jurupa Hills are
visible from the City. The Project site is located approximately 13.0 miles southeast of the base
of the San Gabriel Mountains, approximately 15.0 miles southwest of the San Bernardino
Mountains, and approximately 1.5 miles north of the Jurupa Hills. Although the Project site is
fairly close to the Jurupa Hills, the proposed residential buildings would not exceed the maximum
allowed height of 60 feet. The multi-family apartment complex would have a maximum height of
approximately 45 feet. Additionally, the residential properties located to the south and west of
the site are large lots with detached single-family homes which views of the San Gabriel
Mountains, San Bernardino Mountain, or the Jurupa Hills views would not be hindered from the
implementation of the proposed Project.
Therefore, due to the vast distance to prominent scenic features in the area, the proposed
building heights, impacts associated with scenic vistas would be less than significant.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. According to the City General Plan, there are no scenic highways officially designated
by Caltrans within or adjacent to the Project site. There are no scenic highways in the City that
are currently eligible for scenic highway designation. Therefore, the proposed Project would not
substantially damage scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway resulting in no impact.
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?
2 https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways.
3 https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e921695c43643b1aaf7000dfcc19983.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 39
Short-Term Construction Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities would be temporary, and equipment,
vehicles, and materials would either be staged within a designated area or removed from the
Project site at the end of the day. Furthermore, all construction activity and equipment staging
would cease upon buildout of the Project. Therefore, short-term construction impacts associated
with the existing visual character and quality are not expected to be permanent, resulting in a
less than significant impact.
Long-Term Operation Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is a vacant stormwater detention basin with
nonnative grasses and a few trees along the site’s frontage. Additionally, the Project would be
consistent with the City’s design standards, the latest California Building Code (CBC), General Plan
land use, zoning, and Municipal Code (MC). Therefore, the change in visual character would not
significantly impact the site or the surrounding area. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Existing sources of light and glare in the immediate Project area include streetlights, outdoor
safety and security lighting associated with commercial development just east of the Project site,
and residential units to the south and west.
Short-Term Construction Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact. Pursuant to Section 18-63 of the Fontana Municipal Code,
Construction activity would be limited to daytime hours from the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
on weekdays, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays, and no construction on Sundays or Holidays.
Nighttime lighting would not be required until the Project is operational (unless otherwise
directed by the City of Fontana). Therefore, no short-term impacts associated with light and glare
would occur.
Long-Term Operational Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact. Consistent with Section No. 30-184 (Light and Glare) of the City’s
Zoning and Development Code4, all lighting used on the Project site is required to be directed
away and/or shielded to minimize the light from adversely affecting adjacent properties, and no
structures or features that create adverse glare effects are permitted. This would require all
exterior lighting to be shielded/hooded to prevent light trespass onto nearby properties. This
would include on-site safety and security lighting that would face downwards to the parking lot.
Additionally, the Project design features would include the use of non-reflective building
materials, and although some new reflective improvements (i.e., windows and building front
4 City of Fontana. 2019. Chapter 30 – Zoning and Development Code. Available at
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH30ZODECO, accessed on January 14, 2021.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 40
treatments) would be introduced to the site, the Project would not be a source of glare in the
Project area; refer Exhibits 8a – 8c, Project Rendering.
Due to the nature of the Project, operational hours are anticipated to be 24 hours per day/7 days
per week/365 days per year. The Project would adhere to the City’s MC associated with light and
glare and would result in a less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
The potential aesthetic impacts related to views, aesthetics, and light and glare are site-specific.
The Project would be consistent with current land use and zoning designations with adherence
to state and local regulations, and MC. Therefore, all Project-related impacts would be less than
significant.
EXHIBIT 8a: Project Rendering
Courtplace at Fontana Project
DNA Design and Architecture, February 3, 2022
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 42
This page intentionally left blank.
EXHIBIT 8b: Project RenderingCourtplace at Fontana Project
DNA Design and Architecture, February 3, 2022
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 44
This page intentionally left blank.
EXHIBIT 8c: Project RenderingCourtplace at Fontana Project
DNA Design and Architecture, February 3, 2022
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 46
This page intentionally left blank.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 47
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources
are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the Project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code 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))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
X
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 48
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
No Impact (a-e). Based on historical aerial imagery, the Project site is not currently used or has
been used in the past for agricultural purposes. The Project site is not designated as Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland). The Project site
is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land.5
Furthermore, the Project site is not subject of a Williamson Act Contract. Implementation of
Project would be consistent with existing land use and zoning designations. The Project site is not
forest land (as defined in PRC Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)).
Therefore, the Project would not propose any changes in the existing environment which would
result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-
forest use. No impacts related to the loss of agricultural resources would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project would have no impact on agricultural and forestry resources since the
surrounding uses are currently used for commercial, residential, and public use. Therefore, the
Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact in the conversion of
Farmland to non-farmland or forest land to non-forest use.
5 California Department of Conservation. (2016). California Important Farmland Finder. Available at
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed January 14, 2021.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 49
AIR QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors
adversely affecting a substantial number of people)?
X
An Air Quality Assessment and Health Risk Assessment was prepared for the proposed Project by
Kimley-Horn and Associates in March 2021.
The original Project assumptions for the preparation of the Air Quality and Health Risk
Assessment assumed the development of approximately 155,970 square feet of multi-family
residential dwelling units totaling 155 DUs. Additionally, the model assumed 225 vehicle parking
spaces. The model output with the original assumptions resulted in a less than significant impact
on all aspects regarding potential impacts to Air Quality and Health Risk. The proposed Project
has been updated to include a water detention basin, and as such, the proposed Project was
reduced to 106 DUs and 139 vehicle parking spaces, that is an overall reduction of approximately
32 percent from the original proposed Project.
As a result of the Project reduction, it was determined that no updates to the original analysis is
necessary because the original analysis conducted is more conservative than the updated
proposed Project. As such, a memorandum noting the lesser impacts from implementation of the
proposed Project due to the overall Project reduction is documented and presented along with
the original Air Quality and Heal Risk Assessment as Appendix A, and the results are summarized
herein.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 50
Air Quality
Air Pollutants of Concern
The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated
by state and federal laws. These regulated air pollutants are known as “criteria air pollutants”
and are categorized into primary and secondary pollutants.
Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic
gases (ROG), nitrogen oxide (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine
particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb) are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, NOX, SO2, PM10,
and PM2.5 are criteria pollutants. ROG and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and form
secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere.
For example, the criteria pollutant ozone (O3) is formed by a chemical reaction between ROG and
NOX in the presence of sunlight. O3 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary
pollutants.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are airborne substances that can cause short‐term (acute) or
long-term (i.e., chronic, carcinogenic, or cancer-causing) adverse human health effects
(i.e., injury or illness). TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances. They may be
emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners,
industrial operations, and painting operations. The current California list of TACs includes more
than 200 compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel‐fueled engines.
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) is a term used by the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) that includes a
variety of pollutants generated or emitted by industrial production activities. Identified as TACs
under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), ten have been singled out through ambient air quality
data as being the most substantial health risk in California. Direct exposure to these pollutants
has been shown to cause cancer, birth defects, damage to the brain and nervous system, and
respiratory disorders. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) provides emission inventories
for only the larger air basins.
TACs do not have ambient air quality standards because no safe levels of TACs can be determined.
Instead, TAC impacts are evaluated by calculating the health risks associated with a given
exposure. The requirements of the Air Toxic “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act
(Assembly Bill [AB] 2588) apply to facilities that use, produce, or emit toxic chemicals. Facilities
subject to the toxic emission inventory requirements of the act must prepare and submit toxic
emission inventory plans and reports, and periodically update those reports.
CARB identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a toxic air contaminant. DPM differs from
other TACs in that it is not a single substance but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of
substances. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of particles and gases produced when an engine
burns diesel fuel. DPM is a concern because it causes lung cancer; many compounds found in
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 51
diesel exhaust are carcinogenic. DPM includes the particle-phase constituents in diesel exhaust.
The chemical composition and particle sizes of DPM vary between different engine types
(heavy-duty, light-duty), engine operating conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate), fuel
formulations (high/low sulfur fuel), and the year of the engine. Some short-term (acute) effects
of diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, and diesel exhaust can cause
coughs, headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. DPM poses the greatest health risk among the
TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Due to their
extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and
alveolar regions of the lung.
Ambient Air Quality
CARB monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air monitoring stations across the State.
These stations usually measure pollutant concentrations ten feet above ground level; therefore,
air quality is often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations. Existing levels of ambient
air quality, historical trends, and projections near the Project are documented by measurements
made by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the air pollution regulatory
agency in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) that maintains air quality monitoring stations which
process ambient air quality measurements.
Pollutants of concern in the SCAB include O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The closest air monitoring station
to the Project that monitors ambient concentrations of these pollutants is the Fontana-Arrow
Monitoring Station (located approximately 4.5 miles to the northwest).
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general
population. Sensitive receptors that are in proximity to localized sources of toxics are of particular
concern. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds,
childcare centers, long‐term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers,
and retirement homes. Sensitive land uses surrounding the Project consist mostly of single-family
residences and residential communities that range from 45 feet to 675 away from the Project
site.
Methodology (Air Quality)
The Air Quality Assessment analyzed construction and operational impacts associated with the
Project. Where criteria air pollutant quantification was required, emissions were modeled using
the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). CalEEMod is a Statewide land use
emissions computer model designed to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated
with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. Air quality impacts
were assessed according to methodologies recommended by CARB and the SCAQMD.
The localized effects from the Project’s on-site emissions were evaluated in accordance with the
SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Methodology, which uses on-site mass
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 52
emissions rate look-up tables and Project-specific modeling. LSTs represent the maximum
emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the
most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards and are developed based
on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to
the nearest sensitive receptor.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and
submit a State Implementation Plan that demonstrates the means to attain the federal
standards. The State Implementation Plan must integrate federal, state, and local plan
components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment
areas, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs. Similarly,
under State law, the CCAA requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas
designated as nonattainment regarding the state and federal ambient air quality standards. Air
quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain
these standards by the earliest practical date.
The Project is located within the SCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The
SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the FCAA, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which
the SCAB is in nonattainment. To reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD drafted the 2016 Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The 2016 AQMP establishes a program of rules and
regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving state (California) and
national air quality standards. The 2016 AQMP is a regional and multi-agency effort including the
SCAQMD, the CARB, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the
U.S. EPA. The plan’s pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical
information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s growth projections and Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), updated emission inventory
methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. SCAG’s latest
growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local
general plans. The Project is subject to the SCAQMD’s AQMP.
Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined by the following indicators:
• Consistency Criterion No. 1: The Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or
severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay
the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions
specified in the AQMP.
• Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP, or
increments based on the years of the Project build-out phase.
According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of the consistency finding
is to determine if a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 53
quality plans, and thus if it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are CAAQS and NAAQS. The SCAQMD
developed CEQA significance thresholds to determine if individual development projects would
result in ambient air quality violations. As shown in Tables 6 and 7 below, the Project would not
exceed the SCAQMD’s construction or operational thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not
contribute to an existing air quality violation. Thus, the Project would be consistent with the first
criterion.
Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies
based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in
consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project does
not require a General Plan Amendment (GPA) or a Zone Change because the land use designation
is Walkable Mixed-Use Corridor and Downtown and the zoning classification is Form Based Code.
Therefore, the Project would not result in a direct increase in population beyond what was
anticipated in SCAG’s growth projections used by SCAQMD to develop the AQMP. Thus, a less
than significant impact would occur, as the Project is also consistent with the second criterion.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction Emissions
Construction associated with the Project would generate short-term emissions of criteria air
pollutants. The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the Project area include O3-precursor
pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOX) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-generated emissions are short
term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would
be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the
SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance.
Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading, road
paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the
movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne
particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with
site preparation activities as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water.
The duration of construction activities associated with Phase I and Phase II is conservatively
anticipated to take a total of 28 months. However, it is likely that construction timing will be
longer at approximately 19 months for Phase I and 16 months for Phase II, for a total of
approximately 35 months. Phase 1 construction is anticipated to begin in the second half of 2023
and to be completed within the first quarter of 2025. Phase 2 construction is anticipated to begin
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 54
in the second half of 2024 and to be completed within the first quarter of 2026. Construction-
generated emissions associated with the Project were calculated using the CARB-approved
CalEEMod computer program, which is designed to model emissions for land use development
projects, based on typical construction requirements. See Appendix A for more information
regarding the construction assumptions used in this analysis. Predicted maximum daily
construction-generated emissions for the Project are summarized in Table 6, Construction-
Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day).
Table 6: Construction-Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
Construction Year
Pollutant (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
Reactive
Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxide
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
2022 3.26 60.12 22.27 0.18 72.30 19.23
2023 5.13 45.15 41.59 0.17 11.19 6.29
2024 35.99 33.67 37.47 0.08 6.06 3.15
2025 34.19 15.58 21.70 0.05 2.52 1.04
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes: SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and other
construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; water all haul roads twice
daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A
through XI-E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment.
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
Fugitive dust emissions may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition,
fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the Project vicinity. Uncontrolled
dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and
working nearby. SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (prohibition of nuisances, watering of inactive and
perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), are applicable to the Project and were applied in
CalEEMod to minimize fugitive dust emissions. Standard Condition (SC) AQ-1 requires the
implementation of Rule 402 and 403 dust control techniques to minimize PM10 and PM2.5
concentrations.
As shown in Table 6 above, all criteria pollutant emissions would remain below their respective
thresholds. While impacts would be considered less than significant, the Project would be subject
to SC AQ-1. The proposed Project construction emissions would not worsen ambient air quality,
create additional violations of federal and State standards, or delay SCAB’s goal for meeting
attainment standards.
Operational Emissions
The Project’s operational emissions would be associated with area sources, energy sources, and
mobile sources. CalEEMod was used to calculate the Project’s area source, energy source, and
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 55
mobile source pollutant emissions. Long-term operational emissions attributable to the Project
are summarized in Table 7, Long-Term Operational Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day).
Table 7: Long-Term Operational Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
Source
Pollutant (Maximum Pounds per Day)
Reactive
Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxide
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Area Source Emissions 3.76 0.15 12.79 0.00 0.07 0.07
Energy Emissions 0.05 0.40 0.17 0.00 0.03 0.03
Mobile Emissions 2.62 7.73 26.89 0.09 8.32 2.27
Total Emissions 6.43 8.28 39.85 0.09 8.42 2.37
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
Project operational emissions would be associated with area sources, energy sources, mobile
sources (i.e., motor vehicle use), and off-road equipment. Each of these sources are described
below.
• Area Source Emissions. Area-specific CalEEMod default inputs were used to calculate the
Project’s area source emissions. Area source emissions would be generated from
gasoline-powered landscaping and maintenance equipment, and consumer products
(such as household cleaners). Area source emissions would also be generated from
consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping that were previously not
present on the Project site. Typically, area sources are small sources that contribute very
little emissions individually, but when combined may generate substantial amounts of
pollutants.
• Energy Source Emissions. CalEEMod default inputs were used to calculate the Project’s
energy source emissions. Energy source emissions would be generated due to electricity
and natural gas usage associated with heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation,
lighting, appliances, and electronics. Additional energy demands associated with the
swimming pool were also included.
• Mobile Source. Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and
evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air
quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, PM10,
and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern. NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form
O3, known as photochemical smog. Additionally, wind currents readily transport PM10 and
PM2.5. However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.
Project-generated vehicle emissions are based on the trip generation within the Project
Traffic Study and incorporated into CalEEMod as recommended by the SCAQMD. Based
on these rates, the Project would generate 776 daily trips, 49 AM peak hour trips, and
59 PM peak hour trips.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 56
As shown in Table 7 above, Project emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for any
criteria air pollutants. Therefore, long-term operations emissions would result in a less than
significant impact.
Cumulative Short-Term Emissions
The SCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards and
nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 for Federal standards. Appendix D of the SCAQMD White Paper
on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (2003) notes
that projects that result in emissions that do not exceed the project-specific SCAQMD regional
thresholds of significance should result in a less than significant impact on a cumulative basis
unless there is other pertinent information to the contrary. The mass-based regional significance
thresholds published by the SCAQMD are designed to ensure compliance with both NAAQS and
CAAQS and are based on an inventory of projected emissions in the SCAB. Therefore, if a project
is estimated to result in emissions that do not exceed the thresholds, the Project’s contribution
to the cumulative impact on air quality in the SCAB would not be cumulatively considerable. As
shown in Table 6 above, Project construction-related emissions by themselves would not exceed
the SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, the proposed Project
would not generate a cumulatively considerable contribution to air pollutant emissions during
construction.
The SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the
AQMP pursuant to the FCAA mandates. The analysis assumed fugitive dust controls would be
utilized during construction, including frequent water applications. SCAQMD rules, mandates,
and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures would also be imposed on
construction projects throughout the SCAB, which would include related projects. Compliance
with SCAQMD rules and regulations would further reduce the Project construction-related
impacts. Therefore, Project-related construction emissions, combined with those from other
projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate local air quality. Construction emissions
associated with the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to
significant cumulative air quality impacts
Cumulative Long-Term Impacts
The SCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational
emissions. The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project
is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead ,
individual project emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality
impacts. The SCAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based on the level
above which individual project emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to the SCAB’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a project that exceeds the
SCAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a
significant cumulative impact.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 57
As shown in Table 7, the Project operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds.
As a result, operational emissions associated with the Project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. Additionally, adherence
to SCAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative
conditions on a project-by-project basis. Project operations would not contribute a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant.
Standard Conditions and Requirements:
SC AQ-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the
Grading Plan, Building Plans and Specifications require all construction contractors
to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Rules
402 and 403 to minimize construction emissions of dust and particulates. The
measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three
months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise
stabilized.
• All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or
chemically stabilized.
• All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely
covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
• The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation
operations will be minimized at all times.
• Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the
streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to
remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Localized Construction Significance Analysis
The nearest sensitive receptor is a single-family residence located adjacent to the south of the
Project. To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing
localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for construction. LSTs were developed in response to
SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD
provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003
[revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized
impacts associated with Project-specific emissions.
Since CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and
the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment. Table 8,
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 58
Equipment-Specific Grading Rates, is used to determine the maximum daily disturbed acreage
for comparison to LSTs and the maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to LSTs. The
appropriate SRA for the localized significance thresholds is the Central San Bernardino Valley
(SRA 34) since this area includes the Project. LSTs apply to CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. The
SCAQMD produced look-up tables for projects that disturb areas less than or equal to 5 acres in
size. Project construction is anticipated to disturb a maximum of 3.5 acres in a single day. As the
LST guidance provides thresholds for projects disturbing 1-, 2-, and 5-acres in size and the
thresholds increase with size of the site, the LSTs for a 3.5-acre threshold were interpolated and
utilized for this analysis.
Table 8: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates
Construction
Phase
Equipment
Type
Equipment
Quantity
Acres Graded
per 8-Hour Day
Operating Hours
per Day
Acres Graded
per Day
Site Preparation
Tractors 4 0.5 8 2.0
Graders 0 0.5 8 0.0
Dozers 3 0.5 8 1.5
Scrapers 0 1 8 0
Total Acres Graded per Day 3.5
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
The SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not
be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, only emissions included in the
CalEEMod “on-site” emissions outputs were considered. The nearest sensitive receptor is a
single-family residence located 45 feet (14 meters) south of the Project. LST thresholds are
provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25 or less, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. As the
closest receptors are adjacent to the Project, LSTs for 25 meters were utilized in this analysis
pursuant to SCAQMD guidance. Table 9, Localized Significance of Construction Emissions
(Maximum Pounds Per Day), shows the results of localized emissions during construction. This
table represents the worst-case scenario and are based on peak earthwork volumes anticipated.
Table 9 shows that emissions of these pollutants would not result in significant concentrations
of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Significant impacts would not occur concerning LSTs
during construction.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 59
Table 9: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
Construction Activity
Pollutant (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
Nitrogen
Oxide
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Phase 1 Site Preparation (2022) 33.08 19.70 8.66 5.36
Phase 1 Grading (2023) 20.86 14.75 3.40 2.04
Phase 1 Building Construction (2023) 14.38 41.90* 16.24 34.48* 0.70 9.01* 0.66 5.7* Phase 2 Site Preparation (2023) 27.52 18.24 8.31 5.04
Phase 1 Building Construction (2024) 13.44
40.87*
16.17
44.96*
0.61
4.37*
0.58
2.99* Phase 1 Paving (2024) 8.27 12.22 0.40 0.37
Phase 1 Architectural Coating (2024) 1.22 1.81 0.06 0.06
Phase 2 Grading (2024) 17.94 14.76 3.30 1.98
Phase 2 Building Construction (2024) 13.44 16.17 0.61 0.58
Phase 2 Building Construction (2025) 12.47
21.15*
16.08
30.07*
0.53
0.93*
0.50
0.88* Phase 2 Paving (2025) 7.53 12.18 0.35 0.33
Phase 2 Architectural Coating (2025) 1.15 1.81 0.05 0.05
SCAQMD Localized Screening
Threshold (adjusted for 3.5 acres at
25 meters)
220 1,339 11 6
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold overall
or per phase? No No No No
Note: * Based on the anticipated construction schedule certain construction activities may occur on the same day, to be conservative these
emissions have been combined to show a daily maximum.
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
Localized Operational Significance Analysis
LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters for SRA 34 were utilized in this analysis. The 5-acre
operational LST threshold was used for the approximately 4.8-acre project site after rounding up
to 5 acres. Table 10: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions, compares the on-site
operational emissions to the LST thresholds and indicates the Project’s maximum daily
operational emissions of these pollutants would not result in significant concentrations at nearby
sensitive receptors. Therefore, Project operations would result in a less than significant impact
concerning LSTs.
Table 10: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
Activity
Pollutant (Maximum Pounds per Day)
Nitrogen
Oxide
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Coarse Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
On-Site Emissions (Area Sources) 0.15 12.79 0.07 0.07
SCAQMD Localized Screening
Threshold (5 acres at 25 meters) 270 1,720 4 2
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Note: SRA Zone 34 – Central San Bernardino Valley; 5-acre area, 25 meters to receptor.
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 60
Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts
On December 24, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion identifying the need to
provide sufficient information connecting a project’s air emissions to health impacts or explain
why such information could not be ascertained (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno
[Friant Ranch, L.P.] [2018] Cal.5th, Case No. S219783). The SCAQMD has set its CEQA significance
thresholds based on the FCAA, which defines a major stationary source (in extreme ozone
nonattainment areas such as the SCAB) as emitting 10 tons per year. The thresholds correlate
with the trigger levels for the federal New Source Review (NSR) Program and SCAQMD Rule 1303
for new or modified sources. The NSR Program was created by the FCAA to ensure that stationary
sources of air pollution are constructed or modified in a manner that is consistent with
attainment of health-based federal ambient air quality standards. The federal ambient air quality
standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to
protect the public health. Therefore, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD’s LSTs and mass
emissions thresholds would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation and no criteria pollutant health impacts.
NOX and ROG are precursor emissions that form O3 in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight
where the pollutants undergo complex chemical reactions. It takes time and the influence of
meteorological conditions for these reactions to occur, so O3 may be formed at a distance
downwind from the sources. Breathing ground-level O3 can result in health effects that include
reduced lung function, inflammation of airways, throat irritation, pain, burning, or discomfort in
the chest when taking a deep breath, chest tightness, wheezing, or shortness of breath. In
addition to these effects, evidence from observational studies strongly indicates that higher daily
O3 concentrations are associated with increased asthma attacks, increased hospital admissions,
increased daily mortality, and other markers of morbidity. The consistency and coherence of the
evidence for effects upon asthmatics suggests that O3 can make asthma symptoms worse and
can increase sensitivity to asthma triggers.
According the SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP, O3, NOX, and ROG have been decreasing in the SCAB since
1975 and are projected to continue to decrease in the future. Although vehicle miles traveled in
the SCAB continue to increase, NOX and ROG levels are decreasing because of the mandated
controls on motor vehicles and the replacement of older polluting vehicles with lower-emitting
vehicles. NOX emissions from electric utilities have also decreased due to the use of cleaner fuels
and renewable energy. The 2016 AQMP demonstrates how the SCAQMD’s control strategy to
meet the 8-hour O3 standard in 2023 would lead to sufficient NOX emission reductions to attain
the 1-hour O3 standard by 2022. In addition, since NOX emissions also lead to the formation of
PM2.5, the NOX reductions needed to meet the O3 standards will likewise lead to improvement of
PM2.5 levels and attainment of PM2.5 standards.
The SCAQMD’s air quality modeling demonstrates that NOX reductions prove to be much more
effective in reducing O3 levels and will also lead to significant improvement in PM2.5
concentrations. NOX-emitting stationary sources regulated by the SCAQMD include Regional
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 61
Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) facilities (e.g., refineries, power plants, etc.), natural gas
combustion equipment (e.g., boilers, heaters, engines, burners, flares) and other combustion
sources that burn wood or propane. The 2016 AQMP identifies robust NOX reductions from new
regulations on RECLAIM facilities, non-refinery flares, commercial cooking, and residential and
commercial appliances. Such combustion sources are already heavily regulated with the lowest
NOX emissions levels achievable but there are opportunities to require and accelerate
replacement with cleaner zero-emission alternatives, such as residential and commercial
furnaces, pool heaters, and backup power equipment. The AQMD plans to achieve such
replacements through a combination of regulations and incentives. Technology-forcing
regulations can drive development and commercialization of clean technologies, with future year
requirements for new or existing equipment. Incentives can then accelerate deployment and
enhance public acceptability of new technologies.
The 2016 AQMD also emphasizes that beginning in 2012, continued implementation of
previously adopted regulations will lead to NOX emission reductions of 68 percent by 2023 and
80 percent by 2031. With the addition of 2016 AQMP proposed regulatory measures, a 30
percent reduction of NOX from stationary sources is expected in the 15-year period between 2008
and 2023. This is in addition to significant NOX reductions from stationary sources achieved in the
decades prior to 2008.
As previously discussed, the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions would not
exceed SCAQMD thresholds, thus, would be less than significant; see Table 6 and Table 7,
respectively. The onsite Project emissions’ localized effects on nearby receptors were also found
to be less than significant; see Table 9 and Table 10. The LSTs represent the maximum emissions
from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most
stringent applicable NAAQS or CAAQS. The LSTs were developed by the SCAQMD based on the
ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA and distance to the nearest sensitive
receptor. The ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an
adequate margin of safety, to protect public health, including protecting the health of sensitive
populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. As shown above, Project-related
emissions would not exceed the regional thresholds or the LSTs, and therefore would not exceed
the ambient air quality standards or cause an increase in the frequency or severity of existing
violations of air quality standards. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to criteria
pollutant levels more than the health-based ambient air quality standards.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
An analysis of CO “hot spots” was done qualitatively (provided in the paragraph below) to
determine whether the change in the level of service (LOS) of an intersection resulting from the
Project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS. It has long
been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when vehicles
are idling at intersections. Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the
last 20 years. Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 62
passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older
vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial
facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined. Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO
emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO
standard.
The SCAB was re-designated as attainment in 2007 and is no longer addressed in the SCAQMD’s
AQMP. The 2003 AQMP is the most recent version that addresses CO concentrations. As part of
the SCAQMD CO Hotspot Analysis, the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection, one of
the most congested intersections in southern California with an average daily traffic (ADT)
volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day (vpd), was modeled for CO concentrations.
This modeling effort identified a CO concentration high of 4.6 parts per million (ppm), which is
well below the 35-ppm Federal standard. The Project considered herein would not produce the
volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s CO Hotspot
Analysis. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue
intersection even as it accommodates 100,000 vehicles daily, it can be reasonably inferred that
CO hotspots would not be experienced at any vicinity intersections resulting from
1,135 additional vehicle trips attributable to the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Project construction would generate diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from the use of
off-road diesel equipment required. The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function
of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk
(i.e., potential exposure to toxic air contaminants [TAC] emission levels that exceed applicable
standards). Health-related risks associated with diesel exhaust emissions are primarily linked to
long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer.
The use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic. The
duration of exposure would be short and exhaust from construction equipment is highly
dispersive and concentrations of DPM dissipates rapidly. Current models and methodologies for
conducting health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 30,
and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of
construction activities. Project construction involves phased activities in several areas across the
site and the project would not require the extensive use of heavy-duty construction equipment
or diesel trucks in any one location over the duration of development, which would limit the
exposure of any proximate individual sensitive receptor to TACs. The sensitive receptor nearest
the Project site is a single-family residence located approximately 45 feet (14 meters) south of
the Project site.
Additionally, construction activities would occur in an area of less than five acres. CARB generally
considers construction project sites of such size to represent less than significant health risk
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 63
impacts due to (1) limitations on the off-road diesel equipment able to operate and thus a
reduced amount of generated DPM; (2) the reduced amount of dust-generating ground
disturbance possible compared to larger construction sites; and, (3) the reduced duration of
construction activities compared to the development of larger sites. Additionally, construction is
subject to and would comply with California regulations (e.g., CCR, Title 13, Division 3, Article 1,
Chapter 10, Sections 2485 and 2449), which reduce DPM and criteria pollutant emissions from
in-use off-road diesel-fueled vehicles and limit the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment
to no more than five minutes. These regulations would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors’
exposure to temporary and variable DPM emissions. Given the temporary and intermittent
nature of construction activities likely to occur within specific locations in the Project site
(i.e., construction is not likely to occur in any one location for an extended time), the dose of
DPM of any one receptor is exposed to would be limited. Therefore, considering the relatively
short duration of DPM-emitting construction activity at any one location of the plan area and the
highly dispersive properties of DPM, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial
concentrations of construction-related TAC emissions.
The proposed Project would not involve the use, storage, or processing of carcinogenic or
non-carcinogenic TAC, and no significant toxic airborne emissions would result from Project
operations. Therefore, Project impacts concerning the release of TACs would be less than
significant.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial
number of people)?
Less Than Significant Impact
Construction
Odors that could be generated by construction activities are required to follow SCAQMD Rule 402
to prevent odor nuisances on sensitive land uses. SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, states:
A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air
contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or
annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, 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.
During construction-related activities, some odors (not substantial pollutant concentrations) that
may be detected are those typical of construction vehicles (e.g., diesel exhaust from grading and
construction equipment). These odors are a temporary short-term impact that is typical of
construction projects, are not expected to affect a substantial number of people and would
disperse rapidly. Furthermore, odors that could be generated by construction activities are
required to follow SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) to prevent odor nuisances on sensitive land uses.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 64
Therefore, impacts related to odors associated with the Project’s construction-related activities
would be less than significant.
Operations
The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as odor sources
(i.e., agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants,
chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding). The
Project proposes development of residential uses, which would not involve the types of uses that
would emit objectionable odors affecting substantial numbers of people. The proposed Project
would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources.
Therefore, Project operations would not create objectionable odors. No impact would occur, and
no mitigation is required.
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative setting for air quality includes the City of Fontana and SCAB. SCAB is designated
as a nonattainment area for State standards of O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAB is designated as a
nonattainment area for federal standards of O3 and PM2.5, attainment and serious maintenance
for federal PM10 standards, and is designated as unclassified or attainment for all other
pollutants. Cumulative growth in population and vehicle use could inhibit efforts to improve
regional air quality and attain the ambient air quality standards.
The SCAQMD’s approach to assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP forecasts of
attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with requirements of the FCAA and
CCAA. As discussed above, the proposed Project would be consistent with the AQMP, which is
intended to bring SCAB into attainment for all criteria pollutants. Since the Project’s estimated
construction and operational emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD daily
significance thresholds that are designed to assist the region in attaining both NAAQS and CAAQS,
cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 65
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
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 Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
X
A Biological Resources Assessment and Jurisdictional Waters Delineation was prepared for the
proposed Project by Jericho Systems, Inc., prepared January 29, 2021. Additionally, a Delhi Sands
Flower-Loving Fly (DSFF) Habitat Suitability Assessment was prepared for the Project by
ELMT Consulting, Inc., prepared in January 2021. These reports are included as Appendix B and
the results are summarized herein.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 66
Methodology
Prior to conducting the field study, species and habitat information was gathered from the
reports related to the specific project and relevant databases for the Fontana USGS 7.5
quadrangle to determine which species and/or habitats would be expected to occur on-site.
These sources include:
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) threatened and endangered species occurrence GIS
overlay;
• USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation System (IPaC);
• California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind 5);
• CNDDB Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS);
• California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) database;
• Calflora Database;
• USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey;
• USFWS National Wetland Inventory;
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Program “My Waters” data layers
• USFWS Designated Critical Habitat Maps
On October 10, 2020, Jericho systematically assessed the entire Project site by walking the entire
site in a manner which provided 100 percent visual coverage of the ground surface. The survey
included a comprehensive survey with complete coverage of the entire site and adjacent areas.
Wildlife species were detected during field surveys by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other signs. In
addition to species observed, expected wildlife usage of the site was determined according to
known habitat preferences of regional wildlife species and knowledge of their relative
distributions in the area.
The site was also assessed for habitat type and structure and, for jurisdictional drainage features
potentially subject to Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and/or Section 1600 of
the California Fish and Game Code (FGC). Regarding jurisdictional waters, the biologist looked for
indicators of active surface flow and corresponding physical characteristics such as a clear,
natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of
terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris. Suspected jurisdictional areas were
checked for the presence of definable channels, soils, and hydrology. Evaluation of potential
federal jurisdiction followed the regulations set forth in 33 CFR part 328 and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) guidance documents and evaluation of potential State jurisdiction followed
guidance in the FGC and A Review of Stream Processes and Forms in Dryland Watersheds
(CDFW, 2010).
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 67
On January 15, 2021, Guy P. Bruyea (Bruyea Biological, Permit No. TE-837439-8) and
Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D. (ELMT Consulting) conducted a habitat suitability assessment for the
federally endangered DSFF. The DSFF Habitat Suitability Assessment Report is provided as
Appendix B of this Initial Study.
Results
Critical Habitat
According to the database review, the Project site is mapped within critical habitat designated
for the DSFF.
General Habitat
The floor of the detention basin contains aquatic to mesic ecological conditions created by
collection of street and urban runoff. Plants on the floor of eastern portions of the detention
basin include cattail (Typha), sedge (Cyprus), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), marsh evening
primrose (Oenothera elata), curly dock (Rumex crispus), bull thistle (Ciricium vulgare) and
sunflower (Helianthus annua). Several small western sycamores (Platanus racemosa) grow out
of the sides of the basin near the water. A graveled and/or heavily compacted driveway circles
the perimeter of the site. The slopes above the detention basin are composed of Delhi sands and
support native sand associated plant species, including Heterotheca grandiflora and Ambrosia
acanthicarpa. Delhi sands along with the associated Heterotheca and Ambrosia extend a little
way onto the western floor of the detention basin in an area that is not perpetually wet like the
eastern end of the basin.
Wildlife Species
Wildlife Species observed or otherwise detected on-site during the surveys included: mourning
dove (Zenaida macroura), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), common raven (Corvus corax),
red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and house sparrow (Passer domesticus).
Sensitive Species
The database searches identified 31 sensitive species and 1 sensitive habitat within the Fontana
USGS 7.5-minute series quadrangle. Table 11, Database Queries Species Occurrences Results,
represents a compiled list of results from the IPaC, CNDDB and CNPSEI databases of species which
have been documented within one mile of the Project site and/or have the potential to occur
based potentially suitable habitat adjacent to, or within, the Project site. Table 18 also provides
a potential to occur assessment based on the field investigation and surveyor’s knowledge of the
species and local ecology and considers the habitat requirements for each species and the
potential for their occurrence on the site, based on required habitat elements relative to the
current site conditions and species’ range.
This list of sensitive species includes any State- and/or federally listed threatened or endangered
species, CDFW designated Species of Special Concern (SSC), and otherwise Special Animals.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 68
“Special Animals” is a general term that refers to all the taxa the CNDDB is interested in tracking,
regardless of their legal or protection status. This list is also referred to as the list of “species at
risk” or “special status species.” The CDFW considers the taxa on this list to be those of greatest
conservation need.
No State- and/or federally listed threatened or endangered species, or other sensitive species
were observed on-site during the field survey. Similarly, there is no potentially suitable habitat
on-site for DSFF.
Burrowing owl (BUOW)
The western BUOW is one of 18 New World Burrowing Owl subspecies, and one of only two in
North America. The western BUOW ranges from Texas to California and north to southern
Canada. Individuals of resident populations in southern California, northern Mexico, and Florida
breed and overwinter in an area without a significant migration. BUOW are found across
American open landscapes, showing activity chiefly in the daytime. In California, preferred
habitat is generally typified by short, sparse vegetation with few shrubs, level to gentle
topography and well-drained soils. In addition, BUOW may occur in some agricultural areas,
ruderal grassy fields, vacant lots and pastures, and flood control facilities if the surrounding
vegetation structure is suitable and there are useable burrows and foraging habitat in proximity.
Unique among North American raptors, the BUOW requires underground burrows or other
cavities for nesting during the breeding season and for roosting and cover, year-round. Burrows
used by the owls are usually dug by other species termed host burrowers. In California, California
ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) and round-tailed ground squirrel (Citellus tereticaudus)
burrows are frequently used by BUOW but they may use dens or holes dug by other fossorial
species and/or human-made structures such as cement culverts and pipes. They are active during
the day and night and are generally observed in the early morning hours or at twilight.
BUOW have a high fidelity to their birth territory and they often prefer nesting in areas of high
burrow densities. Breeding pairs are easily located within the surrounding of their nests
(usually 90 feet) due to their territorial behavior. BUOW breeding season begins February 1 and
extends to August 31. Pair formation can begin in February. Peak of the BUOW breeding season,
commonly accepted in California, occurs between April 15 and July 15. April to mid-May is when
most burrowing owls are in the egg-laying and incubation stages. BUOW egg incubation period
is about 27-28 days. Chick rearing typically occurs between May 15 and July 1. July 15 is typically
considered the late nestling period when most owls are spending time above ground. The non-
breeding season is September 1 to January 31. BUOW are semi-colonial and will sometimes share
a burrow for incubation and chick rearing.
The BUOW is not listed under the State or federal ESA but is considered both a State and federal
SSC. The BUOW is a migratory bird protected by the international treaty under the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and by State law under the California Fish and Game Code (CDFG Code
#3513 & #3503.5).
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 69
BUOW are documented within a half-mile northeast of the Project site. The result of the survey
conducted for the Project found no evidence of BUOW onsite. No BUOW individuals or sign
including pellets, feathers, prey remains, whitewash, burrows, or potential surrogate burrows
were observed.
Per the definition provided in the 2012 CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation,
“Burrowing owl habitat generally includes, but is not limited to, short or sparse veg etation
(at least at some time of year), presence of burrows, burrow surrogates or presence of fossorial
mammal dens, well-drained soils, and abundant and available prey.” The habitat within the
Project site is currently densely vegetated and has no surrogate burrows. Therefore, the site is
currently unsuitable for BUOW. BUOW are thereby absent from the Project site.
Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly
DSFF belongs to a genus of flies (Rhaphiomidas) commonly known as flower-loving flies. There
are more than 30 species of these flies, distributed across the southwestern United States and
northern Mexico. These flies are huge by the standards set by most flies, with size among the
species ranging from approximately 1.5 centimeters up to 3 and even 4 centimeters, and are
usually gray, tan, rust, or yellow in color. All species of Rhaphiomidas are associated with rather
arid, sandy habitats, with most species living on dune systems of inland desert valleys, rivers,
deltas, and beach strands.
The DSFF is only known to occur in association with Delhi sand deposits and presumably occupied
the once extensive dune system of the upper Santa Ana River Valley, including portions of what
is now the City of Colton, west through portions of the City of Mira Loma, and south to the
Santa Ana River. Today, DSFF exists on only a few disjunct sites (USFWS 1997) within a radius of
about 8 miles in southwestern San Bernardino and northwestern Riverside Counties (cities of
Colton, Rialto, Fontana, and Mira Loma).
The adult DSFF flight period is typically August and September, when individual adults emerge,
reproduce, and die. The adult life span of an individual DSFF lasts for a few days and adults do
not live beyond the flight period.
The Project site has been mapped by the USDA NRCS Soil Survey as being composed of Delhi sand
soils. Due to excavation of the site during the construction of the basin, Delhi sand soils were
removed down to approximately 20 feet deep and imported clay soils were used to fortify and
strengthen the sloped walls for the basin. The top of the basin is at ground level and borders
Sierra Avenue to the east, residential housing on the south and vacant land to the west and north.
Due to the development of the basin including a perimeter fence, as well as the buildout of Sierra
Avenue in south Fontana, the Project site is no longer subject to aeolian processes.
Soils observed on the basin floor, side and perimeter roads found on all fours sides of the basin
were determined to not support clean, unconsolidated Delhi sands. Instead, the soils were
composed of compacted clay soils brought in to create the basin. All the surface soils have a
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 70
heavy clay composition, due to the construction of the basin, as well as the deposit of silts and
fine particles associated with the storage of stormwaters in the basin over the years.
Unconsolidated soils may be present at depth beneath the hardened surface, but open,
unconsolidated clean Delhi fine sands are absent. As previously noted, the buildout of
surrounding areas has disrupted the aeolian process and no new Delhi sands soils are being
deposited onsite.
Based on the above-noted habitat characteristics, the habitat assessment concluded this site as
being unsuitable for DSFF with an overall habitat quality rating of 1. Two small areas were
classified as very low-quality with a habitat rating of 2. The site is highly unlikely to support DSFF.
There are no known extant DSFF populations in the general vicinity of the Project site. It is
improbable that a dispersing DSFF individual would temporarily occupy the subject property.
Heritage Trees
There are no trees on-site that meet the City of Fontana’s Municipal Code (Chapter 28,
Section 63) definition of a Heritage Tree. No further investigation is warranted.
Nesting Birds
Habitat for nesting birds occurs throughout the Project site specifically within the basin floor.
Nesting birds are protected under the MBTA which provides protection for nesting birds that are
both residents and migrants whether they are considered sensitive by resource agencies. The
MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed
under 50 CFR 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by
implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). The direct injury or death of a migratory bird, due to
construction activities or other construction-related disturbance that causes nest abandonment,
nestling abandonment, or forced fledging would be considered take under federal law. The
USFWS, in coordination with the CDFW administers the MBTA. CDFW’s authoritative nexus to
MBTA is provided in FGC Sections 3503.5 which protects all birds of prey and their nests and FGC
Section 3800 which protects all non-game birds that occur naturally in the State. No nesting birds,
nor nests, were found on Project site during the survey.
Jurisdiction Waters
No aspect of the site presents any evidence of jurisdictional waters. The Project site functions as
a drainage detention basin and receives runoff flows from the streets and surrounding
development. No jurisdictional waters occur onsite. The riparian vegetation at the east end is a
man-made feature that is not regulated as it would disappear if the runoff was cutoff or diverted
away from the site.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 71
Table 11: Database Queries Species Occurrence Results
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Listing
Other
Rankings Habitat Potential to Occur
Agelaius tricolor tricolored
blackbird
None/
Candidate
Endangered
G2G3, S1S2,
SSC
Highly colonial species, most numerous in Central Valley
& vicinity. Largely endemic to California. Requires open
water, protected nesting substrate, and foraging area
with insect prey within a few km of the colony.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Anniella
stebbinsi
southern
California
legless lizard
None/None G3, S3, SSC
Generally south of the Transverse Range, extending to
northwestern Baja California. Occurs in sandy or loose
loamy soils under sparse vegetation. Disjunct
populations in the Tehachapi and Piute Mountains in
Kern County. Variety of habitats; generally, in moist,
loose soil. They prefer soils with a high moisture content.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Arenaria
paludicola
marsh
sandwort
Endangered/
Endangered
G1, S1, CNPS
1B.1
Marshes and swamps. Growing up through dense mats
of Typha, Juncus, Scirpus, etc. in freshwater marsh.
Sandy soil. 3-170 m.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Arizona elegans
occidentalis
California
glossy snake None/None G5T2, S2,
SSC
Patchily distributed from the eastern portion of San
Francisco Bay, southern San Joaquin Valley, and the
Coast, Transverse, and Peninsular ranges, south to Baja
California. Generalist reported from a range of scrub and
grassland habitats, often with loose or sandy soils.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Athene
cunicularia burrowing owl None/None G4, S3, SSC
Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and
scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation.
Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing
mammals, most notably, the California ground squirrel.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble
bee None/None G3G4, S1S2, Coastal California east to the Sierra-Cascade crest and
south into Mexico. Food plant genera include
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 72
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Listing
Other
Rankings Habitat Potential to Occur
Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon,
Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum.
Calochortus
plummerae
Plummer's
mariposa-lily None/None G4, S4, CNPS
4.2
Coastal scrub, chaparral, valley and foothill grassland,
cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous
forest. Occurs on rocky and sandy sites, usually of
granitic or alluvial material. Can be very common after
fire. 60-2500 m.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Catostomus
santaanae
Santa Ana
sucker
Threatened/
None G1, S1,
Endemic to Los Angeles Basin south coastal streams.
Habitat generalists, but prefer sand-rubble-boulder
bottoms, cool, clear water, and algae.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Chaetodipus
fallax fallax
northwestern
San Diego
pocket mouse
None/None G5T3T4,
S3S4, SSC
Coastal scrub, chaparral, grasslands, sagebrush, etc. in
western San Diego County. Sandy, herbaceous areas,
usually in association with rocks or coarse gravel.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Chloropyron
maritimum ssp.
maritimum
salt marsh
bird's-beak
Endangered/
Endangered
G4?T1, S1,
CNPS 1B.2
Marshes and swamps, coastal dunes. Limited to the
higher zones of salt marsh habitat. 0-10 m.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Chorizanthe
parryi var.
parryi
Parry's
spineflower None/None G3T2, S2,
CNPS 1B.1
Coastal scrub, chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley
and foothill grassland. Dry slopes and flats; sometimes at
interface of 2 vegetation types, such as chaparral and
oak woodland. Dry, sandy soils. 90-1220 m.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Cicindela
tranquebarica
viridissima
greenest tiger
beetle None/None G5T1, S1, Inhabits the woodlands adjacent to the Santa Ana River
basin. Usually found in open spots between trees.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Dipodomys
merriami parvus
San Bernardino
kangaroo rat
Endangered/
None
G5T1, S1,
SSC
Alluvial scrub vegetation on sandy loam substrates
characteristic of alluvial fans and flood plains. Needs
early to intermediate seral stages.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 73
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Listing
Other
Rankings Habitat Potential to Occur
Eriastrum
densifolium ssp.
sanctorum
Santa Ana River
woollystar
Endangered/
Endangered
G4T1, S1,
CNPS 1B.1
Coastal scrub, chaparral. In sandy soils on river
floodplains or terraced fluvial deposits. 180-705 m.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Gila orcuttii arroyo chub None/None G2, S2, SSC
Native to streams from Malibu Creek to San Luis Rey
River basin. Introduced into streams in Santa Clara,
Ventura, Santa Ynez, Mojave & San Diego river basins.
Slow water stream sections with mud or sand bottoms.
Feeds heavily on aquatic vegetation and associated
invertebrates.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Horkelia
cuneata var.
puberula
mesa horkelia None/None G4T1, S1,
CNPS 1B.1
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub. Sandy
or gravelly sites. 15-1645 m.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Lasiurus
xanthinus
western yellow
bat None/None G5, S3, SSC
Found in valley foothill riparian, desert riparian, desert
wash, and palm oasis habitats. Roosts in trees,
particularly palms. Forages over water and among trees.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Lepidium
virginicum var.
robinsonii
Robinson's
pepper-grass None/None G5T3, S3,
CNPS 4.3 Chaparral, coastal scrub. Dry soils, shrubland. 4-1435 m.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Lepus
californicus
bennettii
San Diego
black-tailed
jackrabbit
None/None G5T3T4,
S3S4, SSC
Intermediate canopy stages of shrub habitats & open
shrub / herbaceous & tree / herbaceous edges. Coastal
sage scrub habitats in Southern California.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Lycium parishii Parish's desert-
thorn None/None G3?, S1,
CNPS 2B.3 Coastal scrub, Sonoran desert scrub. 135-1000 m.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 74
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Listing
Other
Rankings Habitat Potential to Occur
Malacothamnus
parishii
Parish's bush-
mallow None/None GXQ, SX,
CNPS 1A Chaparral, coastal sage scrub. In a wash. 305-455 m.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Monardella
pringlei
Pringle's
monardella None/None GX, SX,
CNPS Coastal scrub. Sandy hills. 300-400 m.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Nyctinomops
femorosaccus
pocketed free-
tailed bat None/None G4, S3, SSC
Variety of arid areas in Southern California; pine-juniper
woodlands, desert scrub, palm oasis, desert wash, desert
riparian, etc. Rocky areas with high cliffs.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus
pop. 10
steelhead -
southern
California DPS
Endangered/
None G5T1Q, S1
Federal listing refers to populations from Santa Maria
River south to southern extent of range (San Mateo
Creek in San Diego County). Southern steelhead likely
have greater physiological tolerances to warmer water
and more variable conditions.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Phrynosoma
blainvillii
coast horned
lizard None/None G3G4, S3S4,
SSC
Frequents a wide variety of habitats, most common in
lowlands along sandy washes with scattered low bushes.
Open areas for sunning, bushes for cover, patches of
loose soil for burial, and abundant supply of ants and
other insects.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Polioptila
californica
californica
coastal
California
gnatcatcher
Threatened/
None
G4G5T2Q,
S2, SSC
Obligate, permanent resident of coastal sage scrub
below 2500 ft in Southern California. Low, coastal sage
scrub in arid washes, on mesas and slopes. Not all areas
classified as coastal sage scrub are occupied.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Rhaphiomidas
terminatus
abdominalis
Delhi Sands
flower-loving
fly
Endangered/
None G1T1, S1
Found only in areas of the Delhi Sands formation in
southwestern San Bernardino & northwestern Riverside
counties. Requires fine, sandy soils, often with wholly or
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 75
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Listing
Other
Rankings Habitat Potential to Occur
partly consolidated dunes & sparse vegetation.
Oviposition req. shade.
Riversidian
Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub
Riversidian
Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub
None/None G1, S1.1 Coastal and inland scrub. Habitat type does not occur
onsite.
Senecio
aphanactis
chaparral
ragwort None/None G3, S2, CNPS
2B.2
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub. Drying
alkaline flats. 20-855 m.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Sphenopholis
obtusata
prairie wedge
grass None/None G5, S2, CNPS
2B.2
Cismontane woodland, meadows and seeps. Open moist
sites, along rivers and springs, alkaline desert seeps. 15-
2625 m.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Symphyotrichu
m defoliatum
San Bernardino
aster None/None G2, S2, CNPS
1B.2
Meadows and seeps, cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, marshes and
swamps, valley and foothill grassland. Vernally mesic
grassland or near ditches, streams and springs; disturbed
areas. 3-2045 m.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low..
Vireo bellii
pusillus least Bell's vireo Endangered/
Endangered G5T2, S2
Summer resident of Southern California in low riparian
in vicinity of water or in dry river bottoms; below 2000
ft. Nests placed along margins of bushes or on twigs
projecting into pathways, usually willow, Baccharis,
mesquite.
Habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential
for this species to occur is low.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 76
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal/State
Listing
Other
Rankings Habitat Potential to Occur
Coding and Terms
E = Endangered T = Threatened SSC = Species of Special Concern R = Rare C = Candidate FP = Fully Protected
Federal Species of Concern: "taxa for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has information that indicates proposing to list the taxa as endangered or threatened is possibly appropriate, but for which
substantial data on the biological vulnerability and threats are not currently known or on file to support the immediate preparation of rules." (Arnold). All of these species have a limited range. In fact,
some species are limited to the San Bernardino Mountains area, however, they are locally common.
State Species of Special Concern: An administrative designation given to vertebrate species that appear to be vulnerable to extinction because of declining populations, limited acreages, and/or
continuing threats. Raptor and owls are protected under section 3502.5 of the California Fish and Game code: “It is unlawful to take, possess or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or
Strigiformes or to take, possess or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird.”
State Fully Protected: The classification of Fully Protected was the State's initial effort in the 1960's to identify and provide additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible
extinction. Lists were created for fish, mammals, amphibians and reptiles. Please note that most fully protected species have also been listed as threatened or endangered species under the more
recent endangered species laws and regulations. Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these
species for necessary scientific research and relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock.
State Plant Rankings:
S1 - less than 6 element occurrences, or less than 1,000 individuals, or less than 2,000 acres
S2 - 6 to 20 element occurrences, or between 1,000 and 3,000 individuals, or between 2,000 and 10,000 acres
S3 - 21 to 100 element occurrences, or between 3,000 and 10,000 individuals, or between 10,000 and 50,000 acres
S4 - No Threat Rank
S5 - No Threat Rank
SH - all sites in California are historical
.1 - very threatened
.2 - threatened
.3 - no current threats known
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 77
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. According to the City’s GP, the majority of the City’s biological resources occur at its
outskirts, in areas free from large-scale development.6 The database searches identified
31 sensitive species and 1 sensitive habitat within the Fontana USGS 7.5-minute series
quadrangle. Although the Project site is located near the southern outskirts of the City, as
previously noted, the site is currently undeveloped with non-native grasses and is regularly disced
for maintenance purposes and due to its existing use and construction as a retention basin, the
site is devoid of native habitat. As noted in Table 18, most species noted to occur in the Project’s
quadrangle have a low probability of occur onsite due to the site’s condition.
The Project site is located within mapped Delhi fine sand soils that have the potential to support
DSFF. The mapped Delhi sands have been removed and topped with clay soils to help support
the existing retention basin to fortify and strengthen the sloped walls of the basin. Additionally,
any Delhi soils around the perimeter of the basin were determined to not support clean,
unconsolidated Delhi sands. Instead, the soils were composed of a mixed of soils to create the
basin. As such, the assessment determined that it is improbable that a dispersing DSFF individual
would temporarily occupy the subject property in this developed and urbanized setting.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. Historically, vegetation in the Project site’s ecoregion included Riversidean coastal
sage scrub, valley grasslands, and riparian woodlands. However, the Project site and surrounding
vicinity is heavily urbanized. The riparian vegetation at the east end is a man-made feature that
is not regulated as it would disappear if the runoff was cutoff or diverted away from the site.
Additionally, no aspect of the Project site presents any evidence of jurisdictional waters. The
Project site functions as a drainage detention basin and receives runoff flows from the streets
and surrounding development. No jurisdictional waters or riparian habitat occur on site.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological?
No Impact. Refer to response b) above. No signs of jurisdictional water or other traces of
wetlands or riparian habitat occur on site. Furthermore, the current habitat is not suitable for
species generally found in wetland ecosystems; therefore, no impact would occur.
6 City of Fontana. (2018). Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035; Draft Environmental Impact Report; Page 5.3-2. Accessed
February 8, 2021. Available at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-
Plan-Update
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 78
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?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Biological Assessment determined that birds were
absent from the Project site. Additionally, a survey for BUOW determined that BUOW are
documented within a half-mile northeast of the Project site, but no BUOW individuals or sign
were observed onsite during the survey, no ground squirrel burrows are found on-site and the
vegetation was very dense at the time of survey. The BUOW is not listed under the State or
federal ESA but is considered both a State and federal SSC. The BUOW is a migratory bird
protected by the international treaty under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and by State
law under the California Fish and Game Code (CDFG Code #3513 & #3503.5). The Biological
Assessment determined that the site is currently not suitable for BUOW occupation. However, in
an abundance of caution, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is recommended to reduce potential impacts
to BUOW. Additionally, it was determined that there is habitat suitable for nesting birds on site.
Therefore, to reduce potential impacts to nesting birds, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 is
recommended.
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1 A Pre-construction Burrowing Owl Survey shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist at least 30 days prior to any Project activities, at any time of year. Surveys
shall be completed following the recommendations and guidelines provided
within the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG, March 2012) or most
recent version by a qualified biologist. If an active burrowing owl burrow is
detected within any Project disturbance area, or within a 500-foot buffer of the
disturbance area, a 300- foot radius buffer zone surrounding the burrow shall be
flagged, and no impacts to soils or vegetation or noise levels above 65 dBA shall
be permitted while the burrow remains active or occupied. Disturbance-free
buffers may be modified based on site-specific conditions in consultation with the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The qualified biologist shall
monitor active burrows daily and will increase buffer sizes as needed if owls show
signs of disturbance. If active burrowing owl burrows are located within any work
area and impact cannot be avoided, a qualified biologist shall submit a burrowing
owl exclusion plan to CDFW for review and approval. The burrowing owl exclusion
plan shall include permanent compensatory mitigation consistent with the
recommendations in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation such that the
habitat acreage, number of burrows and burrowing owls impacted are replaced.
Passive relocation shall take place outside the nesting season (February 1st to
August 31st ).
MM BIO-2 Bird nesting season generally extends from February 1 through September 15 in
southern California and specifically, April 15 through August 31 for migratory
passerine birds. To avoid impacts to nesting birds (common and special status)
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 79
during the nesting season, a qualified Avian Biologist will conduct pre‐construction
Nesting Bird Surveys (NBS) prior to project‐related disturbance to nestable
vegetation to identify any active nests. If no active nests are found, no further
action will be required. If an active nest is found, the biologist will set appropriate
no‐work buffers around the nest which will be based upon the nesting species, its
sensitivity to disturbance, nesting stage and expected types, intensity and
duration of disturbance. The nests and buffer zones shall be field-checked weekly
by a qualified biological monitor. The approved no‐work buffer zone shall be
clearly marked in the field, within which no disturbance activity shall commence
until the qualified biologist has determined the young birds have successfully
fledged and the nest is inactive.
With implementation of MM BIO-1 and BIO-2, a less than significant impact would occur.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant Impact. There are no heritage or specimen trees on site, and the two
existing trees located along Sierra Avenue do not meet the City of Fontana’s Municipal Code
(Chapter 28, Section 63) definition of a Heritage Tree which states that a Heritage tree “is
representative of a significant period of the city’s growth or development (windrow tree,
European Olive tree).” As such, a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. The Project is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project would result in no significant impacts to biological resources with the
implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and BIO-2. Cumulative impacts are not likely to
occur as a result of Project implementation plus other projects since all projects within the
surrounding region are planned for industrial and residential uses. Furthermore, all projects
would be subject to individual project-level environmental review. Since there would be no
project-specific significant impacts, and due to existing laws and regulations in place to protect
biological resources and Project mitigation measures in place to determine the
presence/absence of a candidate, sensitive, and special species, the potential incremental effects
of the proposed Project would not be cumulatively considerable.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 80
CULTURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
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 § 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?
X
This section discusses the historic, archaeological resources that may be impacted due to Project
implementation. Cultural resources are defined as places, objects, and settlements that reflect
group or individual religious, archaeological, or architectural activities. Such resources provide
information on scientific progress, environmental adaptations, group ideology, or other human
advancements. By statute, the CEQA is primarily concerned with two classes of cultural
resources: “historical resources,” which are defined in PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5, and “unique archaeological resources,” which are defined in PRC Section
21083.2. Tribal cultural resources are generally described as sites, features, places, cultural
landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe
and are further defined in PRC Section 21074(a)(1)(A) and (B).
The information and analysis in this section is based on literature review of the City of Fontana
General Plan (2007) and City of Fontana General Plan Update 2015 – 2035 (2018), and existing
conditions of the Project site.
a, b and c) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? or Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Project site is an existing stormwater detention basin.
As such, the site was previously excavated to adequately function as a detention basin. As part
of the Project, the site would be filled up at grade with documented fill material. According to
Exhibit 4.1, Historic Resources of the Fontana GP, no cultural resources (including prehistoric or
historic archaeological sites or historic buildings) of any kind have been identified within the
Project site’s boundaries. Additionally, the Project site has been heavily disced for many years,
and as such, no cultural resources are anticipated to be located onsite.
Nevertheless, if any cultural resources (including prehistoric or historic archaeological sites,
artifacts, and/or funerary objects, and historic architectural resources) are identified during
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 81
earthmoving activities, Mitigation Measure (MM) CUL-1 will be implemented to minimize the
impacts on any found cultural resource. Additionally, the Project site is not located within a
known or suspected cemetery, and there are no known human remains within the Project site.
State law related to the discovery of human remains, specifically California Health and Safety
Codes 7050.S-7055, provides guidance should human remains be discovered during construction.
The likelihood of finding human remains is low, and the resulting impact is considered less than
significant; however, in a conservative effort to avoid impacts to any potential human remains
during ground disturbing activities, MM CUL-2 will be implemented. As such, no impact to
cultural, historical, or human remains are anticipated to be impacted.
Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 Historic Archaeological Resources
a. If tribal cultural and archaeological resources are unearthed by project
construction activities, these shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist
and tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources discovery of any tribal cultural
or archaeological resources, construction activities in the immediate vicinity
of the find should cease until the find can be assessed. If all finds 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.
b. 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.
c. 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
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 82
California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are
appropriately trained and qualified.
MM CUL-2 If human remains are encountered during the undertaking, State Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the
County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of
the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner
will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will
determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the
landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of
the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of
notification by the NAHC.
Per California Code, Health and Safety Code - HSC § 7050.5:
(b) In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any
location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further
excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably
suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in
which the human remains are discovered has determined, in accordance
with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of
Title 3 of the Government Code, that the remains are not subject to the
provisions of Section 27491 of the Government Code or any other related
provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner
and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the
treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the
person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized
representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public
Resources Code. The coroner shall make his or her determination within
two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation,
or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery
or recognition of the human remains.
(c) If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her
authority and if the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of
a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native
American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native
American Heritage Commission.
Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project would not create a cumulative impact to a known historical, or
archaeological resource or human remains. No excavation of the site would occur.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 83
ENERGY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
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?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
X
Building Energy Conservation Standards
The California Building Standard Codes (Title 24, Part 6, of the CCR) are updated every three years
by the California Energy Commission to help reduce wasteful and unnecessary energy
consumption in newly constructed and existing buildings.7 The 2019 California Building Standards
Codes (or California Building Codes; CBC) standards aim to increase energy efficiency, save
consumers money, and improve air quality both indoors and outdoors. Title 24 also requires all
new homes to install solar photovoltaic systems, making California the first state in the nation to
have a solar mandate. For nonresidential buildings, Title 24, Part 6 revises ventilation and lighting
requirements, among them updating prescriptive indoor and outdoor lighting power allowance
values to assume the use of light-emitting diode (LED) lighting, plus revisions to heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) and acceptance test requirements which would
ultimately lead to a higher energy efficiency. New efficiency standards outline stricter
requirements for insulation in attics, walls, and windows to save additional energy. Finally, the
standards encourage measures such as battery storage and heat pump water heaters to shift
energy usage to off-peak hours.8
Senate Bill 350
SB 350, also known as the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act, established clean energy,
clean air, and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals, including reducing GHG to 40 percent below
1990 levels by 2030 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
7 California Energy Commission. (2021) Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. Available at
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2019-building-energy-efficiency. Accessed
January 14, 2021.
8 California Energy Commission. (2021) Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. Available at
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2019-building-energy-efficiency. Accessed
January 14, 2021.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 84
Senate Bill 100
On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100. Under SB 100 or the California
Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is required to
establish a renewables portfolio standard requiring all retail sellers, as defined, to procure a
minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources, as defined,
so that the total kilowatt-hours of those products sold to their retail end-use customers achieve
25% of retail sales by December 31, 2016, 33% by December 31, 2020, 40% by
December 31, 2024, 45% by December 31, 2027, and 50% by December 31, 2030. The program
additionally requires each local publicly owned electric utility, as defined, to procure a minimum
quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources to achieve the
procurement requirements established by the program. The Legislature has found and declared
that its intent in implementing the program is to attain, among other targets for sale of eligible
renewable resources, the target of 50% of total retail sales of electricity by December 31, 2030.9
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix F
Pursuant to Section 15126.2(b), Section 15126.4 (a)(1)(C), and Appendix F of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the environmental setting may include “existing energy supplies and energy use
patterns in the region and locality.” Energy usage is analyzed in this document due to the
potential direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with the Project. Refer to Air
Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions for additional regulatory background and environmental
setting regarding the Project’s energy use.
Electricity
Electricity is the flow of electrical power or charge and is both a basic part of nature and of the
most widely used forms of energy. Electricity as a utility is considered a secondary energy source
is a man-made resource by consuming or converting of energy resources, including water, wind,
oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal, and nuclear resources, into energy. Electricity can be supplied
through a number of system components including substations and transformers that lower
transmission line power (voltage) to a level appropriate for on-site distribution and use. The
electricity generated is distributed through a network of transmission and distribution lines
commonly called a power grid. Conveyance of electricity through transmission lines is typically
responsive to market demands. Southern California Edison (SCE) currently services the City of
Fontana and would provide electrical service to the Project site.
Energy capacity, or electrical power, is generally measured in watts (W) while energy use is
measured in watt-hours (Wh). For example, if a light post on-site has a capacity rating of 250 W,
the energy required to power the light post on for one hour would be 250 Wh. If multiple light
bulbs at 250 W were on for one hour, the energy required would be 2,500 Wh or 2.5 kilowatt-
hour (kWh). On a utility-scale, a generator’s capacity is typically rated in megawatts (MW), which
9 State of California. (2018). Sb-100 California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: Emissions of Greenhouse Gases. Available at
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB100. Accessed January 14, 2021.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 85
is one million watts, while energy use is measured in megawatt-hours (MWh) or gigawatt-hours
(GWh), which is one billion watt-hours.
Natural Gas
The Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas), which would be the Project’s service provider,
services approximately 21.8 million people through 5.9 million meters in more than
500 communities. SoCalGas’s service territory encompasses approximately 24,000 square miles
throughout central and southern California. SoCalGas buys natural gas throughout the year and
stores it in four storage fields: Aliso Canyon, Honor Rancho, La Goleta, and Playa del Rey. These
fields have a combined storage capacity of 134.1 billion cubic feet.
According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), natural gas demand in the SoCalGas service
area was 7,431 million therms (or 743,100 million cubic feet) in 2010. The CEC prepared three
scenarios for forecasting future growth in natural gas demand between 2012 and 2022: a high-
energy demand case, a low-energy demand case, and a mid-energy demand case. The low-
demand scenario, which incorporates relatively high economic/demographic growth, relatively
low electricity and natural gas rates, and relatively low-efficiency program and self‐generation
impacts, estimates that natural gas demand in the SoCalGas service area would be 7,951 million
therms in 2022 (the latest year in the demand forecast).
Energy Use10
Energy use is typically quantified using the British Thermal Unit (BTU). Total energy use in
California was 7,829 trillion BTU in 2016 (the most recent year for which this specific data is
available), which equates to an average of approximately 199 million BTU per capita. Of
California’s total energy use, the breakdown by sector is 28 percent transportation, 32 percent
industrial, 18 percent commercial, and 21 percent residential. Total energy consumption includes
the primary energy use, purchased electricity, and electrical system energy losses
(energy conversion and other losses associated with the generation, transmission, and
distribution of purchased electricity), and other energy losses.11 Energy consumption is
calculated based on four main sectors which are: residential, commercial, industrial, and
transportation. Total electrical system energy losses are apportioned to each end-use sector
according to each sector's share of total annual U.S. electricity purchases with industrial being
the highest energy consumer.
10 United States Energy Information Administration. (November 15, 2018). California State Profile and Energy Estimates. Available at
www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA. Accessed January 14, 2021.
11 U.S Energy Information Administration. (2020). Use of Energy Explained. Available at https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/.
Accessed January 14, 2021.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 86
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Electricity
SCE would provide electricity to the Project. The existing Project is currently vacant and does not
consume electricity. Project buildout would result in a permanent increase in electricity usage.
However, the increased demand is expected to be adequately served by the existing SCE
electrical facilities. Total electricity demand in SCE’s service area is forecast to increase by
approximately 12,000 GWh—or 12 billion kWh—between 2015 and 2026. The increase in
electricity demand from the Project would be 676,054 kWh which represents a negligible percent
increase compared to overall demand in SCE’s service area. Therefore, projected electrical
demand would not significantly impact SCE’s level of service.
As discussed above, all residential buildings would comply with the latest 2019 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards. The City of Fontana Building & Safety Department would review and verify
that the Project is compliant with the current version of the Building and Energy Efficiency
Standards prior to issuance of a building permit. In addition, the proposed Project would adhere
to the standards listed in Chapters 3 through Chapter 8 of the 2019 CBC, Title 24, Part 11, also
known as CALGreen which aims to improve public health, safety and general welfare by
enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having
a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encourages sustainable
construction in planning and design, energy, water, and resource efficiency, and water and
material conservation.12
Some design features include the utilization of high-performance LED security lighting for the
parking lots. In addition, the Project would provide clean air/carpool parking per CalGreen
requirements. Project implementation would not hinder the 60 percent Renewable Portfolio
Standard goals set forth in SB 100 for 2030 or the 100 percent standard for 2045. These goals
apply to SCE.
Natural Gas
SoCal Gas would provide natural gas service to the Project site. The increased demand of natural
gas is expected to be adequately served by the existing SoCalGas facilities. According to the
California Energy Demand 2018-2030 Revised Forecast, with the implementation of the
2016 Title 24 building standards and AAEE natural gas savings, the natural gas consumption
demand substantially decreased from year 2018-2030 resulting in a higher capacity. The natural
gas demand from the proposed Project would represent 15,731 therms per year, a 0.0031
percentage increase in overall demand for San Bernardino County. Adherence to Title 24, part 11
standards, and ability for SoCal Gas to support the Project’s natural gas demand would not create
12 International Code Council. (2019). 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11. August 21, 2020. Available at
https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBSC2019/chapter-1-administration
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 87
significant wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project
construction or operation.
Fuel
Transportation energy is the total of the number of vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, fuel
efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Transportation energy use during construction would
come from the use of construction equipment and vehicles, and construction employee vehicles
that would use diesel fuel and/or gasoline. Energy resources by these vehicles would vary based
on the construction activity taking place each day. Impacts related to transportation energy use
during construction would be temporary and would not require additional fuel supplies so
therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Operational transportation energy is speculative of residential nature. Operations as modeled in
the traffic impact analysis (TIA) (Appendix E) would result in the annual consumption of
approximately 160,422 gallons of gasoline and 50,848 gallons of diesel, resulting in a 0.0191%
increase in gasoline usage and 0.0183% increase in diesel usage for the County of San Bernardino
in 2022. Therefore, the fuel demand from the Project would represent a nominal percentage of
overall consumption in the region (i.e., less than a fraction of one percent). Consequently, the
Project would not result in a substantial demand for energy that would require expanded supplies
or the construction of other infrastructure or expansion of existing facilities. Project operations
would comply with all applicable fuel efficiency standards and would not substantially affect
existing fuel supplies or resources. Additionally, fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips
generated by the Project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary.
Overall energy consumption in regard to electricity, natural gas, and fuel would not be wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary during construction and operation of the proposed Project. Impacts
would be less than significant without the use of mitigation.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No Impact. The Project is not within a state or local renewable energy or energy-efficient plan.
The Project would be consistent with all applicable codes and regulations set by the state and
City. The proposed Project would comply with CALGreen Standards, appliance efficiency
regulations, and green building standards set by the CEC. As discussed above, the Project would
not cause inefficient energy consumption resulting in a less than significant impact.
Additionally, the Project would adhere to the California Energy Commission’s Gridscape Solutions
grant, which seeks to demonstrate the business case for advanced micro-grids in support of
California’s energy and Greenhouse Gases (GHG) policies to aid in the reduction of energy
consumption and GHG emissions to meet the goals of AB 32. The Project would incorporate
several energy efficiency design features that would comply with Title 24 requirements, as well
as the California Green Building Code standards that are consistent with the Climate Action Plan’s
efficiency measures in which the City would review prior to issuance of grading or building
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 88
permit. As stated above, the Project would adhere to any applicable plan, policy or regulation of
an agency adopted to reduce GHG emissions, including Title 24, AB 32, and SB 32; therefore,
potential impacts are considered nonexistent.
Cumulative Impacts
The Project’s use of energy resources would not be significant in comparison to state, regional
and local electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel demand. As discussed above, additional
capacity or supplies of energy resources would not be required and all cumulative present and
future projects would be subject to compliance with all Federal and State requirements in
addition to the City of Fontana’s scrutiny. All project’s potential energy impacts are site-specific
and would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis, separate discretionary approval and CEQA
assessment. This would help address potential energy consumption impacts and identify
mitigation measures if necessary. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in a
significant cumulative impact.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 89
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
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? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
x
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? x
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
x
iv) Landslides? x
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? x
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the Project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
x
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
x
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
x
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
x
California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Act) purpose is to mitigate the hazards of fault
rupture by prohibiting the location of structures for human occupancy across the trace of an
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 90
active fault. The Act dictates that cities and counties withhold development permits for projects
within an Earthquake Fault Zone within their jurisdiction until geologic investigations
demonstrate that the projects are not threatened by surface displacements from future
earthquakes. However, local agencies can be more restrictive than the State.13
Ground Shaking
Ground shaking is a general term referring to all aspects of motion of the earth’s surface resulting
from an earthquake that can cause major damage in seismic events. The extent of ground shaking
results from the magnitude and intensity of the earthquake, distance from the epicenter, and
local geologic conditions. Magnitude is a measure of the energy released by an earthquake; it is
assessed by seismographs. Intensity is a subjective measure of the perceptible effects of seismic
energy at a given point and varies with distance from the epicenter and local geologic conditions.
Ground shaking can primarily cause property damage and injury during earthquakes and can
result in other natural phenomenon such as surface rupture, liquefaction, landslides, lateral
spreading, differential settlement, tsunamis, building failure, and broken gas and other utility
lines, leading to fire and other collateral damage Areas underlain by thick, saturated,
unconsolidated soils will experience greater shaking motion than those areas underlain by firm
bedrock.14
Seismicity and Seismic Hazards
The City generally lies within the northern and northwestern portion of the Peninsular Ranges
Geomorphic Province of Southern California, which is characterized by northwest-southeast
trending faults, folds, and mountain ranges. The faulting and seismicity of the Inland Empire
generally is characterized by the San Andreas Fault zone. The zone separates two of the major
tectonic plates that comprise the earth’s crust. The relative movement between the Pacific Plate
and North American Plate is the driving force of fault ruptures in western California. There are
numerous faults in surrounding area that are categorized as active, potentially active, and
inactive. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) U.S. Quaternary Faults GIS
map, the City has several Late Quaternary, Middle and Late Quaternary, and Latest Quaternary
Faults throughout the City’s boundary.15
A fault is classified as active by the state if it has either moved during the Holocene epoch (during
the last 11,000 years) or is included in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (as established by
the California Geological Survey [CGS]). A fault is classified as potentially active if it has
experienced movement within the Quaternary period (during the last 1.6 million years). Faults
that have not moved in the last 1.6 million years generally are considered inactive.
13 City of Fontana. (2017). Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Page 62. Available at https://fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-
Hazard-Mitigation-Plan. Accessed January 14, 2021.
14 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Page 61.Available at https://fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan.
Accessed January 14, 2021.
15 United States Geological Survey. (2019). U.S. Quaternary Faults GIS Map. Available at
https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf88412fcf. Accessed January 14, 2021.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 91
Earthquake Induced Liquefaction
Liquefaction occurs when loosely packed sandy or silty materials saturated with water are shaken
hard enough to lose strength and stiffness. Liquefied soils behave like a liquid and are responsible
for tremendous damage in an earthquake. For example, it can cause buildings to collapse, pipes
to leak, and roads to buckle.16 Liquefaction potential is the highest in area with shallow
groundwater and saturated soils. Specifically, liquefaction occurs at depths less than 50 feet
below ground surface (bgs), with the most susceptible conditions occurring in sandy soils with
less than 15 percent silt and clay at depths shallower than 30 feet bgs. Saturated deposits that
are deeper than 50 feet bgs generally are stable regardless of their grain-size distribution.17
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.
Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest Alquist-Priolo fault zone is the San Jacinto Fault located
approximately 8.0 miles east of the Project site.18 Since the Project site is not located near a
designated fault, earthquake fault zone or on an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone, a less than significant
impact associated with fault rupture would occur.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Inland Empire, which includes the Project site is generally
prone to seismic ground shaking. Consequently, the Project site’s design and construction will
comply with the latest 2019 CBC, City regulations, and other applicable state standards which
would minimize the potential of strong seismic ground shaking impacts. The 2019 CBC became
effective January 2, 2020 replacing the prior 2016 CBC. The CBC provides procedures for
earthquake-resistant structural design based on the buildings risk or seismic design category that
include considerations for on-site soil conditions, occupancy, and the configuration of the
structure including the structural system and height. Therefore, with the Project conforming to
the latest CBCs, impacts due to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
iii and iv) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? And Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to San Bernardino County General Plan, Geologic Hazard
Overlays, the Project site is not located within or near an area that is susceptible to either
16 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Page 59.
17 City of Fontana. (2018). General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report; Page 5.5-5. Available at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update. Accessed
January 14, 2021.
18 U.S. Quaternary Faults GIS Map.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 92
landslide or liquefaction.19 The nearest mapped liquefaction and landslide zones are located
approximately 1.3 miles south of the site. Therefore, a less than significant impacts would occur.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Short-term Construction Impacts
General construction activities would include earthwork activities to fill in the existing
stormwater detention basin. Depending on the time of year when construction occurs, short-
term erosion by wind and water could occur. The Project is subject to comply with Chapter 9,
Article II of the Fontana Municipal Code for the purpose of controlling blowing sand and
preventing soil erosion. As documented in the Water Quality Management Plan20 (WQMP), the
Project would comply with the City of Fontana and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permitting process consistent with the San Bernardino County’s Municipal Storm
Water Management Program. The WQMP includes structural and non-structural erosion-control
and sediment-control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would meet or exceed measures
required by the Construction General Permit (CGP) to control potential construction-related
pollutants. The Project site would implement BMP’s specifications and utilize expansive soil
guidelines to minimize erosion on-site to help minimize soil erosion. Therefore, since loss of
topsoil would be temporary, impacts would be less than significant.
Long-term Operational Impacts
The site would be paved and landscaped throughout which would be properly maintained to
reduce water runoff. The Project would include catch basins at the perimeter of the site which
would catch any runoff. The Project owner would maintain the drainage systems, including catch
basins and culverts. The Project would have catch basins inspected and, if necessary, cleaned
prior to the storm season, no later than October 15th each year or prior to the first 24-hour storm
event, whichever occurs first. These duties may be contracted out to the landscape maintenance
firm hired by the owner.21 No additional activities would cause a loss of topsoil and therefore,
the potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during construction and operations
is considered less than significant.
c, d) 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? And be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would adhere to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
(LHMP) which lists the types of geologic hazards known to occur in the City regarding slope
19 County of San Bernardino. 2010. Geologic Hazards Overlays. Available at http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/GeoHazMaps/FH29C.pdf.
Accessed January 14, 2021.
20 KES Technologies Inc. November 2020. Water Quality Management Plan.
21 Ibid.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 93
instability, leading to possible mudflow, liquefaction, and collapsible or expansive soils. The
Project site is not located in an area sensitive to slope/landslide instability and liquefaction as
shown in Appendix E of the LHMP, Map 7.22 The Project site is relatively flat and is not located
adjacent to a hillside or riverbank that is characterized by unstable conditions or liquefaction.
Additionally, the Project site is mapped as having Delhi fine sand which has a high infiltration and
low runoff rate in addition to low expansion characteristics. 23 The Delhi-sands are minimal and
are located on the eastern portion of the basin. Therefore, impacts associated with unstable and
expansive soils would be less than significant.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
No Impact. The proposed Project does not include a septic tank or alternative wastewater
disposal system. The Project site would utilize a new system described in the WQMP and would
be held together with a post-construction stormwater BMP operation that would connect to the
City’s existing sanitary sewer system for wastewater disposal. Thus, no impacts associated with
the use of septic tanks would occur as part of the proposed Project’s implementation and no
mitigation is required.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
No Impact. The Project site is an existing stormwater detention basin which would be filled in
with documented fill material. No excavation of the site would be necessary. Filling of the site
would be to grade. As such, no impacts to paleontological resources are anticipated to occur.
Cumulative Impacts
The potential cumulative impact related to earth and geology is typically site-specific.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not create a significant adverse impact related to
landform modification, grading, or the destruction of a geologically significant landform or
feature with conformance with the 2019 CBC code and due to the soil properties being able to
support the proposed Project features. Moreover, existing State and local laws and regulations
are in place to protect people and property from substantial adverse geological and soils effects,
including fault rupture, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-induced ground failure (including
liquefaction), and landslides. These regulations would ultimately protect life and property from
adverse effects related to soil erosion, expansive soils, loss of topsoil, development on an
unstable geologic unit or soil type that could result in on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
22 City of Fontana. 2017. Appendix E - Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Geologic Hazard Overlays – Landslide & Liquefaction Susceptibility, Map 7.
Available at https://fontana.org/3196/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan-
LHMP#:~:text=The%20Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan%20below%20is%20an%20update,14%2C%202018%20%E2%80%93%
20City%20Council%20Resolution%20No.%202018-072. Accessed January 14, 2021.
23 USDA. 2020. Websoil Survey. Available at https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed January 14, 2021.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 94
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
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?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X
A Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates in
March 2021.
The original Project assumptions for the preparation of the Greenhouse Gas Assessment
assumed the development of approximately 155,970 square feet of multi-family residential
dwelling units totaling 155 DUs. Additionally, the model assumed 225 vehicle parking spaces. The
model output with the original assumptions resulted in a less than significant impact on all
aspects regarding potential impacts to Greenhouse Gases. The Project has been updated to
include a water detention basin, and as such, the proposed Project was reduced to 106 DUs and
139 vehicle parking spaces, that is an overall reduction of approximately 32 percent from the
original proposed Project.
As a result of the Project reduction, it was determined that no updates to the original analysis is
necessary because the original analysis conducted is more conservative than the updated
proposed Project. As such, a memorandum noting the lesser impacts from implementation of the
proposed Project due to the overall Project reduction is documented and presented along with
the original Greenhouse Gas Assessment as Appendix A, and the results are summarized herein.
Background
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the
earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion
of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface and a smaller portion of this radiation is
reflected back toward space. This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-
frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to
temperature. Because the earth has a much lower temperature than the sun, it emits lower-
frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is
absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into
space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known
as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 95
The primary GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that
contribute to climate change. Examples of fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen
trifluoride (NF3); however, it is noted that these gases are not associated with typical land use
development. Human-caused emissions of GHGs exceeding natural ambient concentrations are
believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of
unnatural warming of the Earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming.
GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which
are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects
have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one day), GHGs have long atmospheric
lifetimes (one to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time
periods to be dispersed around the globe. Although the exact lifetime of a GHG molecule is
dependent on multiple variables and cannot be pinpointed, more CO2 is emitted into the
atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, or other forms of carbon
sequestration. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 emissions, approximately 55 percent is
sequestered through ocean and land uptakes every year, averaged over the last 50 years,
whereas the remaining 45 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions remains stored in the
atmosphere.
Regulations and Significance Criteria
State
Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 in
June 2005, which established the following GHG emission reduction targets: (a) by 2010: Reduce
GHG emissions to 2000 levels; (b) by 2020: Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and (c), by
2050: Reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
AB 32 Statutes of 2006, Health and Safety Code Section 38500 et seq. require that CARB
determine what the Statewide GHG emissions level was in 1990 and approve a Statewide GHG
emissions limit that is equivalent to that level, to be achieved by 2020. CARB has approved a 2020
emissions limit of 427 MTCO2e. Additionally, issued in April 2015, EO B-30-15 requires Statewide
GHG emissions to be reduced 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
EO B-30-15, which was issued in April 2015, requires statewide GHG emissions to be reduced
40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. SB 32, signed into law in September 2016, codifies the
2030 GHG reduction target in EO B-30-15. SB 32 authorizes CARB to adopt an interim GHG
emissions level target to be achieved by 2030 and to adopt rules and regulations in an open public
process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective GHG reductions.
With SB 32, the California Legislature passed companion legislation AB 197, which provided
additional direction for developing an updated Scoping Plan. CARB released the second update
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 96
to the Scoping Plan to reflect the 2030 target set by EO B-30-15 and codified by SB 32 in
November 2017.
Due to the nature of global climate change, it is not anticipated that the proposed Project would
have a substantial effect on global climate change. GHG emissions from the proposed Project
would combine with emissions emitted across California, the United States, and the world to
cumulatively contribute to global climate change.
Addressing GHG emissions generation impacts requires an agency to determine what constitutes
a significant impact. The CEQA Guidelines specifically allow lead agencies to determine
thresholds of significance that illustrate the extent of an impact and are a basis from which to
apply mitigation measures. This means that each agency is left to determine whether a project’s
GHG emissions would have a “significant” impact on the environment. The guidelines direct that
agencies are to use “careful judgment” and “make a good-faith effort, based to the extent
possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” the project’s GHG
emissions (14 CCR § 15064.4(a)).
Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds
The SCAQMD formed a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group to provide guidance to
local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents. As
of the last Working Group meeting (Meeting 15) held in September 2010, the SCAQMD is
proposing to adopt a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects
where SCAQMD is not the lead agency.
With the tiered approach, the Project is compared with the requirements of each tier sequentially
and would not result in a significant impact if it complies with any tier. Tier 1 excludes projects
that are specifically exempt from SB 97 from resulting in a significant impact. Tier 2 excludes
projects that are consistent with a GHG reduction plan that has a certified final CEQA document
and complies with AB 32 GHG reduction goals. Tier 3 excludes projects with annual emissions
lower than a screening threshold. The SCAQMD has adopted a threshold of 10,000 metric tons
of CO2e (MTCO2e) per year for industrial projects and a 3,000 MTCO2e threshold was proposed
for non-industrial projects but has not been adopted. SCAQMD concluded that projects with
emissions less than the screening threshold would not result in a significant cumulative impact.
Southern California Association of Governments
On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy). The RTP/SCS charts a course for closely
integrating land use and transportation so that the region can grow smartly and sustainably. The
strategy was prepared through a collaborative, continuous, and comprehensive process with
input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non-
profit organizations, businesses, and local stakeholders within the counties of Imperial,
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 97
Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The RTP/SCS is a long-range vision
plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public
health goals. The SCAG region strives toward sustainability through integrated land use and
transportation planning. The SCAG region must achieve specific federal air quality standards and
is required by state law to lower regional GHG emissions.
Local
City of Fontana General Plan
The City of Fontana’s General Plan outlines the concerns of the community and the means of
addressing those concerns. Chapters 9 and 12 (Community Mobility and Circulation and
Sustainability and Resilience) focus on connecting neighborhoods and city destinations by
expanding transportation choices in Fontana.
General Plan policies that relate to GHG impacts include the following:
Goal 4: Fontana meets the greenhouse gas reduction goals for 2030 and subsequent
goals set by the state.
Policy 4-1: Continue to collaborate with the San Bernardino County Transportation Agency
(SBCTA), infrastructure agencies, and utilities on greenhouse gas reduction studies
and goals.
Goal 7: The City of Fontana participates in shaping regional transportation policies to
reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions
Policy 7-3: Participate in the efforts of the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) to coordinate transportation planning and services that support
greenhouse gas reductions.
San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
In response to statewide GHG reduction initiatives, the San Bernardino Associated Governments
(formerly SANBAG, now known as San Bernardino Council of Governments (SBCOG)), cooperated
to compile an inventory of GHG emissions and an evaluation of reduction measures to be
adopted by the cities partnering within SBCOG. Reduction measures in the GHG Reduction Plan
(GHGRP) are targeting GHG goals for the year 2020. Several of the measures and policies
mentioned in the GHGRP for the City of Fontana are from the General Plan. The policies listed in
the GHGRP range from broadly supporting energy efficiency and sustainability to policies closely
tied to specific GHG reduction measures. Application of these policies has been assumed to
reduce local GHGs by an estimated 387,998 MTCO2e from “business as usual” levels in 2020. This
would equate to a 28.0 percent reduction in GHGs from the 2008 levels of 1,238,926 MTCO2e
annually.
Methodology
The Project’s construction and operational emissions were calculated using the California
Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod). Details of the modeling assumptions
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 98
and emission factors. For construction, CalEEMod calculates emissions from off-road equipment
usage and on-road vehicle travel associated with haul, delivery, and construction worker trips.
GHG emissions during construction were forecasted based on the proposed construction
schedule and applying the mobile-source and fugitive dust emissions factors derived from
CalEEMod. The Project’s construction-related GHG emissions would be generated from off-road
construction equipment, on-road hauling, vendor (material delivery) trucks, and worker vehicles.
The Project’s operations-related GHG emissions would be generated by vehicular traffic, area
sources (e.g., landscaping maintenance, consumer products), electrical generation, natural gas
consumption, water supply and wastewater treatment, and solid waste.
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Short-Term Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Project would result in direct emissions of GHGs from construction. The approximate
quantity of daily GHG emissions generated by construction equipment utilized to build the
Project is depicted in the following Table 12, Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Table 12: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Category MTCO2e
2022 Construction 52
2023 Construction 978
2024 Construction 653
2025 Construction 99
Total Construction Emissions 1,782
30-Year Amortized Construction 59
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix AIR for model outputs.
As shown, the Project would result in the generation of approximately 1,782 MTCO2e over the
course of construction. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over
the lifetime of the Project (assumed to be 30 years), then added to the operational emissions.24
The amortized Project construction emissions would be 59 MTCO2e per year. Once construction
is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.
Long-Term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the Project. GHG emissions would result
from direct emissions such as Project generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural
24 The project lifetime is based on the standard 30-year assumption of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast Air
Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13, August 26, 2009).
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 99
gas, and operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result
from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power, the energy required to
convey water to, and wastewater from the Project, the emissions associated with solid waste
generated from the Project, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators.
Total GHG emissions associated with the Project are summarized in Table 13, Project Greenhouse
Gas Emissions. As shown in Table 13, the Project would generate approximately 1,845 MTCO2e
annually from both construction and operations and the Project. Project-related GHG emissions
would not exceed the SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold for non-industrial projects.
Table 13: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source MTCO2e per Year
Construction Amortized Over 30 Years 59
Area Source 3
Energy 242
Mobile 1,467
Waste 20
Water and Wastewater 54
Total 1,845
SCAQMD Threshold 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix AIR for model outputs.
Therefore, the proposed Project would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are
required.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact.
San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Consistency
The City would be in compliance with the 2014 GHGRP, which serves as a long-term vision for
how Fontana, along with neighboring cities, can be more environmentally friendly and provides
guidance for residents, City staff, and decision makers in the community on how to achieve future
sustainability goals. The goals outlined in the GHGRP target GHG emissions in the year 2020. As
shown in Table 14, San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
Consistency, the Project would not conflict with the goals in the GHGRP.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 100
Table 14: San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Consistency
SBCOG Goals Compliance
GOAL 1: Continue to support the regional bus
system to provide intra‐city service, inter‐
city service to major employment centers,
and connect with other regional
transportation transfer points.
N/A: This is not a transportation improvement
project and is therefore not applicable.
GOAL 2: Where needed and appropriate, require
new development to provide transit
facilities and accommodations, such as bus
shelters and turnouts, consistent with
regional agency plans and existing and
anticipated demands.
Consistent: The Project is located immediately
adjacent to an existing Omni-Trans bus
route. Therefore, the new development
would not need to provide transit facilities
and accommodations for buses.
GOAL 3: Continue to implement traffic signal
systems and intelligent transportation
systems (ITS) components (not limited to
signal coordination, highway advisory
radio, closed-circuit television, emergency
vehicle signal preemption, etc.) along
arterial roadways and sub‐areas, in
accordance to the City’s traffic Signal
System Conceptual Buildout Plan and in
compliance with regional and appropriate
ITS Architecture Master Plans
N/A: This is not a transportation improvement
project and is therefore not applicable.
GOAL 4: Continue to develop non‐motorized trails
and bicycle routes as identified in the City’s
adopted General Plan; Parks, Recreation
and Trails Element and the adopted
Regional Non‐Motorized Transportation
Plan.
N/A: This is not a transportation improvement
project and is therefore not applicable.
GOAL 5: Require that all new development adjacent
to non‐motorized trails provide bicycle and
pedestrian routes linked to those facilities.
N/A: The Project site is not located near non-
motorized trails and therefore is not
applicable.
GOAL 6: Increase densities through transit-oriented
development in the core of the city
adjacent to the Metrolink and Omni‐trans
hub.
N/A: The Project is not a transportation related
project and is not located near the City
core and/or a Metrolink or Moni-trans
hub. In addition, the Project consists of a
dealership development and is not
considered a transit-oriented
development.
GOAL 7: Activity Centers should be linked with
residential neighborhoods and be
accessible by multiple modes of
transportation.
N/A: This is not a project-specific policy and is
therefore not applicable.
Source: San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, March 2014.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 101
SCAG 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS Consistency
SCAG’s RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs
with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The RTP/SCS embodies a collective vision
for the region’s future and is developed with input from local governments, county
transportation commissions, tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and local
stakeholders in the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and
Ventura. SCAG’s RTP/SCS establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks
for 2020 and 2035 as well as an overall GHG target for the Project region consistent with both
the target date of AB 32 and the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of EOs 5-03-05 and B-30-15.
The RTP/SCS contains over 4,000 transportation projects, ranging from highway improvements,
railroad grade separations, bicycle lanes, new transit hubs and replacement bridges. These future
investments were included in county plans developed by the six county transportation
commissions and seek to reduce traffic bottlenecks, improve the efficiency of the region’s
network, and expand mobility choices for everyone. The RTP/SCS is an important planning
document for the region, allowing project sponsors to qualify for federal funding.
The plan accounts for operations and maintenance costs to ensure reliability, longevity, and
cost-effectiveness. The RTP/SCS is also supported by a combination of transportation and land
use strategies that help the region achieve state GHG emissions reduction goals and FCAA
requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, support
our vital goods movement industry, and utilize resources more efficiently. GHG emissions
resulting from development-related mobile sources are the most potent source of emissions, and
therefore Project comparison to the RTP/SCS is an appropriate indicator of whether the Project
would inhibit the post-2020 GHG reduction goals promulgated by the state. The Project’s
consistency with the RTP/SCS goals is analyzed in detail in Table 15, Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency.
Table 15: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency
SCAG Goals Compliance
GOAL 1: Encourage regional economic
prosperity and global
competitiveness.
N/A: This is not a project-specific policy and is
therefore not applicable. However, the Project
is located on a vacant site that is surrounded by
development. Development of the site would
contribute to regional economic prosperity.
GOAL 2: Improve mobility, accessibility,
reliability, and travel safety for
people and goods.
N/A: This is not a transportation improvement
project and is therefore not applicable.
GOAL 3: Enhance the preservation,
security, and resilience of the
regional transportation system.
N/A: This is not a transportation improvement
project and is therefore not applicable.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 102
SCAG Goals Compliance
GOAL 4: Increase person and goods
movement and travel choices
within the transportation system.
N/A: This is not a transportation improvement
project and is therefore not applicable.
GOAL 5: Reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and improve air
quality.
Consistent: The Project is located within an urban area in
proximity to existing commercial and
residential development, as well as arterial
roads, transit roads, and freeways. Location of
the Project within a developed area would
reduce trip lengths, which would reduce GHG
and air quality emissions.
GOAL 6: Support healthy and equitable
communities
Consistent:
As discussed in the Air Quality section, the
Project would not exceed thresholds or result
in health impacts. The Project is located on a
site that is currently zoned Transitional/Form
Based Code and designated as Walkable Mixed-
Use Corridor and Downtown. The Project
would not conflict with the surrounding
community’s ability to access healthy food or
parks.
GOAL 7: Adapt to a changing climate and
support an integrated regional
development pattern and
transportation network.
N/A: This is not a project-specific policy and is
therefore not applicable.
GOAL 8: Leverage new transportation
technologies and data-driven
solutions that result in more
efficient travel. N/A:
This is not a transportation improvement
project and is therefore not applicable.
However, the Project is located in a developed
area in proximity to existing truck routes and
freeways. Location of the Project within a
developed area would reduce trip lengths,
which would result in more efficient travel.
GOAL 9: Encourage development of
diverse housing types in areas
that are supported by multiple
transportation options.
Consistent:
The Project involves development of 155
affordable housing units and is located within a
relatively short walking distance to local bus
routes.
GOAL 10: Promote conservation of natural
and agricultural lands and
restoration of habitats.
N/A:
This the Project is not located on agricultural or
habitat lands.
Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal),
2020.
The goals stated in the RTP/SCS were used to determine consistency with the planning efforts
previously stated. As shown in Table 15 above, the proposed Project would be consistent with
the stated goals of the RTP/SCS. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any
significant impacts or interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s post-2020 mobile
source GHG reduction targets.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 103
California Air Resource Board Scoping Plan Consistency
The California State Legislature adopted AB 32 in 2006. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHGs
(CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Pursuant to the
requirements in AB 32, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) in 2008,
which outlines actions recommended to obtain that goal. The Scoping Plan provides a range of
GHG reduction actions that include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms,
monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms such as
the cap-and-trade program, and an AB 32 implementation fee to fund the program. The
2017 Scoping Plan Update identifies additional GHG reduction measures necessary to achieve
the 2030 target. These measures build upon those identified in the first update to the Scoping
Plan in 2013. Although a number of these measures are currently established as policies and
measures, some measures have not yet been formally proposed or adopted. It is expected that
these actions to reduce GHG emissions will be adopted as required to achieve statewide GHG
emissions targets.
As shown in Table 16, Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures, the
Project is consistent with most of the strategies, while others are not applicable to the Project.
As such, impacts related to consistency with the Scoping Plan would be less than significant.
Table 16: Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures
Scoping Plan
Sector
Scoping Plan
Measure
Implementing
Regulations Project Consistency
Transportation
California Cap-and-
Trade Program
Linked to Western
Climate Initiative
Regulation for the
California Cap on GHG
Emissions and Market-
Based Compliance
Mechanism
October 20, 2015
(CCR 95800)
Consistent. The Cap-and-Trade Program
applies to large industrial sources such as
power plants, refineries, and cement
manufacturers. However, the regulation
indirectly affects people who use the
products and services produced by these
industrial sources when increased cost of
products or services (such as electricity and
fuel) are transferred to the consumers. The
Cap-and-Trade Program covers the GHG
emissions associated with electricity
consumed in California, generated in-state or
imported. Accordingly, GHG emissions
associated with CEQA projects’ electricity
usage are covered by the Cap-and-Trade
Program. The Cap-and-Trade Program also
covers fuel suppliers (natural gas and
propane fuel providers and transportation
fuel providers) to address emissions from
such fuels and combustion of other fossil
fuels not directly covered at large sources in
the Program’s first compliance period.
California Light-Duty
Vehicle GHG
Standards
Pavley I 2005
Regulations to Control
GHG Emissions from
Motor Vehicles
Consistent. This measure applies to all new
vehicles starting with model year 2012. The
Project would not conflict with its
implementation as it would apply to all new
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 104
Scoping Plan
Sector
Scoping Plan
Measure
Implementing
Regulations Project Consistency
Pavley I 2005
Regulations to Control
GHG Emissions from
Motor Vehicles
passenger vehicles purchased in California.
Passenger vehicles, model year 2012 and
later, associated with construction and
operation of the Project would be required to
comply with the Pavley emissions standards.
2012 LEV III California
GHG and Criteria
Pollutant Exhaust and
Evaporative Emission
Standards
Consistent. The LEV III amendments provide
reductions from new vehicles sold in
California between 2017 and 2025.
Passenger vehicles associated with the site
would comply with LEV III standards.
Low Carbon Fuel
Standard
2009 readopted in 2015.
Regulations to Achieve
GHG Emission
Reductions Subarticle 7.
Low Carbon Fuel
Standard CCR 95480
Consistent. This measure applies to
transportation fuels utilized by vehicles in
California. The Project would not conflict
with implementation of this measure. Motor
vehicles associated with construction and
operation of the Project would utilize low
carbon transportation fuels as required
under this measure.
Regional
Transportation-
Related GHG Targets.
SB 375. Cal. Public
Resources Code §§
21155, 21155.1,
21155.2, 21159.28
Consistent. The Project would provide
development in the region that is consistent
with the growth projections in the RTP/SCS.
Transportation
Goods Movement Goods Movement Action
Plan January 2007
Not applicable. The Project does not propose
any changes to maritime, rail, or intermodal
facilities or forms of transportation.
Medium/Heavy-Duty
Vehicle
2010 Amendments to
the Truck and Bus
Regulation, the Drayage
Truck Regulation and the
Tractor-Trailer GHG
Regulation
Consistent. This measure applies to medium
and heavy-duty vehicles that operate in the
state. The Project would not conflict with
implementation of this measure. Medium
and heavy-duty vehicles associated with
construction and operation of the Project
would be required to comply with the
requirements of this regulation.
High Speed Rail Funded under SB 862
Not applicable. This is a statewide measure
that cannot be implemented by a project
applicant or Lead Agency.
Electricity and
Natural Gas
Energy Efficiency
Title 20 Appliance
Efficiency Regulation
Consistent. The Project would not conflict
with implementation of this measure. The
Project would comply with the latest energy
efficiency standards.
Title 24 Part 6 Energy
Efficiency Standards for
Residential and Non-
Residential Building
Title 24 Part 11 California
Green Building Code
Standards
Renewable Portfolio
Standard/Renewable
Electricity Standard.
2010 Regulation to
Implement the
Renewable Electricity
Standard (33% 2020)
Consistent. The Project would obtain
electricity from the electric utility, Southern
California Edison (SCE). SCE obtained 36
percent of its power supply from renewable
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 105
Scoping Plan
Sector
Scoping Plan
Measure
Implementing
Regulations Project Consistency
Million Solar Roofs
Program
SB 350 Clean Energy
and Pollution
Reduction Act of 2015
(50% 2030)
sources in 2018. Therefore, the utility would
provide power when needed on-site that is
composed of a greater percentage of
renewable sources.
Million Solar Roofs
Program Tax Incentive Program
Consistent. This measure is to increase solar
throughout California, which is being done by
various electricity providers and existing
solar programs. The program provides
incentives that are in place at the time of
construction.
Water Water
Title 24 Part 11 California
Green Building Code
Standards
Consistent. The Project would comply with
the CalGreen standards, which requires a
20 percent reduction in indoor water use.
The Project would also comply with the City’s
Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations
(Chapter 28, Article IV of the Fontana
Municipal Code).
SBX 7-7—The Water
Conservation Act of 2009
Model Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance
Green
Buildings
Green Building
Strategy
Title 24 Part 11 California
Green Building Code
Standards
Consistent. The State is to increase the use of
green building practices. The Project would
implement required green building strategies
through existing regulation that requires the
Project to comply with various CalGreen
requirements. The Project includes
sustainability design features that support
the Green Building Strategy.
Industry Industrial Emissions 2010 CARB Mandatory
Reporting Regulation
Not applicable. The Mandatory Reporting
Regulation requires facilities and entities
with more than 10,000 MTCO2e of
combustion and process emissions, all
facilities belonging to certain industries, and
all electric power entities to submit an annual
GHG emissions data report directly to CARB.
As shown above, total Project GHG emissions
would not exceed 10,000 MTCO2e.
Therefore, this regulation would not apply.
Recycling and
Waste
Management
Recycling and Waste
Title 24 Part 11 California
Green Building Code
Standards
Consistent. The Project would not conflict
with implementation of these measures. The
Project is required to achieve the recycling
mandates via compliance with the CALGreen
code. The City has consistently achieved its
state recycling mandates.
AB 341 Statewide 75
Percent Diversion Goal
Forests Sustainable Forests Cap and Trade Offset
Projects
Not applicable. The Project is not located in
a forested area.
High Global
Warming
Potential
High Global Warming
Potential Gases
CARB Refrigerant
Management Program
CCR 95380
Not applicable. The regulations are
applicable to refrigerants used by large air
conditioning systems and large commercial
and industrial refrigerators and cold storage
system. The Project would not conflict with
the refrigerant management regulations
adopted by CARB.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 106
Scoping Plan
Sector
Scoping Plan
Measure
Implementing
Regulations Project Consistency
Agriculture Agriculture
Cap and Trade Offset
Projects for Livestock
and Rice Cultivation
Not applicable. No grazing, feedlot, or other
agricultural activities that generate manure
occur currently exist on-site or are proposed
to be implemented by the Project.
Source: California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017 and CARB, Climate Change Scoping
Plan, December 2008.
The Project is estimated to emit approximately 1,845 MTCO2e per year directly from on‐site
activities and indirectly from off‐site motor vehicles, see Table 13 above. As discussed above, the
GHG emissions caused by long-term operation of the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s
3,000 MTCO2e per year screening threshold for non-industrial projects, and impacts would be
less than significant.
As discussed above, the proposed Project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the
region’s post-2020 mobile source GHG reduction targets. Additionally, Project emissions would
be indirectly reduced through the implementation of various Scoping Plan measures, such as the
low carbon fuel standard, vehicle emissions standards, building energy efficiency standards,
market-based mechanisms (such as the cap-and-trade program) and the Renewable Portfolio
Standard. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the Scoping Plan’s recommended
measures and, as such, would not impede implementation of the Scoping Plan. As such, impacts
related to consistency with the Scoping Plan would be less than significant.
Regarding goals for 2050 under Executive Order S-3-05, at this time it is not possible to quantify
the emissions savings from future regulatory measures, as they have not yet been developed;
nevertheless, it can be anticipated that operation of the Project would benefit from
implementation of current and potential future regulations (e.g., improvements in vehicle
emissions, SB 100/renewable electricity portfolio improvements, etc.) enacted to meet an
80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.
The Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
adopted for reducing the emissions of GHGs because the Project would generate low levels of
GHGs, and would not impede implementation of the Scoping Plan, or conflict with the policies of
the Scoping Plan or any other GHG reduction plan. Therefore, the impacts would be less than
significant.
Cumulative Impacts
Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and
TACs, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air
quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about 1 day), GHGs have much longer
atmospheric lifetimes of 1 year to several thousand years that allow them to be dispersed around
the globe.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 107
It is generally the case that an individual project of this size and nature is of insufficient magnitude
by itself to influence climate change or result in a substantial contribution to the global GHG
inventory. GHG impacts are recognized as exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-
cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective. The additive effect of
project-related GHGs would not result in a reasonably foreseeable cumulatively considerable
contribution to global climate change. In addition, the Project as well as other cumulative related
projects would also be subject to all applicable regulatory requirements, which would further
reduce GHG emissions. As shown in Table 14, Table 15, and Table 16 the Project would not
conflict with the RTP/SCS, or the CARB Scoping Plan. Therefore, the Project’s cumulative
contribution of GHG emissions would be less than significant and the Project’s cumulative GHG
impacts would also be less than cumulatively considerable.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 108
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
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?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly,
to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
X
a, b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials? And, create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving
the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 109
Construction
Any potentially hazardous materials used during Project construction would be handled on-site.
This generally includes paints and solvents and other petroleum-based products, usually used for
on-site construction equipment and for building exterior finishes. The use or handling of these
potentially hazardous materials would be short-term only during the construction phases of
Project. Although these materials could be stored on-site, they would be required to comply with
the guidelines established by the San Bernardino County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP). The transport, removal, and disposal of hazardous materials on the Project site would
be conducted by a permitted and licensed service provider consistent with federal, state, and
local requirements including the U.S. EPA, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC), the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA), Caltrans, the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the San Bernardino County Fire Department
(the Certified Unified Program Agency for San Bernardino County) or through the Conditionally
Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) Program. Therefore. The management of hazardous
materials during the Project’s construction phase would not result in a significant impact.
Operations
Direct hazardous waste would be generated from landscaping involving the use of
pesticides/herbicides and fertilizers. Landscaping maintenance best management practices
(BMPs) would be conducted according to the California Stormwater Quality Association’s
Stormwater BMPs which would reduce pesticides and fertilizers from running off off-site. Indirect
hazardous materials such as sediment, metals, oils and grease, trash/debris and other organic
compounds that usually known as stormwater pollutants would be captures via infiltration basins
to avoid stormwater runoff from seeping off-site. Impacts from operations would be less than
significant.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less than Significant. The proposed Project site is located approximately 1.0-mile southeast of
Jurupa Hills High School. Direct and indirect hazardous materials would be contained on-site
through the use of BMPs and compliance with any applicable local, state, and federal laws
pertaining to hazardous waste handling. The Project would adhere to the SWPPP and the CESQG
program that would reduce hazardous materials from running off to the school. No long-term
handling of hazardous materials would occur because the Project is residential in nature, and not
industrial or manufacturing. Impacts are expected to be less than significant.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 110
No Impact. The Project site and the surrounding vicinity are not included on the Hazardous Waste
and Substances Site List (also known as the Cortese list).25 Furthermore, no Recognized
Environmental Conditions, Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions, or Historical
Recognized Environmental Conditions are identified to exist on or adjacent to the Project site.
Therefore, no impacts associated with hazardous materials sites would occur.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan nor is located within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The
closest airport to the Project site is the Flabob Airport in the City of Riverside approximately
4.5 miles southeast of the Project site. Therefore, no impact would occur.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant. Refer to Wildfire threshold (a) for the response regarding the impairment
of an 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zone (VHFHSZ), as designated in the VHFHSZ Map.26 Refer to the Wildfire thresholds below for
more information regarding the exposure of people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to
a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
Cumulative Impacts
The incremental effects of the proposed Project related to hazards and hazardous materials, if
any, are anticipated to be minimal, and any effects would be site-specific. The Project is not
within an area classified as a VHFHSZ. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in
incremental effects to hazards or hazardous materials that could be compounded or increased
when considered together with similar effects from other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable probable future projects. The proposed Project would not result in cumulatively
considerable impacts to or from hazards or hazardous materials.
25 State of California; Department of Toxic Substances Control (EnviroStor). (2021). Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese).
Available at
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?PAGE=3&CMD=search&ocieerp=&business_name=&main_street_number=&main_street
_name=&city=&zip=&county=&branch=&status=ACT%2CBKLG%2CCOM&site_type=CSITES%2CFUDS&cleanup_type=&npl=&funding=&reporttyp
e=CORTESE&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29&federal_superfund=&state_response=&volunta
ry_cleanup=&school_cleanup=&operating=&post_closure=&non_operating=&corrective_action=&tiered_permit=&evaluation=&spec_prog=&na
tional_priority_list=&senate=&congress=&assembly=&critical_pol=&business_type=&case_type=&display_results=&school_district=&pub=&hw
mp=False&permitted=&pc_permitted=&inspections=&complaints=&censustract=&cesdecile=&ORDERBY=city&next=Next+50. Accessed
January 14, 2021.
26 CAL FIRE. (2008). Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA; Fontana. Available at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5943/fontana.pdf.
Accessed January 15, 2021.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 111
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
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 ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
Project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
X
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
X
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site?
X
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
X
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
X
A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) was prepared by KES Technologies Inc.,
dated November 2020.
The original Project assumptions for the preparation of the WQMP modeling assumed the
development of approximately 155,970 square feet of multi-family residential dwelling units
totaling 155 DUs. Additionally, the model assumed 225 vehicle parking spaces. The model output
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 112
with the original assumptions resulted in a less than significant impact in all aspects regarding
potential impacts to hydrology and water quality. The Project has been recently updated to
include a water detention basin on the west portion of the site, and as such, the proposed Project
was reduced to 106 DUs and 139 vehicle parking spaces, that is an overall reduction of
approximately 32 percent from the original proposed Project.
As a result of the Project reduction, it was determined that no updates to the original Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) analysis is necessary because the original analysis conducted
is more conservative than the updated proposed Project. The Project site is anticipated to
continue to be self-contained and would not include any off-site flows from adjacent properties.
All proposed waters will flow into the on-site basins and down drains/area drains. All proposed
storm water would flow into proposed water quality basin located within on the western portion
of the site. The BMP volume is proposed to then be infiltrated into the soils. The WQMP is
included in this IS/MND as Appendix D, and the results are summarized herein.
Surface Water Hydrology
The City is located within the Lower Lytle Creek Watershed, which forms the northwest portion
of the Santa Ana River Watershed and drains the eastern portion of the San Gabriel Mountains.
Daytime temperatures in the summer months frequently exceed 100 degrees in the lower
watershed and are about 10 to 15 degrees cooler in the upper watershed. Winter temperatures
can fall below freezing throughout the entire watershed. The lower watershed averages 15 to
20 inches of rain annually while the upper watershed averages 35 inches annually. The Lower
Lytle Creek Watershed covers an area of approximately 186 square miles with a mean annual
runoff of roughly 31,720-acre-feet (AF). Lytle Creek is a tributary of Warm Creek, which in turn is
a tributary to the Santa Ana River (SAR), joining the main stem of the river in the vicinity of Prado
Dam.27
Ground Water
The Project site would be serviced by the Fontana Water Company’s (FWC). FWC’s water supplies
predominately come from groundwater supplied by the Chino Basin, Rialto-Colton Basin, and
No Man’s Land Basin. FWC also purchases imported water supplies from the Inland Empire
Utilities Agency (IEUA) and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD). According
to FWC 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), FWC’s groundwater wells have a total
pumping capacity of approximately 50,000 gallons per minute (gpm) and booster pumping
facilities with a total design pumping capacity of +115,000 gpm.28
27 City of Fontana. General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. 2015-2035. Hydrology and Water Quality. Available at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update. Accessed
January 15, 2021.
28 Fontana Water Company. (2015). Urban Water Management Plan; Page 3-2. Available at https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/San-Gabriel-Fontana_Amended-Final-December-2017-1.pdf. Accessed January 15, 2021.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 113
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The California Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act
(Section 13000 (“Water Quality”) et seq., of the California Water Code), and the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 (also referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA)) require
comprehensive water quality control plans be developed for all waters within the State of
California. The Project’s WQMP was created to comply with the requirements of the City of
Fontana and the NPDES Areawide Stormwater Program. The Project owner is responsible for the
implementation of the provisions of this plan and would ensure that this plan is amended as
appropriate to reflect up‐to‐date conditions on the site consistent with San Bernardino County’s
Municipal Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) and the intent of the NPDES Permit for
San Bernardino County and the incorporated cities of San Bernardino County within the
Santa Ana Region until the WQMP is transferred to the Project’s new owner. Consistent with the
City of Fontana and the NPDES Areawide Stormwater Program, as previously noted, the WQMP
was updated to reflect the change in proposed Project which now includes an onsite water
detention basin. The Project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
Construction of the proposed Project would involve filling in the Project site with documented
soil at grade, utility installation, paving, building construction, and landscaping activities, which
would result in the generation of potential water quality pollutants such as sediment, silt, debris,
chemicals, paints, pesticides/herbicides and other solvents with the potential to adversely affect
water quality. As such, short‐term water quality impacts have the potential to occur during
construction of the Project in the absence of any protective or avoidance measures. Operational
water quality impacts would arise directly from landscaping maintenance and indirectly from
stormwater pollutants such as nitrogen, oil and grease, trash/debris, and other organic
compounds.
To minimize water quality impacts during construction and operations, the Project would comply
with the WQMP via the San Bernardino County’s Municipal SWMP consistent with the General
Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activity (Construction Activity
General Permit). The WQMP identifies structural and programmatic BMPs and controls to
minimize, prevent, and/or otherwise appropriately treat stormwater runoff flows before they are
discharged from the site. Mandatory compliance with the WQMP BMPs as shown on Table 17,
BMP Inspection and Maintenance, would ensure that the Project does not violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements during long‐term operation.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 114
Table 17: BMP Inspection and Maintenance
BMP Responsible
Party(ies) Inspection/Maintenance Activities Required Minimum Frequency of
Activities
N3 – Landscape
Management PMC
Inspection/ maintenance as needed per the
management guidelines for use of fertilizers/
pesticides and water use efficiency. Verify
that runoff minimizing landscape design
continues to function by checking that water
sensors are functioning properly, that
irrigation heads are adjusted to eliminate
overspray, and adjust timing and cycle
lengths in accordance with the water
demands, season and time of day.
Once per month or as
recommended by
professional service provider.
N15 – Vacuum
Sweeping of
Private Streets
and Lots
PMC
Private drive aisles and parking areas are to
be swept on a routine basis to facilitate
trash/debris pick up, removal and to dispose
of excessive oil/ grease buildup. This
maintenance requirement will be listed in
the project's CC&Rs and recorded with the
County Recorder's Office.
Once per month or as
recommended by
professional service provider.
N14 - Common
Area Catch Basin
Cleaning &
Inspection
PMC
Clean debris and silt in bottom of catch basin
as needed. Replace any damaged or illegible
storm drain signage.
Once per month
N11 – Litter
Control PMC
Weekly inspections of common area trash
receptacles are emptied, all trash/ debris
within the location removed and lids are
replaced. Note any trash disposal violations
to the appropriate PMC personnel.
Weekly
Infiltration
Chambers
PMC or by
a selected
approved
service
provider Basin bottoms shall be maintained - silt free
and landscape shall be maintained.
After the first 12 months, an
initial cleaning is required.
Thereafter, annual
inspections are
recommended. Any damage
and/ or deficiencies shall be
reported to the
manufacturer. Additional
cleaning will be required
every 3-5 years after the first
year of operation.
S1 – Storm Drain
Signage PMC PMC to inspect, repair or replace storm drain
signage and verify if legible.
Inspect once per month,
repair or replace
immediately.
N2 – Activity
Restrictions PMC Activities on this site will be limited to
activities related to residential use. Ongoing.
N4 – BMP
Maintenance PMC
The PMC will comply with BMP Maintenance
materials as part of this WQMP report, refer
to Section 5 by agreement and contract by
use of inspection forms to be submitted to
the owner.
Once per month.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 115
BMP Responsible
Party(ies) Inspection/Maintenance Activities Required Minimum Frequency of
Activities
N5 – Title 22 CCR Owner
The Owner will contract with a PMC to
comply with the Regulation as denoted
within the CC&R's not limited to this water
quality document.
Upon completion of project.
N6 – Local Water
Quality
Ordinances
PMC
The PMC and/ or selected professional
landscaping service provider will comply with
all local water quality ordinances as denoted
within this document and as contracted with
PP.
Ongoing.
N7 – Spill
Contingency Plan PMC
The PMC will be responsible for establishing
a Spill Contingency Plan that involves clean
up and removal requirements.
In the event of a spill.
N9 – Hazardous
Materials
Disclosure
PMC
The PMC will provide a Hazardous Materials
Disclosure to tenants, and/ or employees
listing all hazardous materials located onsite.
Upon hire/lease signing of
employees /tenants.
N10 – Fire Code
Implementation PMC
The PMC will comply with the Uniform Fire
Code through permitted documents (being
hazardous material storage if necessary,
building permits, building drawings).
Ongoing
N12 – Employee
Training PMC
Practical informational materials will be
provided to employees on general good
housekeeping practices that contribute to
protection of storm water quality.
Upon hire of employees
N13 – Loading
Docks PMC
Loading docks shall remain clear and clean of
debris without standing material and will be
cleaned upon regular street sweeping.
Weekly
N17 – NPDES
permits Owner The Owner will be required to comply with
the NOI and SWPPP. During Construction
S3 – Trash
Storage Owner All trash enclosures shall employ door and
covers to lessen transport of solid waste. During Construction
S4 – Efficient
Irrigation PMC
As part of the design of all common area
landscape irrigation shall employ water
conservation principles, including, but not
limited to, such provisions as water sensors,
programmable irrigation times (for short
cycles), etc. will be used.
Weekly
S5 – Landscape
Grade 2 inches
below impervious
surfaces
Owner
Through final engineering the project will
install landscape features 1-2" below the
adjacent hardened surface.
During Construction
Source: KES Technologies Inc. November 2020. Storm Water Quality Management Plan.
California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA)
The final Project WQMP would identify all BMP incorporated into the final site design and provide
other detailed information to minimize water quality impacts. Therefore, with adherence to
Table 17 above, water quality impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project
would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 116
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the proposed Project would be served with
potable water by FWC which receives groundwater resources from Chino Basin, Rialto-Colton
Basin, and No Man’s Land Basin and imported water supplies from external sources. These
sources would be used to service the proposed affordable multi-family residential apartments,
and for landscaping maintenance which may result in runoff.
The Project would implement a storm drain system based on a proposed flow patterns to capture
stormwater runoff. The stormwater would be conveyed to underground chambers for pre-
treatment for water quality volume infiltration. Additionally, infiltration basins would capture
any runoff and would recharge groundwater via the onsite detention basin that would be located
on the west side of the Project site. The WQMP notes that the infiltration BMP does not pose
significant risk for groundwater.
Therefore, the Project’s demand for domestic water service would not substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Please refer to the following threshold for
more information about the proposed drainage system.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces,
in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would expose large areas of soil during the duration of
Project construction. The appropriate soil erosion and control techniques would be employed in
conformance to the Construction BMP handbook and the BMPs set in the WQMP. Furthermore,
according to the WQMP preventive Low Impact Development (LID) site design practices would
maintain existing drainage patterns and time of concentration. Additionally, the Project would
limit erosion or siltation on- or off-site through the of the BMPs with compliance with all
applicable NPDES permits. As noted on Table 17, the owner/PMC would be required to comply
with the SWPPP and applicable BMPs and erosion control.
Landscaping areas would be inspected for signs of erosion, vegetation health and mulch depth
regularly with landscaping maintenance activities or at minimum once per month. Identified
eroded areas, decaying or dying vegetation, and bare areas shall be repaired, replaced and/or
mulched as soon as possible to minimize exposed sediment and potential for erosion.
Therefore, with the proposed drainage systems and implementation of BMPs pursuant to the
Project WQMP, impacts would be less than significant.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 117
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, surface runoff in both construction and
operation phases would not runoff in a manner which would result in flooding. Project design
features pursuant to the BMPs within the WQMP, which includes a new drainage system, would
reduce the rate of runoff from project activities. Furthermore, the site does not include any
streams or rivers, that would be altered by the proposed Project. Therefore, impacts would be
less than significant.
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Less Than Significant Impact. On‐site stormwater runoff associated with the Project would be
engineered to be conveyed through the proposed drainage system and to the detention basin
located west of Building B. Additionally, runoff minimizing landscape would be implanted.
Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur.
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is proposed to be self-contained and would not
include any offsite flows from adjacent properties. Storm water flows would pass through the
infiltration facilities and will then flow through the storm drain to the west or east pending storm
flow and be captured in the on-site detention basin proposed west of Building B.
The proposed Project would include the development of drainage system consistent with City
requirements to convey stormwater runoff to the mainline storm drain system. Stormwater
management practices, as required under City of Fontana Municipal Code, Section 28-111.5,
would further reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts would be
less than significant.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
No Impact. The Project site is located over 60 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. As such, the
potential for the Project site to be inundated by a tsunami is negligible. No steep slopes are
located in the Project vicinity; therefore, the risk of mudflow is also negligible. No associated
impacts are anticipated to occur.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is not anticipated to conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
The Project would be subject to the WQMP via the County’s SWPPP. Impacts would be less than
significant.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 118
Cumulative Impacts
The potential impacts related to hydrology and stormwater runoff are generally site-specific. The
Project would be designed pursuant to the BMPs listed in the WQMP which would reduce water
quality impacts resulting from construction and operation activity. The analysis determined that
the implementation of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts. As a result,
the Project is not expected to result in a cumulative impact.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 119
LAND USE AND PLANNING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the Project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
X
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The Project site is fenced vacant rectangular-shaped stormwater detention basin. The
Project proposes to fill in the stormwater detention basin to grade. The Project includes the
development of a three-building affordable housing apartment complex with associated
amenities such as common and private open space, gathering areas, landscaping and a water
retention basin. The Project site type is not one that would physically divide an existing
community. Examples of projects with the potential to divide a community are freeways. Since
the Project would not divide an established community and would be consistent with adjacent
uses, no impact would occur.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site has a current land use designation of
(WMXU-1) Walkable Mixed-Use Corridor & Downtown and a zoning district of (FBC) Form-Based
Code, which allows for the development of the proposed Project. As such, the Project would be
consistent with the City’s zoning and General Plan land use designation. Thus, allowing the
development of the proposed Project. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the City’s
land use plan, policy, or regulation and therefore, would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the Project would not create a significant cumulative impact to the
surrounding region since its surrounding area is planned for industrial use. As a result, no
cumulative impacts related to land use and planning would occur.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 120
MINERAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
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 of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
X
Mineral Resources Existing Conditions
A mineral resource is naturally occurring substance, representable by a chemical formula, that is
usually solid and inorganic, and has a crystal structure with commercial value. The General Plan
does not contain policies that conflict with the recovery of future mineral resources. Therefore,
significant mineral resource deposits, should they be unearthed in the future, would continue to
be protected over the long term. However, the Data Basin Map for California Mineral Resources
does not designate the Project site as containing mineral resources.29
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. As discussed above, both the General Plan and California Mineral Resources Data
Basin Map did not indicate the presence of a known mineral resource on the Project’s site.
Furthermore, there is no locally important mineral resource recovery sites delineated in the City’s
General Plan. Therefore, since the Project is not designated for mineral resource recovery, does
not contain any known mineral resources, nor would have an effect on a locally important
mineral resources recovery site, no impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
No cumulative significant impacts would result from the proposed Project. As a result, no
cumulative impacts related to mineral resources would occur.
29 Conservation Biology Institute. 2019. California Mineral Resources. Available at:
https://databasin.org/maps/new#datasets=f2985196ca6b45cf8f2ad604beb95b34. Accessed January 15, 2021.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 121
NOISE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
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?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
X
An Acoustical Assessment was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates in March 2021.
The original Project assumptions for the preparation of the Acoustical Assessment assumed the
development of approximately 155,970 square feet of multi-family residential dwelling units
totaling 155 DUs. Additionally, the model assumed 225 vehicle parking spaces. The model output
with the original assumptions resulted in a less than significant impact in all aspects regarding
potential impacts to acoustical levels. The Project has been updated to include a water detention
basin, and as such, the proposed Project was reduced to 106 DUs and 139 vehicle parking spaces,
that is an overall reduction of approximately 32 percent from the originally proposed Project.
As a result of the Project reduction, it was determined that no updates to the original analysis is
necessary because the original analysis conducted is more conservative than the updated
proposed Project. As such, a memorandum noting the lesser impacts from implementation of the
proposed Project due to the overall Project reduction is documented and presented along with
the original Acoustical Assessment as Appendix D, and the results are summarized herein.
Sound and Environmental Noise
Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound can be described as the mechanical energy of a vibrating
object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium (e.g., air) to human (or animal) ear. If
the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), they can be heard
and are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of
sound and is expressed as cycles per second, or hertz (Hz).
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 122
Noise is defined as loud, unexpected, or annoying sound. In acoustics, the fundamental model
consists of a noise source, a receptor, and the propagation path between the two. The loudness
of the noise source, obstructions, or atmospheric factors affecting the propagation path,
determine the perceived sound level and noise characteristics at the receptor. Acoustics deal
primarily with the propagation and control of sound. A typical noise environment consists of a
base of steady background noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise
sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These
sources can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to continuous noise from traffic
on a major highway. Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective from person to person.
Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a large range of numbers. To avoid
this, the decibel (dB) scale was devised. The dB scale uses the hearing threshold of 20 micro-
pascals (µPa) as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared
to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range.
The dB scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in
levels correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness.
Noise Descriptors
The dB scale alone does not adequately characterize how humans perceive noise. The dominant
frequencies of a sound have a substantial effect on the human response to that sound. Several
rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people.
Because environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise
on people is largely dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the
time of day when the noise occurs. The equivalent noise level (Leq) is the average noise level
averaged over the measurement period, while the day-night noise level (Ldn) and Community
Equivalent Noise Level (CNEL) are measures of energy average during a 24-hour period, with dB
weighted sound levels from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Most commonly, environmental sounds are
described in terms of Leq that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-
varying events.
The A-weighted decibel (dBA) sound level scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound
to which the human ear is most sensitive. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short
period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical
behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described
in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-
varying events. The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound
level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1
dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such
as roadways and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends on the distance
between the receptor and the noise source.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 123
A-Weighted Decibels
The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent on many factors, including sound pressure level
and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels,
perception of loudness is relatively predictable and can be approximated by dBA values. There is
a strong correlation between dBA and the way the human ear perceives sound. For this reason,
the dBA has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels
reported in this document are in terms of dBA, but are expressed as dB, unless otherwise noted.
Addition of Decibels
The dB scale is logarithmic, not linear, and therefore sound levels cannot be added or subtracted
through ordinary arithmetic. Two sound levels 10 dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of
10. When the standard logarithmic dB is A-weighted, an increase of 10 dBA is generally perceived
as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70-dBA sound is half as loud as an 80-dBA sound and
twice as loud as a 60-dBA sound.30 When two identical sources are each producing sound of the
same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dBA higher than one
source under the same conditions.31 Under the dB scale, three sources of equal loudness together
would produce an increase of approximately 5 dBA.
Sound Propagation and Attenuation
Sound spreads (propagates) uniformly outward in a spherical pattern, and the sound level
decreases (attenuates) at a rate of approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a
stationary or point source. Sound from a line source, such as a highway, propagates outward in
a cylindrical pattern. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of approximately 3 dB for each doubling of
distance from a line source, such as a roadway, depending on ground surface characteristics.32
No excess attenuation is assumed for hard surfaces like a parking lot or a body of water. Soft
surfaces, such as soft dirt or grass, can absorb sound, so an excess ground-attenuation value of
1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed.
Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of buildings
between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 15 dBA, while a solid
wall or berm reduces noise levels by 8 to 10 dBA.33 The older homes in California were
constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to
25 dBA with closed windows.
Human Response to Noise
The human response to environmental noise is subjective and varies considerably from individual
to individual. Noise in the community has often been cited as a health problem, not in terms of
30 FHWA, Noise Fundamentals, 2017. Available at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide02.cfm
31 Ibid.
32 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, Page 2-29, September 2013.
33 James P. Cowan, Handbook of Environmental Acoustics, 1994.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 124
actual physiological damage, such as hearing impairment, but in terms of inhibiting general well-
being and contributing to undue stress and annoyance. The health effects of noise in the
community arise from interference with human activities, including sleep, speech, recreation,
and tasks that demand concentration or coordination. Hearing loss can occur at the highest noise
intensity levels.
Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by
median noise levels during the day or night or over a 24-hour period. Environmental noise levels
are generally considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60 to 70 dBA
range, and high above 70 dBA. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings with
noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet, suburban, residential streets with noise levels around
40 dBA.34 Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate-level noise
environments are urban residential or semi-commercial areas (typically 55 to 60 dBA) and
commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but
most will accept the higher levels associated with noisier urban residential or residential-
commercial areas (60 to 75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65 to 80 dBA). Regarding
increases in dBA, the following relationships should be noted:35
• Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a 1-dBA change cannot be
perceived by humans.
• Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference.
• A minimum 5-dBA change is required before any noticeable change in community
response would be expected. A 5-dBA increase is typically considered substantial.
• A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as an approximate doubling in loudness and would
almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response.
Groundborne Vibration
Sources of ground-borne vibrations include natural phenomena (earthquakes, volcanic
eruptions, sea waves, landslides, etc.) or man-made causes (explosions, machinery, traffic, trains,
construction equipment, etc.). Vibration sources may be continuous (e.g., factory machinery) or
transient (e.g., explosions or use of heavy equipment during construction). Ground vibration
consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero. Several different
methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One is vibration decibels (VdB)
(the vibration velocity level in decibel scale). Other methods are the peak particle velocity (PPV)
and the root mean square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous
positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. The RMS velocity is defined as the average of the
squared amplitude of the signal. The PPV and RMS vibration velocity amplitudes are used to
evaluate human response to vibration.
34 Compiled from James P. Cowan, Handbook of Environmental Acoustics, 1994 and Cyril M. Harris, Handbook of Noise Control, 1979.
35 Compiled from California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013,
and FHWA, Noise Fundamentals, 2017.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 125
Table 18, Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent
Vibrations below displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings produced by
continuous vibration levels. The annoyance levels shown in the table should be interpreted with
care since vibration may be found to be annoying at much lower levels than those listed,
depending on the level of activity or the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals,
vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Low-level vibrations
frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors, or
stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though
there is very little risk of actual structural damage. In high noise environments, which are more
prevalent where ground-borne vibration approaches perceptible levels, this rattling
phenomenon may also be produced by loud airborne environmental noise-causing induced
vibration in exterior doors and windows.
Ground vibration can be a concern in instances where buildings shake, and substantial rumblings
occur. However, it is unusual for vibration from typical urban sources such as buses and heavy
trucks to be perceptible. Common sources for ground-borne vibration are planes, trains, and
construction activities such as earth-moving which requires the use of heavy-duty earth moving
equipment. For the purposes of this analysis, a PPV descriptor with units of inches per second
(in/sec) is used to evaluate construction-generated vibration for building damage and human
complaints.
Table 18: Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations
Peak Particle
Velocity
(in/sec)
Approximate
Vibration Velocity
Level (VdB)
Human Reaction Effect on Buildings
0.006-0.019 64-74 Range of threshold of perception Vibrations unlikely to cause
damage of any type
0.08 87 Vibrations readily perceptible
Recommended upper level to
which ruins and ancient
monuments should be subjected
0.1 92
Level at which continuous
vibrations may begin to annoy
people, particularly those involved
in vibration sensitive activities
Virtually no risk of architectural
damage to normal buildings
0.2 94 Vibrations may begin to annoy
people in buildings
Threshold at which there is a risk
of architectural damage to normal
dwellings
0.4-0.6 98-104
Vibrations considered unpleasant
by people subjected to continuous
vibrations and unacceptable to
some people walking on bridges
Architectural damage and possibly
minor structural damage
Source: California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, 2013.
in/sec – inches per second
VdB - vibration decibels
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 126
Regulatory Setting
California Code of Regulations, Title 24 – Building Code. The State’s noise insulation standards
are codified in the CCR, Title 24: Part 1, Building Standards Administrative Code, and Part 2, CBC.
These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for interior noise
compatibility from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be
prepared when noise-sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are
located near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior
noise level of 65 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must
demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to
acceptable noise levels. For new multi-family residential buildings, the acceptable interior noise
limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL.
City of Fontana General Plan. Adopted on November 13, 2018, the Fontana Forward General
Plan Update 2015-2035 (Fontana General Plan) identifies noise standards that are used as
guidelines to evaluate transportation noise level impacts. These standards are also used to assess
the long‐term traffic noise impacts on specific land uses. According to the Fontana General Plan,
land uses such as residences have acceptable exterior noise levels of up to 65 dBA CNEL. Based
on the guidelines in the Fontana General Plan, an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL is generally
considered the maximum exterior noise level for sensitive receptors
Land uses near these significant noise‐producers can incorporate buffers and noise control
techniques including setbacks, landscaping, building transitions, site design, and building
construction techniques to reduce the impact of excessive noise. Selection of the appropriate
noise control technique would vary depending on the level of noise that needs to be reduced as
well as the location and intended land use. The City has adopted the Noise and Safety Element
as a part of the updated Fontana General Plan. The Noise and Safety Element specifies the
maximum allowable unmitigated exterior noise levels for new developments impacted by
transportation noise sources. Additionally, the Noise and Safety Element identifies
transportation noise policies designed to protect, create, and maintain an environment free of
harmful noise that could impact the health and welfare of sensitive receptors. The following
Fontana General Plan goals, policies, and actions for addressing noise are applicable to the
Project:
Goal 8: The City of Fontana protects sensitive land uses from excessive noise by diligent
planning through 2035.
Policy 8.2: Noise-tolerant land uses shall be guided into areas irrevocably committed to land
uses that are noise-producing, such as transportation corridors.
Policy 8.4: Noise spillover or encroachment from commercial, industrial and educational land
uses shall be minimized into adjoining residential neighborhoods or noise-
sensitive uses.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 127
Action C: The State of California Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines
shall be followed with respect to acoustical study requirements.
Goal 9: The City of Fontana provides a diverse and efficiently operated ground
transportation system that generates the minimum feasible noise on its
residents through 2035.
Policy 9.1: All noise sections of the State Motor Vehicle Code shall be enforced.
Policy 9.2: Roads shall be maintained such that the paving is in good condition and free of
cracks, bumps, and potholes.
Action A: On-road trucking activities shall continue to be regulated in the City to ensure
noise impacts are minimized, including the implementation of truck-routes based
on traffic studies.
Action B: Development that generates increased traffic and subsequent increases in the
ambient noise level adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses shall provide appropriate
mitigation measures.
Action C: Noise mitigation practices shall be employed when designing all future streets and
highways and when improvements occur along existing highway segments.
Action D: Explore the use of “quiet pavement” materials for street improvements.
Goal 10: Fontana’s residents are protected from the negative effects of “spillover” noise.
Policy 10.1: Residential land uses and areas identified as noise-sensitive shall be protected
from excessive noise from non-transportation sources including industrial,
commercial, and residential activities and equipment.
Action A: Projects located in commercial areas shall not exceed stationary-source noise
standards at the property line of proximate residential or commercial uses.
Action B: Industrial uses shall not exceed commercial or residential stationary source noise
standards at the most proximate land uses.
Action C: Non-transportation noise shall be considered in land use planning decisions.
Action D: Construction shall be performed as quietly as feasible when performed in
proximity to residential or other noise-sensitive land uses.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
Standards established under the Fontana Municipal Code are used to analyze noise impacts
originating from the Project. Operational noise impacts are typically governed by the Municipal
Code Sections 18-61 through 18-67. Noise standards for non-transportation and stationary noise
source impacts from operations at private properties are found in the Zoning and Development
Code in Section 30-543 of the Municipal Code. Applicable guidelines indicate that no person shall
create or cause any sound exceeding the City’s stated noise performance standards measured at
the property line of any residentially zoned property. The performance standards for exterior
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 128
noise are 70 dBA between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 65 dBA during the noise-
sensitive hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. at residential uses. For this analysis, a 65-dBA nighttime
noise level standard is used to be consistent with residential nighttime exterior noise
performance standards listed in Section 30-543 of the Municipal Code.
The City has also set restrictions to control noise impacts from construction activities.
Section 18-63(b)(7) states that the erection (including excavation), demolition, alteration, or
repair of any structure shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on
weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and prohibited on
Sundays and Federal holidays, except in the case of urgent necessity or otherwise approved by
the City of Fontana. Although the Municipal Code limits the hours of construction, it does not
provide specific noise level performance standards for construction.
Existing Noise Sources
The City is impacted by various noise sources. Mobile sources of noise, especially cars, trucks,
and trains are the most common and significant sources of noise. Other noise sources are the
various land uses (i.e., residential, commercial, institutional, and recreational and parks activities)
throughout the City that generate stationary-source noise.
Mobile Sources
The existing mobile noise sources in the Project area are generated by motor vehicles traveling
along Sierra Avenue. Sierra Avenue is identified in the Fontana General Plan - Community
Mobility and Circulation Element as a major highway (see GP Exhibit 9.2. Hierarchy of Streets in
Fontana) and a truck route (see GP Exhibit 9.7. Truck Routes). Sierra Avenue, in the vicinity of the
Project, currently has five travel lanes and a speed limit of 50 miles per hour. In addition, the
Sierra Crossroads commercial shopping center, located east of the Project site on the opposite
side Sierra Avenue, generates additional traffic.
Stationary Sources
The primary sources of stationary noise in the Project vicinity are those associated with the
residential property to the south and operations of commercial businesses to the east of the
Project. The noise associated with these sources may represent a single-event noise occurrence
or short-term noise. Other noises include mechanical equipment (e.g., heating ventilation and air
conditioning [HVAC] equipment), dogs barking, idling vehicles, and residents talking.
Noise Measurements
The Project site is currently vacant. To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the Project area,
Kimley-Horn conducted three short-term noise measurements on March 4, 2021; see
Appendix D. The noise measurement sites were representative of typical existing noise exposure
within and immediately adjacent to the Project site. The 10-minute measurements were taken
between 11:30 a.m. and 12:33 p.m. near potential sensitive receptors. Short-term Leq
measurements are considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day. The noise
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 129
levels and sources of noise measured at each location are listed in the following Table 19, Existing
Noise Measurements, and shown on Exhibit 9, Noise Measurements.
Table 19: Existing Noise Measurements
Site Location Leq
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA) Time
1 Along Sierra Avenue, near southeast corner of the
Project site. In front of nearest sensitive receptor 70.6 49.2 85.2 11:30 a.m.
2 Along Sierra Avenue, near northeast corner of Project
Site. 71.5 53.2 85.5 12:04 p.m.
3 Intersection of Jurupa Avenue and Juniper Avenue,
northeast corner. 69.1 50.9 83.5 12:23 p.m.
Source: Noise measurements taken by Kimley-Horn, March 4, 2021. See Appendix D.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 130
This page intentionally left blank.
Juniper Avenue
Sierra Avenue
Jurupa Avenue
3
2
1
EXHIBIT 8: Noise MeasurementsCourtyard at Fontana Project
Source: Kimley-Horn, ESRI World Imagery K:\RIV_GIS\195184001 - Fontana Southridge\MND 08 Noise Measurements.mxd
0 300150
Feet
PROJECT SITE
Noise Measurement Locations
989Courtplace at Fontana Project
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 132
This page intentionally left blank.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 133
Noise-Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of noise pollution than is the general
population. Sensitive receptors that are in proximity to stationary sources of noise and vibration
are of particular concern. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools,
playgrounds, childcare centers, long‐term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers,
convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Sensitive land uses surrounding the Project consist
mostly of single-family residential communities. Sensitive land uses nearest to the Project are
shown in the following Table 20, Sensitive Receptors.
Table 20: Sensitive Receptors
Receptor Description Distance and Direction from the Project
Single-Family Residence 45 feet to the south
Single-Family Residences 400 feet to the west
Single-Family Residences 425 feet to the northeast
Single-Family Residences 500 feet to the northwest
Single-Family Residences 675 feet to the north
Source: Google Earth, 2021.
Methodology
Construction
Construction noise levels were based on typical noise levels generated by construction
equipment published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). Construction noise is assessed in dBA Leq. This unit is appropriate
because Leq can be used to describe noise level from operation of each piece of equipment
separately, and levels can be combined to represent the noise level from all equipment operating
during a given period.
Reference noise levels are used to estimate operational noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors
based on a standard noise attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance (line-of-sight method
of sound attenuation for point sources of noise). Noise level estimates do not account for the
presence of intervening structures or topography, which may reduce noise levels at receptor
locations. Therefore, the noise levels presented herein represent a conservative, reasonable
worst-case estimate of actual temporary construction noise.
Operations
Reference noise level data are used to estimate the Project operational noise impacts from
stationary sources. Noise levels were collected from published sources from similar types of
activities and used to estimate noise levels expected with the Project’s stationary sources. The
reference noise levels are used to represent a worst-case noise environment as noise level from
stationary sources can vary throughout the day. Operational noise is evaluated based on the
standards within the City’s noise standards and General Plan.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 134
Vibration
Ground-borne vibration levels associated with construction-related activities for the Project were
evaluated utilizing typical ground-borne vibration levels associated with construction equipment,
obtained from FTA published data for construction equipment. Potential ground-borne vibration
impacts related to building/structure damage and interference with sensitive existing operations
were evaluated, considering the distance from construction activities to nearby land uses and
typically applied criteria for structural damage and human annoyance.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase
of construction (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise generated by construction
equipment, including earthmovers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high
levels. During construction, exterior noise levels could affect the residential neighborhoods
surrounding the construction site. Project construction would occur adjacent to existing
residential uses located approximately 45 feet to the south of the Project construction area.
However, it is acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the Project site
and would not be concentrated at a single point near sensitive receptors.
Construction activities would include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and
architectural coating. Such activities would require dozers and tractors during site preparation;
excavators, graders, and dozers during grading; cranes, forklifts, generators, tractors, and
welders during building construction; pavers, rollers, mixers, and paving equipment during
paving; and air compressors during architectural coating. Typical operating cycles for these types
of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 to
4 minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be
random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of
equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). Noise generated by construction
equipment, including earthmovers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high
levels. Typical noise levels associated with individual construction equipment are listed in
Table 21, Typical Construction Noise Levels for 50 feet and 45 feet; the distance to the nearest
receptor.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 135
Table 21: Typical Construction Noise Levels
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) at 50 feet
from Source
Typical Noise Level (dBA) at 45 feet
from Source1
Air Compressor 80 81
Backhoe 80 81
Compactor 82 83
Concrete Mixer 85 86
Concrete Pump 82 83
Concrete Vibrator 76 77
Crane, Derrick 88 89
Crane, Mobile 83 84
Dozer 85 86
Generator 82 83
Grader 85 86
Impact Wrench 85 86
Jack Hammer 88 89
Loader 80 81
Paver 85 86
Pile-driver (Impact) 101 102
Pile-driver (Sonic) 95 96
Pneumatic Tool 85 86
Pump 77 78
Roller 85 86
Saw 76 77
Scraper 85 86
Shovel 82 83
Truck 84 85
Calculated using the inverse square law formula for sound attenuation: dBA2 = dBA1+20Log(d1/d2)
Where: dBA2 = estimated noise level at receptor; dBA1 = reference noise level; d1 = reference distance; d2 = receptor location distance
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.
As shown in Table 21 above, exterior noise levels potentially could affect the nearest existing
sensitive receptor (45 feet to the south) in the vicinity. Sensitive uses in the Project site vicinity
include existing residential uses to the south, west, northwest, north and northeast. These
sensitive receptors may be exposed to elevated noise levels during Project construction.
However, construction noise would be acoustically dispersed throughout the Project site and not
concentrated in one area near surrounding sensitive uses and would not exceed the threshold
level. The City’s Municipal Code does not establish quantitative construction noise standards.
Instead, the Municipal Code establishes limited hours of construction activities. Municipal Code
Section 18-63 states that construction activities may only take place between the hours of
7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on
Saturdays, and prohibited on Sundays and Federal holidays, except in the case of urgent necessity
or otherwise approved by the City of Fontana. Although the Municipal Code limits the hours of
construction, it does not provide specific noise level performance standards for construction.
However, this analysis conservatively uses the FTA’s threshold of 80 dBA (8-hour Leq) for
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 136
residential uses and 85 dBA (8-hour Leq) for non-residential uses to evaluate construction noise
impacts.36
Following FTA’s methodology for quantitative construction noise assessments, FHWA’s Roadway
Construction Noise Model (RCNM) was used to predict construction noise at the nearest sensitive
receptor (i.e., residential uses to the south). Following FTA methodology, when calculating
construction noise, all equipment is assumed to operate at the center of the Project because
equipment would operate throughout the Project site and not at a fixed location for extended
periods of time. Therefore, the distance used in the RCNM model was 300 feet for the nearest
residential property.
Table 22, Project Construction Noise Levels shows the estimated exterior construction noise
levels at the nearest sensitive receptor. The noise levels calculated in Table 22 show the exterior
construction noise from construction activities without accounting for attenuation from existing
physical barriers and landscaping. Due to the overlapping phases of construction, to be
conservative, construction equipment from the site preparation, grading, building construction,
paving, and architectural coating phases were modeled to operate simultaneously. This
assumption represents a worst-case noise scenario as construction activities would routinely be
spread throughout the construction site further away from noise-sensitive receptors and even
with overlapping construction phases, all construction activities would not occur at the same
time.
Table 22: Project Construction Noise Levels
Construction Phase
Modeled Exterior Construction
Noise Level at Nearest Sensitive
Receptor (dBA Leq)
Noise Threshold
(dBA Leq)
Exceed
Threshold?
Site Preparation 72.1
76.8* 80 No
Grading 71.7
Construction 71.0
Paving 65.5
Architectural Coating 58.1
Note: * Based on the anticipated construction schedule certain construction activities may occur on the same day, to be conservative these
noise sources have been combined to show a daily maximum.
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model, 2006. Refer to Appendix D for noise modeling results.
As shown in Table 22 above, exterior noise levels could reach 76.8 dBA. Construction equipment
would operate throughout the Project site and the associated noise levels would not occur at a
fixed location for extended periods of time. These sensitive uses may be exposed to elevated
noise levels during Project construction. However, construction noise would be acoustically
dispersed throughout the Project site and not concentrated in one area near surrounding
sensitive uses.
As indicated in Table 22, Project construction noise would not exceed the FTA noise threshold
for residential uses. In addition, construction activity would also be limited by Section 18-63(b)(7)
36 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 7-2, Page 179, September 2018.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 137
of the Fontana Municipal Code which states that the erection (including excavation), demolition,
alteration, or repair of any structure shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and
prohibited on Sundays and Federal holidays, except in the case of urgent necessity or otherwise
approved by the City of Fontana. By following the City’s standards, the impact from construction
noise would be less than significant level.
Operations
Implementation of the proposed Project would create new sources of noise in the Project vicinity.
The major noise sources associated with the Project including the followings:
• Stationary Noise Sources - mechanical equipment (i.e., air conditioners, etc.);
• Parking Areas Noise (i.e., car door slamming, car radios, engine start-up, and car pass-by);
and
• Off-Site Traffic Noise.
Stationary Noise Sources
Project implementation would create new sources of noise in the Project vicinity. Noise that is
typical of residential areas includes group conversations, pet noise, and general maintenance
activities. Noise from residential stationary sources would primarily occur during the “daytime”
activity hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Further, the residences would be required to comply
with performance standards found in Section 30-543 of the Fontana Development Code which
limits the exterior noise level to 70 dBA Leq during the daytime hours, and 65 dBA Leq during the
nighttime hours at sensitive receiver locations
The Project is surrounded by residential uses to the south and west, commercial uses to the east
and vacant land to the north. The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project site is a single-family
residence to the south. Potential stationary noise sources related to long-term Project operations
would include mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment (e.g., heating ventilation and air
conditioning [HVAC] equipment) typically generates noise levels of approximately 50 dBA at
50 feet. The HVAC units associated with the proposed buildings would be located on the roof.
The nearest HVAC unit would be located approximately 200 feet from the closest sensitive
receptor. At 200 feet, HVAC noise levels would be 38 dBA. As noise levels would be below the
City’s 70 dBA daytime standard and 65 dBA nighttime standard, noise impacts associated with
HVAC equipment would be less than significant.
Parking Area Noise
The Project would provide a total of 139 parking stalls. 128 open parking stalls would be located
along the north, west, and south perimeters of the Project site and 13 tuck-under parking spaces
would be located around each building. Traffic associated with parking lots is typically not of
sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards, which are based on a time-averaged
scale such as the CNEL scale. The instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 138
slamming, engine starting up, and car pass-bys range from 53 to 61 dBA37 at 50 feet and may be
an annoyance to adjacent noise-sensitive receptors. Conversations in parking areas may also be
an annoyance to adjacent sensitive receptors. Sound levels of speech typically range from 33 dBA
at 50 feet for normal speech to 50 dBA at 50 feet for very loud speech.38 It should be noted that
parking lot noises are instantaneous noise levels compared to noise standards in the hourly Leq
metric, which are averaged over the entire duration of a time period. Actual noise levels over
time resulting from parking activities are anticipated to be far below the City’s noise standards.
Therefore, noise impacts associated with parking would be less than significant.
Off-Site Traffic Noise
Project implementation would generate increased traffic volumes along Sierra Avenue and
Project area roadways. According to the trip generation analysis, the Project would result in
776 average daily vehicle trips. The Project’s increase in traffic would result in noise increases on
Project area roadways. In general, a 3-dBA increase in traffic noise is barely perceptible to people,
while a 5‐dBA increase is readily noticeable. Traffic volumes on Project area roadways would have
to approximately double for the resulting traffic noise levels to generate a 3-dBA increase.39
According to the General Plan, the daily average daily traffic along Sierra Avenue (between Jurupa
Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue) is 32,300 vehicles.40 Therefore, because the proposed Project
would not generate sufficient traffic to result in a permanent 3-dBA increase in ambient noise
levels, noise impacts associated with traffic would be less than significant.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact. Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the
proposed Project would be primarily associated with short‐term construction‐related activities.
The FTA has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations in
their 2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. The types of construction
vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage.
Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile
would not experience cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This
distance can vary substantially depending on soil composition and underground geological layer
between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration
generated by construction equipment. For example, for a building that is constructed with
reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to
0.20 in/sec is considered safe and would not result in any vibration damage.
37 Kariel, H. G., Noise in Rural Recreational Environments, Canadian Acoustics 19(5), 3-10, 1991.
38 Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden, Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, 2015.
39 According to the California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (September 2013), it
takes a doubling of traffic to create a noticeable (i.e., 3 dBA) noise increase.
40 City of Fontana, Fontana General Plan Update 2015-2035, Chapter 9 – Community Mobility Circulation, Exhibit 9.5 Average Daily Trips,
March 2017
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 139
Human annoyance is evaluated in vibration decibels (VdB) (the vibration velocity level in decibel
scale) and occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human
perception for extended periods of time. The FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
Manual identifies 80 VdB as the approximate threshold for residences.
Table 23, Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, lists vibration levels at 25 feet and
45 feet for typical construction equipment. Ground-borne vibration generated by construction
equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance.
As indicated in Table 21, based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction
equipment operations that would be used during Project construction range from 0.003 to
0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet from the source of activity, which is below the FTA’s 0.20 PPV
threshold. The nearest sensitive receptor is the single-family residence located approximately
45 feet to the south of the Project boundary.
Table 23: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Equipment
Peak Particle
Velocity at 25
Feet (in/sec)
Peak Particle
Velocity at 45
Feet (in/sec)1
Approximate VdB
at 25 Feet
Approximate VdB
at 45 Feet2
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.0369 87 79
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.0369 87 79
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.0315 86 78
Jackhammer 0.035 0.0145 79 71
Small Bulldozer/Tractors 0.003 0.0012 58 50
1. Calculated using the following formula: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5, where: PPVequip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment
adjusted for the distance; PPVref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the Federal Transit Administration, Transit
Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018; D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver.
2. Calculated using the following formula: Lv(D) = Lv(25 feet) - (30 x log10(D/25 feet)) per the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment Manual (2018).
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.
As shown in Table 23 at 45 feet the vibration velocities from construction equipment would not
exceed 0.0369 in/sec PPV, which is below the FTA’s 0.20 PPV threshold. It is also acknowledged
that construction activities would occur throughout the Project site and would not be
concentrated at the point closest to the nearest structure. Therefore, construction related
vibration impacts resulting in building damage would be less than significant.
In addition, Table 23 shows that construction VdB levels would be 79 VdB at 45 feet (i.e., below
the 80 VdB annoyance threshold). It is also acknowledged that construction activities would occur
throughout the Project site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the nearest
residential structure(s). Therefore, construction related vibration impacts resulting in human
annoyance would be less than significant.
Once operational, the Project would not be a significant source of ground-borne vibration. Typical
sources of groundborne vibration are occasional traffic on rough roads. However, when
roadways are smooth, vibration from traffic (even heavy trucks) is rarely perceptible. In addition,
the rubber tires and suspension systems of on‐road vehicles make it unusual for on‐road vehicles
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 140
to cause groundborne noise or vibration problems. It is therefore assumed that no such vehicular
vibration impacts would occur, and vibration 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?
Less than Significant Impact. The nearest large airport to the Project site is the Ontario
International Airport located approximately 8.0 miles to the west and Flabob approximately
4.5 miles southeast. The Project is not within 2.0 miles of a public airport or within an airport land
use plan. Additionally, there are no private airstrips located within the Project vicinity. Therefore,
the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive airport-
or airstrip-related noise levels and no mitigation is required.
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative Construction Noise
The Project’s construction activities would not result in a substantial temporary increase in
ambient noise levels. Construction noise would be periodic and temporary noise impacts would
cease upon completion of construction activities. The Project would contribute to other
proximate construction project noise impacts if construction activities were conducted
concurrently. However, based on the noise analysis above, the Project’s construction-related
noise impacts would be less than significant following the City of Fontana Municipal Code.
Construction activities at other planned and approved projects near the Project site would be
required to comply with applicable City rules related to noise and would take place during
daytime hours on the days permitted by the applicable Municipal Code, and projects requiring
discretionary City approvals would be required to evaluate construction noise impacts, comply
with the City’s standard conditions of approval, and implement mitigation, if necessary, to
minimize noise impacts. Construction noise impacts are by nature localized. Based on the fact
that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, noise impacts would be limited to the
Project site and vicinity. Therefore, Project construction would not result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts, assuming such a cumulative impact
existed, and impacts in this regard are not cumulatively considerable.
Cumulative Operational Noise
Cumulative noise impacts describe how much noise levels are projected to increase over existing
conditions with the development of the proposed Project and other foreseeable projects.
Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways
due to buildout of the proposed Project and other projects in the vicinity. According to the
General Plan EIR, the daily average daily traffic along Sierra Avenue (between Jurupa Avenue and
Santa Ana Avenue) is 32,300 vehicles, the addition of 1,135 additional trips associated with the
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 141
Project would only increase traffic by approximately three percent, therefore Project traffic
combined with cumulative traffic from future growth would not result in a cumulative impact.
No known past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects would combine with the operational
noise levels generated by the Project to increase noise levels above acceptable standards
because each project must comply with applicable City regulations that limit operational noise.
Therefore, the Project, together with other projects, would not create a significant cumulative
impact, and even if there was such a significant cumulative impact, the Project would not make
a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative operational noises.
Given that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, operational noise impacts from on-
site activities and other stationary sources would be limited to the Project site and vicinity. Thus,
cumulative operational noise impacts from related projects, in conjunction with Project specific
noise impacts, would not be cumulatively significant.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 142
POPULATION AND HOUSING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
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)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
X
Demographic Setting
The SCAG 2020 Local Housing Data, notes that the City of Fontana had a population of
213,000 residents. Between Year 2000 and 2020, Fontana had an annual growth rate of 2.5%
compared to 0.7% for the region. Fontana has 96,001 workers living within its borders who work
across 13 major industrial sectors. The most prevalent industry is Education & Social Services
with 19,253 employees (20.1% of total) and the second most prevalent industry is Transportation
with 12,587 employees (13.1% of total).
Housing security can depend heavily on housing tenure, i.e., whether homes are owned or
rented. Fontana's housing stock consists of 53,510 total units, 34,560 of which are owner-
occupied and 18,950 of which are renter-occupied. The share of renters in Fontana is lower than
in the SCAG region overall.41
A low vacancy rate indicates that residents may have difficulty finding housing within their price
range and/or a high supply of vacant units may indicate an oversupply of units. A healthy vacancy
rate is generally accepted at seven or eight percent while a low vacancy rate is about two percent.
SCAG projects the City to grow in population to approximately 280,900 persons by 2040 from
196,069 in 2010; that is, a growth of 84,831 persons.42 The City of Fontana has an approximate
4.2 percent vacancy rate.43
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)?
41 Southern California Association of Governments. (August 2020). City of Fontana Local Housing Data. Available at
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/fontana_he_0920.pdf?1603257841. Accessed August 22, 2020.
42 Southern California Association of Governments. 2016. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS). Available at http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx. Accessed on January 15, 2021.
43 DOF. 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020 with 2010 Census Benchmark
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 143
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is a 106-unit affordable housing multi-family
complex. The state of California Department of Finance has provided population estimates per
household for each city through their E-5 Table. In Fontana, the average household contains
4.05 persons. Applying this number to the Project, projects the Project-related population total
to be approximately 430 persons. Because this area is zoned consistent with the Proposed project
use, a less than significant impact to population growth in the area would occur.
Additionally, the Project-related increase in employment in the area would be minimal in
comparison to the anticipated increase in the SCAG Demographics and Growth Forecast for the
City. Additionally, current data provided by the U.S Census 2018 American Community Survey
(ACS) 5-Year Survey (Table S2301) found that the unemployment rate for the City, is at
6.08 percent44, which is higher compared to the state (four percent) and national (3.9 percent)
averages.45 In addition, the implementation of the Project would be consistent with the planned
development set by the General Plan.
Therefore, the Project’s temporary and permanent employment requirements can be met by the
City’s existing labor force and the additional 430 persons relocating to the Project site from within
the City or beyond. Therefore, since the Project would not induce substantial unplanned
population growth above what is assumed in local and regional anticipated increase, impacts
associated with population growth would be less than significant.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The Project site is vacant land and therefore, would not displace substantial numbers
of existing people or housing. No impacts would occur.
44 Percentage is an average of the unemployment rate between ages 20 to 75 years or older.
45 United States Census Bureau. (2018). Employment Status; 2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables. Available at
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?tid=ACSST5Y2018.S2301&g=1600000US624680. Accessed January 15, 2021.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 144
PUBLIC SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the Project:
a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection? X
ii) Police protection? X
iii) Schools? X
iv) Parks? X
v) Other public facilities? X
a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection services for the City of Fontana are provided by the
San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD) and is carried out via the Fontana Fire
Protection District (FFPD). Fire Station 77 is located at 17459 Slover Avenue, approximately
0.9 miles northeast of the Project site. Fire station 77 is staffed with one captain, one engineer,
two firefighter paramedics, and one firefighter. Additionally, Fire Station 77 is equipped with one
medic truck and one medic squad.
Project implementation could result in an increase in calls for fire protection and emergency
medical service. However, considering the existing firefighting resources available in and near
the City, project impacts on fire protection and emergency services are not expected to occur.
Additionally, in the event of an emergency at the project site that required more resources than
Fire Station 77 could provide, FFPD would direct resources to the site from other San Bernardino
County Fire Department stations nearby and, if needed, would request assistance from other
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 145
nearby fire departments. Additionally, Project implementation is not anticipated to increase fire
response times to the Project site. Driving distance from Fire Station 77 to the Project site is
approximately three minutes, and as such, would be within the FFPD’s goal of having a six minute
response time.
Goal 2 of the City’s General Plan states that “Fontana's Fire Department meets or exceeds state
and national benchmarks for protection and responsiveness” and the City’s action plan is to
continue the successful partnership with SBCFD. The General Plan notes that the City is to ensure
continuing fire protection as population grows and natural fire events may increase in number
or intensity due to changing climate.
Additionally, the General Plan notes that the future impacts of fire on the City are anticipated to
occur in High and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ.) However, as noted in Section 20,
Wildfire, the Project site is neither in a High FHSZ nor a Very High FHSZ. Additionally, the Project
would be designed in accordance with applicable city, county, and state regulations, codes, and
policies pertaining to fire hazard reduction and protection. More specifically, the Project would
be developed in accordance to the latest California 2019 Fire Code and 2019 Building Standards
Code. The affordable housing multi-family complex would be equipped with emergency sprinkler
systems and fire detectors. Water lines with fire-sufficient flows supplied by FWC would be
connected to fire hydrants placed in accordance with Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD)
standards and the SBCFD. The applicant is also required to pay Development Impact Fees
pursuant to Section 11-2 of the City’s Municipal Code which would mitigate any additional
required Fire protection.
As part of the City’s plan-check process, the SBCFD reviewed and commented on the Project with
a letter dated April 21, 2021 where SBCFD provided three comments regarding fire lanes and
building heights, but no concern was noted regarding adverse physical effects, effect on service
times or the need for additional facilities due to the development of the Project. Finally, the
Project development would increase property tax revenues to provide a source of additional
funding that is sufficient to offset any increases in the anticipated demands for public services
granted by this Project. With compliance of the applicable city, and state regulations, codes,
potential impacts on fire services from implementation of the Project would be less than
significant.
ii) Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. Project buildout would consequently increase the demand for
police protection services in southern Fontana. The proposed Project site is located in Area 4 of
the Area Commander Program and would be served by the City of Fontana Police Department
(FPD), located 3.4-miles north of the Project site. The FPD currently has 188 sworn officers
providing law enforcement services 24 hours a day, 365 days a year with a one officer to 1,000
residents ratio.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 146
The Project would provide safety features and main emergency access via I-10 and comply with
the FPD’s Standard Building Security Specifications and Crime Prevention through Environmental
Design principles (C.P.T.E.D) which include natural surveillance, natural access control, territorial
reinforcements and maintenance and management. The Project would be integrated in the Area
Commander Program that would assign officers to each specific area to promote both public
safety and quality of life and property. Furthermore, the applicant is also required to pay
Development Impact Fees per the City’s Municipal Code. Additionally, Project development
would increase property tax revenues to provide a source of funding that is sufficient to offset
any increases in the anticipated demands for public services granted by this Project.
With compliance of the applicable specifications and design principles pursuant to the FPD’s
C.P.T.E.D, continued maintenance of an approximately one officer to 1,000 resident ratio, and
aid from the Area Commander Program, additional police services are not necessary and
potential impacts on police protection due to implementation of the Project would be less than
significant.
iii) Schools?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in the Fontana Unified School District.
The Project site is located approximately 1.0-mile southeast of Jurupa Hills High School,
Citrus High School is located 0.6-mile northwest, and Sycamore Hills Elementary located 0.5-mile
northeast. Due to the nature of the proposed Project, it is anticipated that some student growth
could occur regarding the anticipated population growth of that area due to the proposed
Project.
The Project site’s land use designation and zoning district accounts for the development of the
site and population growth is also accounted for in the City’s General Plan. Furthermore, it is
assumed that Project residents would be a combination of new City residents and existing City
residents. Additionally, according to Government Code Section 65996, the payment of
development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed to be full and complete school facilities
mitigation. The Project would be required to pay mandated development fees for residential
buildings. As such, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant impact.
iv) Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in Table 4, the Project proposes approximately 39,410 SF
of combined common, private open space, and community green area which would be provided
to offset the impact to City parks. The Project would not create additional need for more
recreational facilities. Therefore, a less than significant would occur.
v) Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. Other public facilities in the area such as senior centers or libraries,
etc. would not be adversely impacted because the proposed Project is consistent with the City of
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 147
Fontana General Plan and is consistent with City Zoning Maps. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project is projected to have an increase in immediate population. This would
increase the need for public services such as fire and police protection. Schools would see an
increase in attendance due to the new development. Parks would only have a minor increase in
usage due to the implementation of the project’s various internal recreation areas. This would
minimal maintenance impacts of nearby parks, such as nearby Sycamore Hills Park and Martin
Tudor Jurupa Hills Regional Park. Because the Project is consistent with current General Plan and
zoning designations, the Project would not result in incremental effects to public services or
facilities that could be compounded or increased when considered together with similar effects
from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future Projects. The Project
would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to public services or facilities.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 148
RECREATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
16. RECREATION. Would the Project:
a) Would the Project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
X
a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
Less than Significant Impact. Refer to Response Public Service (15-a.iv) above. The Project would
not substantially increase the use of existing neighborhood, regional parks or other recreational
facilities in the immediate area. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. Refer to Response Public Service (15-a.iv) above. The proposed
Project includes the development of common and private open space and recreational facilities
for its residents that will offset the need for City owned parks or recreational facilities. A less than
significant impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts
Development of the proposed Project is not anticipated to create a significant cumulative
increase of recreational facilities nor requires construction or expansion of existing recreational
facilities. Therefore, no cumulative impacts on recreational facilities would occur.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 149
TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
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?
X
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared by TJW Engineering, Inc, on December 21, 2020, and
an addendum was prepared by TJW Engineering (Trip Generation Memorandum) on
December 7, 2021.
The original Project assumptions for the preparation of the TIA assumed the development of
approximately 155,970 square feet of multi-family residential dwelling units totaling 155 DUs.
Additionally, the model assumed 225 vehicle parking spaces. The model output from the original
TIA assumptions resulted in a less than significant impact in all aspects regarding potential
impacts in relation to traffic. The Project has been updated to include a water detention basin on
the west portion of the site, just west of Building B, and as such, the proposed Project was
reduced to 106 DUs and 139 vehicle parking spaces, that is an overall reduction of approximately
32 percent from the original proposed Project.
The original Project Trip Generation modeling output would result in 1,135 Daily Trips, 72 AMP
Peak Hour trips and 87 PM Peak Hour trips. Based on the updated Project assumptions, the
Focused Traffic Impact Analysis is anticipated to result in 776 Daily Trips, 49 AMP Peak Hour trips
and 59 PM Peak Hour trips.
As a result of the Project reduction, it was determined that no additional updates to the original
analysis is necessary because the original analysis conducted is more conservative than the
updated proposed Project. As such, the Focused Trip Generation noting the anticipated lesser
trip generation from Project implementation is documented and presented along with the
original Traffic Impact Analysis as Appendix E, and the results are summarized herein.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 150
a) Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning
designations, and as such, the Project is consistent with the goals and policies for the type of
development proposed by the Project.
There is nothing about the design of the proposed Project that would conflict with the circulation
system, bicycle, mass transit, or pedestrian facilities. Additionally, the Project would be required
to comply with any applicable traffic and circulation regulations set forth by the City. As such, a
less than significant impact would occur.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 contains several subdivisions. In
brief, these Guidelines provide that transportation impacts of projects are, in general, best
measured by evaluating the project's VMT. Methodologies for evaluating such impacts are
already in use for most land use projects, as well as many transit and active transportation
projects. Methods for evaluating VMT for roadway capacity projects continue to evolve,
however, and so these Guidelines recognize a lead agency's discretion to analyze such projects,
provided such analysis is consistent with CEQA and applicable planning requirements.
Section 15064.3(b) Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts states the following:
Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may
indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major
transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause
a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the
project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant
transportation impact.
SB 743 was adopted in 2013 requiring the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to
identify new metrics for identifying and mitigating transportation impacts within CEQA. For land
use projects, OPR has identified VMT as the new metric for transportation analysis under CEQA.
The regulatory changes to the CEQA guidelines that implement SB 743 were approved on
December 28th, 2018 with an implementation date of July 1st, 2020 as the new metric.
SB 743 was established with the intent to “more appropriately balance the needs of congestion
management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health
through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.” Pursuant to Section
15064.3 of the latest CEQA Guidelines, “a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not
constitute a significant environmental impact.”
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 151
For purposes of SB 743 compliance, a VMT analysis should be conducted for land use proj ects as
deemed necessary by the Traffic Division and would apply to projects that have the potential to
increase the average VMT per service population (e.g., population plus employment) compared
to the County’s boundary. Normalizing VMT per service population essentially provides a
transportation efficiency metric that the analysis is based on. Using this efficiency metric allows
the user to compare the Project to the remainder of the unincorporated area for purposes of
identifying transportation impacts.
Based on the City guidelines, specific projects would be screened out of requiring a VMT analysis
or would be deemed to cause a less than significant impact, including projects providing
affordable or supportive housing. As has been previously noted, the proposed Project falls within
the “affordable or supportive housing” category which would exempt it from requiring a VMT
analysis. Hence, based on the City established guidelines and thresholds, as the project falls
within affordable or supportive housing, the Project is presumed to have a less than significant
VMT impact per City guidelines.
Traffic Study Area
The Project site located near bus route 82 that would provide public transportation along this
corridor with two bus stops, one at Sierra Avenue and Underwood Drive and the other at
Sierra Avenue and Jurupa Avenue. Therefore, since the Project would adhere to any relevant
regional and local circulation regulations, the Project would have a less than significant impact
on circulation policies.
The study area consists of the following intersections listed in Table 24, Traffic Intersections
Study Area below:
Table 24: Traffic Intersections Study Area
North-South Street East-West Street
1. Sierra Avenue 1. Santa Ana Avenue
2. Sierra Avenue 2. Under Wood Drive
3. Sierra Avenue 3. Jurupa Avenue
4. Sierra Avenue 4. Sierra Crossroads Access Drive
The TIA analyzed traffic conditions of the study intersections for the following scenarios in
accordance with the City of Fontana:
• Existing Baseline Conditions;
• Construction Phase;
• Opening Year (2023) plus Cumulative Projects (Existing + Ambient + Cumulative); and
• Opening Year (2023) plus Cumulative Projects Plus Project (Existing + Ambient +
Cumulative + Project).
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 152
Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service Analysis Methodology –
Provided for Informational Purpose Only
Level of Service (LOS) is commonly used to describe the quality of flow on roadways and at
intersections using a range of LOS from LOS A (free flow with little congestion) to LOS F (severely
congested conditions). The definitions for LOS for interruption of traffic flow differ depending
on the type of traffic control (traffic signal, unsignalized intersection with side street stops,
unsignalized intersection with all-way stops). The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6
(Transportation Research Board, 2016) methodology expresses the LOS of an intersection in
terms of delay time for the intersection approaches. The HCM methodology utilizes different
procedures for different types of intersection control.
The City of Fontana traffic impact study guidelines require signalized intersection operations be
analyzed utilizing the HCM 6th Edition methodology. Intersection LOS for signalized intersections
is based on the intersections average control delay for all movements at the intersection during
the peak hour. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped
delay, and final acceleration delay.
The definitions of level of service for uninterrupted flow (flow unrestrained by the existence of
traffic control devices) are:
• LOS A represents free flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of
others in the traffic stream.
• LOS B is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of other users in the traffic stream
begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but
there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver.
• LOS C is in the range of stable flow but marks the beginning of the range of flow in which
the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with
others in the traffic stream.
• LOS D represents high-density but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are
severely restricted, and the driver experiences a generally poor level of comfort and
convenience.
• LOS E represents operating conditions at or near the capacity level. All speeds are reduced
to a low, but relatively uniform value. Small increases in flow will cause breakdowns in
traffic movement.
• LOS F is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists wherever the
amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount which can traverse the point.
Queues form behind such locations.
Table 25, HCM-LOS & Delay Ranges – Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections, describes the
general characteristics of traffic flow and accompanying delay ranges at signalized and
unsignalized intersections.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 153
Table 25: HCM-LOS & Delay Ranges – Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections
LOS Intersection LOS Criteria
Signalized Delay (Seconds) Unsignalized Delay (Seconds)
A 0.00 – 10.00 0.00 – 10.00
B 10.01 - 20.00 10.01 – 15.00
C 20.01 – 35.00 15.01 – 25.00
D 35.01 – 55.00 25.01 – 35.00
E 55.01 – 80.00 35.01 – 50.00
F >80.01 >50.01
Collected peak hour traffic volumes have been adjusted using a peak hour factor (PHF) to reflect
peak 15-minute volumes. It is a common practice in LOS analysis to conservatively use a peak
15-minute flow rate applied to the entire hour to derive flow rates in vehicles per hour that are
used in the LOS analysis. The PHF is the relationship between the peak 15-minute flow rate and
the full hourly volume. PHF = [Hourly Volume]/ [4 * Peak 15-Minute Volume]. The use of a
15-minute PHF produces a more detailed and conservative analysis compared to analyzing
vehicles per hour. Existing PHFs, obtained from the existing traffic counts have been used for all
analysis scenarios in this study.
The City of Fontana traffic study guidelines also require unsignalized intersection operations to
be analyzed utilizing the HCM 6th Edition methodology. Intersection operation for unsignalized
intersections is based on the weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
At a two-way or side-street stop-controlled intersection, LOS is calculated for each stop-
controlled minor street movement, for the left-turn movement(s) from the major street, and for
the intersection as a whole. For approaches consisting of a single lane, the delay is calculated as
the average of all movements in that lane. For all-way stop-controlled intersection, LOS is
computed for the intersection as a whole.
This analysis utilizes Trafficware’s Vistro 2021 analysis software for all signalized and unsignalized
intersections. Vistro is a macroscopic traffic software program that is based on the signalized
intersection capacity analysis specified in Chapter 16 of the HCM. The LOS and capacity analysis
performed within Vistro takes the optimization and coordination of signalized intersections
within a network into consideration.
The City uses LOS C as the minimum level of service standard for intersection operations.
However, as discussed above in accordance with SB 743 which became effective July 1, 2020, LOS
is no longer considered a potentially significant environmental impact under CEQA. While a VMT
analysis is included in this section below, the following LOS analysis is provided for informational
purposes only, as additional delay to an intersection or roadway segment can no longer be
considered a significant impact under CEQA.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 154
For the purposes of analyzing transportation deficiencies, the City of Fontana identifies
deficiencies through a comparison of “without project” and “with project” traffic conditions.
Determination of a deficiency at an intersection is based on a project’s contribution to the
intersection’s delay (in seconds) as defined below Table 26, City of Fontana Thresholds of
Significance. Note, thresholds for LOS A, B, and C do not apply to projects consistent with the
General Plan.
Table 26: City of Fontana Thresholds of Significance
Level of Service Significant Impact Threshold
A/B 10.0 Seconds
C 8.0 Seconds
D 5.0 Seconds
E 3.0 Seconds
F 1.0 Seconds
Cumulative Projects Traffic – Provided for Informational Purpose Only
This analysis accounts for other reasonably foreseeable development projects which are either
approved or are currently being processed in the study area as part of a cumulative analysis
scenario. A list of cumulative projects was developed for this analysis through consultation with
the City of Fontana staff. A summary of cumulative projects land uses is shown below in Table 27,
Cumulative Projects List.
Table 27: Cumulative Projects List
Project Land Uses Qty Units AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Dail
y In Out Total In Out Total
1 Fontana Foothills Commerce
Center Warehouse 754.41 TSF 99 29 128 39 105 144 1,313
2 Goodman Industrial Park Fontana III
Warehouse 894.77 TSF 117 35 152 46 124 170 1,557
High-Cube
Cold Warehouse
223.69 TSF 29 9 38 11 31 42 389
Subtotal 146 44 190 57 155 212 1,946
3 Southwest Fontana Logistics Center Warehouse 1,628.94 TSF 213 64 277 83 226 309 2,834
City Park 17.45 AC 0 0 0 1 1 2 14
Subtotal 213 64 277 84 227 311 2,848
Total 458 137 595 180 487 667 6,107
1 TSF = Thousand Square Feet; AC = Acres
2 Source: City of Fontana (See Appendix C of the TIA)
LOS Analysis & Significant Impact Summary
Existing Conditions
The study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM
peak hours for Existing baseline conditions with the exception of the following intersections:
• #3 – Sierra Ave/Jurupa Ave (AM and PM Peak Hours)
• #4 – Sierra Ave/Sierra Crossroads Access Dr. (AM and PM Peak Hours)
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 155
Construction Phase
The study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM
peak hours for Construction Phase conditions with the exception of the following intersections
• #3 – Sierra Ave/Jurupa Ave (AM and PM Peak Hours)
• #4 – Sierra Ave/Sierra Crossroads Access Dr. (AM and PM Peak Hours)
Opening Year (2023) Plus Cumulative (OY) Project Conditions
The study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM
peak hours for Opening Year Plus Cumulative conditions with the exception of the following
intersections:
• #3 – Sierra Ave/Jurupa Ave (AM and PM Peak Hours)
• #4 – Sierra Ave/Sierra Crossroads Access Dr. (AM and PM Peak Hours)
Opening Year (2023) Plus Cumulative Plus Project (OY) Conditions
The study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM
peak hours for Opening Year Plus Cumulative Plus Project conditions.
The Project would generate 776 daily trips, 49 AM peak hour trips, and 59 PM peak hour trips.
Off-Site Roadway and Site Access Improvements – Provided for Informational Purpose Only
Wherever necessary, roadways adjacent to the proposed Project site and site access points
would be constructed in compliance with recommended roadway classifications and respective
cross-sections in the City of Fontana General Plan or as directed by the City Engineer.
Sight distance at each Project access point should be reviewed with respect to City sight distance
standards at the time of final grading, landscaping, and street improvement plans.
Signing/striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the
Project site.
Site access would be provided via one (1) full access driveway along Sierra Avenue. A second
driveway, located north of the main driveway, would be provided, but would be utilized for exit
only. The primary access driveway will provide 150-feet of stacking (two 75-foot lanes) between
the proposed access pad and the adjacent roadway. This meets the required stacking distance
needed per City Standard No. 701 Access Management Standard.
The proposed primary driveway will align with the Sierra Crossroads access driveway east of
Sierra Avenue and proposes the installation of a traffic signal. Peak hour traffic signal warrants
are met for the “with project” scenarios at this study intersection.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 156
Summary of Deficiencies and Recommended Improvements –
Provided for Informational Purpose Only
The determination of a deficiency at an intersection is based on the Project’s contribution to the
intersection’s delay (in seconds) as defined in the City of Fontana Traffic Impact Study Guidelines
(October 2020). Based on those thresholds, no off-site improvements were identified since the
proposed Project is projected to result in no deficiencies at the study intersections for “with
Project” analysis scenarios.
Although not required by CEQA, based on the previous information from the TIA, all intersections
would operate at an acceptable LOS during peak hours towards Project Opening Year. Therefore,
the Project would be consistent with the City’s Community Mobility and Circulation Element in
terms of LOS.
The City's General Plan Land Use Map designates the Project site as is (WMXU-1) Walkable
Mixed-Use Corridor & Downtown which allows for residential development. Similarly, the
existing Project site zoning is (FBC) Form-Based Code which allows residential developments.
According to the General Plan, Community Mobility and Circulation Element, Exhibit 9.6 – Bicycle
Facilities in Fontana, the Project site is not located near an existing bicycle facility/network.
However, Sierra Avenue, as is most of the City of Fontana, is proposed to implement Class II
bicycle lanes throughout the City. No specific implementation timeline is provided. As noted in
Exhibit 7, Driveway Alignment and Traffic Signal, the Project would install a traffic signal at the
main driveway which aligns with the existing driveway from the commercial development across
the Sierra Avenue. The installation of the traffic signal would not affect bicycle networks.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Impact. The design features of the proposed Project do not incorporate any hazardous or
incompatible features. The Project’s access points would not include sharp turns, but rather be
designed to allow safe egress and ingress to the Project site. The drive aisles/fire lanes within the
Project site have been designed to be both efficient and safe for vehicular traffic pursuant to City
Standards approved by the Fontana Fire Department.
Additionally, the Project proposes a driveway alignment. The proposed primary driveway would
align with the Sierra Crossroads access driveway east of Sierra Avenue and proposes the
installation of a traffic signal. Peak hour traffic signal warrants are met for the “with Project”
scenarios at this study intersection; See Exhibit 7, the concept alignment depicts the proposed
Project driveway and Sierra Avenue. Sierra Avenue is a 5-lane divided roadway and would have
a traffic signal installed.
The Project driveway alignment and traffic signal would not increase hazards and would not
incorporate incompatible uses. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 157
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would provide one main driveway with a traffic signal
at the southeast corner, along Sierra Avenue for ingress and egress. The primary access driveway
will provide 150-feet of stacking (two 75-foot lanes) between the proposed access pad and the
adjacent roadway. This meets the required stacking distance needed per City Standard No. 701
Access Management Standard; additionally, as shown on Exhibit 7, an exit-only emergency
driveway is proposed at the northeast corner of the site, along Sierra Avenue, to also be utilized
for emergency vehicles exiting the site. Project design features in regard to ingress and egress
would be developed to comply with all relevant emergency regulations pursuant to the Fontana
Fire Department standards. Furthermore, all driveways would be constructed per City standard
plans.
Additionally, construction of the proposed Project is not expected to require road closures or
otherwise adversely affect emergency access around the site perimeter. If any road closures
(complete or partial) were to occur, the Fontana Police and Fire Department shall be notified of
the construction schedule and any required detours would allow emergency vehicles to use
alternate routes for emergency response. The impact on emergency access would be less than
significant.
Cumulative Impacts
Some of the cumulative projects as listed in the TIA may be downsized or may not be developed
by Project opening year (2023). In addition, many of the related projects have been or would be
subject to a variety of mitigation measures that would reduce the potential environmental
impacts associated with those projects. However, those mitigation measures have not been
considered in projecting the environmental impact of the related projects. The proposed Project
would not result in traffic beyond what was contemplated for the Project site and surrounding
land uses.
Additionally, as discussed above, the TIA analyzed the Project’s VMT impacts using VMT
guidelines which are based on the SBCTA SB 743 Implementation Study which provides options
for both methodologies and VMT screening. The methodologies and significance thresholds are
based on the City of Fontana Traffic Impact Study Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
and Level of Service Assessment (October 2020). Based on the City guidelines, the Project is
presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact per City guidelines.
Additionally, the analysis utilizes a growth rate of 2 percent per year for Project opening year
(2023) conditions, which would already capture and account for most projects in the area. The
growth rate methodology is considered conservative since it is applied to all movements of the
study intersections.
Project Opening Year (OY) (2023) Plus Cumulative Conditions traffic volumes and Project Opening
Year Plus Cumulative Plus Project (OYP) Conditions consist of existing traffic volumes and a
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 158
2 percent growth rate per year, applied to existing volumes. Cumulative projects are also added
to account for nearby projects. Traffic volumes are shown in Table 28, Intersection Analysis –
Project Opening Year Plus Cumulative Plus Project Conditions.
Table 28: Intersection Analysis – Project Opening Year Plus Cumulative Plus Project
Conditions (for informational purposes only)
Intersection Traffic
Control3
Peak
Hour
OY Conditions OYP Conditions Change Impact? Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS
1. Sierra Ave/
Santa Ana Ave TS AM 22.1 C 22.8 C 0.70 NO
PM 29.7 C 33.9 C 0.20 NO
2. Sierra Ave/
Under Wood Dr TS AM 12.1 B 12.2 B 0.10 NO
PM 16.1 B 16.2 B 0.10 NO
3. Sierra Ave/
Jurupa Ave TS AM 40.1 D 40.1 D 0.00 NO
PM 43.6 D 44.0 D 040 NO
4. Sierra Ave/Sierra
Crossroads Access Dwy TS AM 52.8 F 12.5 B (40.30) NO
PM 135.4 F 15.0 B (120.40) NO
Note: AWSC = All-Way Stop-Control, OWSC = One-Way Stop Control, Signal = Improvement, Delay shown in seconds per vehicle.
1 = Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, overall average delay and LOS are shown for signalized and all-way stop-controlled
intersections. For intersections with one-or-two-way stop-control, the delay and LOS for the worst individual movement is shown.
For informational purposes, as shown in Table 28, the study intersections during Opening Year
(OY) are projected to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours
for Project opening year plus cumulative conditions with the exception of the following
intersections:
• #3- Sierra Avenue/Jurupa Avenue (LOS D AM and PM Peak Hour);
• #4- Sierra Avenue/Sierra Crossroads Access Driveway (LOS F AM and LOS F PM Peak Hour)
Additionally, all study intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM
and PM peak hours for Project opening year plus cumulative plus project conditions (OYP),
including intersection #4, Sierra Avenue/Project Driveway.
As discussed above, the Project would not result in significant VMT impacts and no cumulative
impacts related to traffic would result from Project implementation.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 159
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms
of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register
of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k)?
X
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe?
X
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined
in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape
that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place,
or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k)?
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. The City completed the Assembly Bill (AB) 52 tribal
consultation for the proposed Project. On March 8, 2021, the City initiated tribal consultation
with interested California Native American tribes consistent with Assembly Bill (AB) 52. The City
initiated consultation with the following tribes: the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 160
Nation, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (San Manuel), Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians,
Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, and the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians. The
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation requested consultation with the City about the
Project. The consultation occurred on April 29, 2021. At the conclusion of the consultation no
additional issues were identified, and no new mitigation was required aside from the previously
noted MMs CUL-1 and CUL-2, identified in Section 5, Cultural Resources. The balance of the
consulted tribes did not respond to the consultation.
Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 and CUL-2.
Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project would not result in tribal cultural resources impacts beyond what was
contemplated for the Project site. Therefore, no cumulative impacts related to tribal cultural
resources would result from Project implementation.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 161
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
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?
x
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
Project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
x
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the Project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
x
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
x
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
x
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Utilities necessary for the Project site are as follows:
• Electricity –Southern California Edison (SCE)
• Water – Fontana Water Company (FWC) (FWC has confirmed water availability for the
Project)
• Sewer – Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) via City of Fontana
• Storm Drain – City of Fontana and San Bernardino Flood Control District
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 162
• Solid Waste – Burrtec Waste Industries
• Telecommunications – Verizon and Wiltel Fiber-Optic
• Gas – Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas)
The IEUA provides wastewater treatment service throughout the City and would provide
wastewater services to the Project site. The IEUA currently operates four regional wastewater
treatment facilities: Regional Plant (RP-) No. 1, RP-4, RP-5, and Carbon Canyon Wastewater
Reclamation Facility. RP-4 treats local wastewater generated by the City. IEUA’s four RPs have a
total combined design treatment capacity of approximately 86 million gallons per day (MGD).
Currently, all four reclamation facilities treat a total combined average daily flow of about
60 MGD. This is done through a system of regional trunk and interceptor sewers owned and
operated by IEUA which transport wastewater to the RPs. Wastewater can be diverted from one
RP to another in order to avoid overloading at any one facility. Local sewer systems are owned
and operated by local agencies, in this case by the City of Fontana. IEUA’s RP-4 is responsible for
treating local wastewater generated by the City and is located near the intersection of Etiwanda
Avenue and 6th Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. RP-4 treats an average flow of five MGD
of wastewater and is operated in conjunction with RP-1 to provide recycled water to users. RP-4
was recently expanded to a capacity of 14 MGD.
According to the IEUA’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), RP-1 has a rated, permitted
treatment capacity of 44 MGD, and is currently treating an average of 28 MGD, or only 65 percent
of its capacity.46
The additional wastewater generated by the Project would be approximately 1,340 gallons per
day (GPD), based on wastewater generation rates previously approved by IEUA (279 gallons per
day per acre for residential use). This would be an additional .01% of the wastewater treatment
capacity of the facility. The increase in the daily wastewater generated by this Project would lead
to a less than significant impact.
The Project would adequality receive utility services from service providers listed above.
Therefore, the Project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the Project would cause a less than significant impact.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would be served with potable water by FWC.
Domestic water supplies from this service provider are reliant on groundwater. Domestic water
supplies from this service provider are reliant on groundwater from the Chino Basin,
Rialto-Colton Basin, and No Man’s Land Basin. The FWC also relies on surface water sourced from
46 Inland Empire Utilities Agency. (2015). IEUA Urban Water Management Plan 2015. Available at https://www.ieua.org/download/urban-
water-management-plan-2015/. Accessed January 18, 2021.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 163
Lytle Creek and imported surface water from IEUA and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District. Based on available information, FWC is projected to have a water production potential
of 29,998 to 42,271 AFY (acre-feet) in a projected single dry year, and 37,757 to 53,204 AFY in
projected multiple dry years, while only utilizing approximately 62 to 72 percent of groundwater
supplies. FWC also receives surface water supplies, imported water supplies, and recycled water
supplies that could be used for projects not listed in FWC UWMP or not included in the City’s
planned uses. Therefore, the Project would have sufficient water supplies during the foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. Impacts would be less than
significant.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve
the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, there are sufficient wastewater treatment
facilities and capacity to service the Project. The Project would also be required to develop
appropriately sized water and wastewater conveyance facilities to and from the Project site.
Thus, less than significant impacts would occur.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is anticipated to generate solid waste during
the temporary, short-term construction phases, as well as the operational phase, but it is not
anticipated to result in inadequate landfill capacity. According to CalRecycles’s Estimated Solid
Waste Generation Rates,47 residential is estimated to produce 5.31 pounds of waste per dwelling
unit per day. This equates to approximately 563 pounds or just about ¼-ton of waste per day
from the Project facility. That is approximately 0.04 percent of the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill’s
maximum daily throughput of 7,500 tons per day. Solid waste service for the City is provided by
the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill located in the northern portion of the City. This facility handles
solid waste from mixed municipal, construction/demolition, industrial, and tires. This landfill has
a maximum permitted capacity of approximately 101.3 million cubic yards, and the landfill has a
remaining capacity of approximately 67.52 million cubic yards. The anticipated life for the landfill
at its currently permitted capacity is 2033.48 For these reasons, the proposed Project’s solid waste
disposal needs can be met by the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would be consistent with the City’s General
Plan goals, policies, and actions based on solid waste handling. The Project is required to adhere
47 CalRecycle. 2006. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Available at
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates. Accessed January 18, 2021.
48 CalRecycle. 2021. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details. Available at
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662. Accessed March 4, 2021.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 164
to City ordinances with respect to waste reduction and recycling. As a result, no impacts related
to State and local statutes governing solid waste are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to utilities/service
systems. The Project would require water and wastewater infrastructure, as well as solid waste
disposal for building facility construction and operation. Development of public utility
infrastructure is part of an extensive planning process involving utility providers and jurisdictions
with discretionary review authority. The coordination process associated with the preparation of
development and infrastructure plans is intended to ensure that adequate resources are
available to serve both individual projects and cumulative demand for resources and
infrastructure as a result of cumulative growth and development in the area. Each individual
project is subject to review for utility capacity to avoid unanticipated interruptions in service or
inadequate supplies. Coordination with the utility companies would allow for the provision of
utility service to the proposed Project and other developments. The Project and other planned
projects are subject to connection and service fees to assist in facility expansion and service
improvements triggered by an increase in demand. Because of the utility planning and
coordination activities described above, no significant cumulative utility impacts are anticipated.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 165
WILDFIRE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
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?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
X
Wildfire Hazard
CAL FIRE’s VHFHSZ in Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) Map shows that a small portion of southern
Fontana, and northern portions of the City near the base of the San Bernardino Mountains are
listed as a VHFHSZ area.49 These areas or zones of transition between wildland (unoccupied land)
and human development are known as wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas which are at high
risk of catastrophic wildfire, can cause ecological disruption and result in the loss of life and
property. The remainder of the City is urbanized and generally built out with established
commercial, residential, and industrial development.50
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously noted in Checklist Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, Threshold (g), the proposed Project is neither in a State or Federal Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as designated in the VHFHSZ Map.51 The nearest VHFHSZ areas
49 CAL Fire. (2008). Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA; City of Fontana. Available at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5943/fontana.pdf.
Accessed January 18, 2021.
50 City of Fontana. (2018). Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Wildfire Hazards Profile. Available at https://fontana.org/3196/Local-Hazard-
Mitigation-Plan-LHMP. Accessed January 18, 2021.
51 CAL FIRE. (2008). Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA; Fontana. Available at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5943/fontana.pdf.
Accessed January 15, 2021.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 166
are located approximately 0.5-miles south at the Jurupa Hills. CALFIRE designates the Project site
to be located in a non-VHFHSZ within the LRA.52 Development on the Project site would be
subject to compliance with the latest CBC.
The proposed Project site is located at 11196 Sierra Avenue, west of Sierra Avenue, and north of
Jurupa Avenue in the south-central portion of the City of Fontana. Main ingress and egress to the
site is provided via Sierra Avenue. Construction would be short-term and adhere to a construction
management plan that would not cause construction activity to impede emergency response
access through Sierra Avenue from the nearest Fire Stations No. 72 which is located
approximately 2.5-miles northwest and Fire Station No. 74 is located 2.6-miles southwest of the
Project site. Lastly, the Project would be subject to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2017)
which identifies mitigation goals, objectives, and projects to reduce wildfire hazards. Since the
Project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan, impacts
would be less than significant.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
Less Than Significant Impact. Historically, CAL FIRE incidents database shows that most of
wildfires have occurred in northwest Fontana.53 The Project is located on a generally flat area
that is classified as a Non-VHFHSZ. Therefore, it is not anticipated that Project occupants or
employees would be exposed to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire due to slope, prevailing
winds, and other factors. With adherence to standard City General Plan policies and Municipal
Code regulations, compliance with the City’s LHMP, and fire code standards and the California
Fire Code, impacts would be less than significant.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. All proposed Project components would be located within the
boundaries of the Project site, and impacts associated with the development of the Project within
are analyzed throughout this document. The Project does not propose off-site improvements on
Sierra Avenue that could exacerbate fire risks. Furthermore, the Fontana Fire Department would
review all plans for adequate fire suppression (California Fire Code Chapter 9), fire access
(California Fire Code Chapter 5), and emergency evacuation (California Fire Code Chapter 4) as
part of the City’s review process to ensure compliance with the California Fire Code, as adopted
by the City of Fontana.
The Project would also adhere to Section 30-243. - Public safety: (a) Emergency access of the
Fontana Municipal Code which states that emergency vehicles shall be incorporated into Project
52 CALFIRE. 2020. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Viewer. Available at https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ . Accessed on January 18, 2021.
53 CAL FIRE. (2020). 2013-2020 Incident Database. Available at https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/. Accessed January 18, 2021.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 167
design in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code and (b) Fire hazards. The Project would also
adhere to the City’s Utilities Municipal Code which states that (1) Temporary overhead power
and telephone facilities are permitted only during construction and (2) All utilities including, but
not limited to drainage systems, sewers, gas lines, water lines, and electrical, telephone, and
communications wires and equipment shall be installed and maintained underground which is
expected to occur. Placement, location, and screening of utilities of any kind which would be
installed within the multi-family buildings for function and safety reasons require written
approval by the Director of Planning prior to any administrative or discretionary approval as
stated in the City’s Municipal Code. Adherence to standard City Municipal Code and California
Fire Code would reduce potential impacts to a level of less than significant.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above in threshold b), the Project site is not in a
VHFHSZ nor located near steep slopes or hillsides. The Project would implement efficient
landscape maintenance practices to decrease the release of stormwater running off the site;
therefore, the Proposed project site would not expose people to downstream flooding or
landslides as a result of runoff. Impacts would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project area is not subject to natural wildfires and is mostly developed near
commercial and residential uses. Consequently, Project implementation would not create a
significant cumulative impact that would exacerbate wildfires. Impacts would be less than
significant.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 168
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the Project:
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. All impacts to the environment, including impacts to
habitat for fish and wildlife species, fish and wildlife populations, plant and animal communities,
rare and endangered plants and animals, and historical and pre‐historical resources were
evaluated as part of this IS/MND in their respective sections. Where impacts were determined to
be potentially significant, mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce those impacts to
less‐than‐significant levels. Accordingly, with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and
BIO-2, the Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment and impacts
would be less than significant.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 169
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)?
Less Than Significant. As discussed throughout this IS/MND, implementation of the proposed
Project is not anticipated to cause a cumulative impact in the immediate and surrounding area.
In all instances where the proposed Project has the potential to contribute to a cumulatively
considerable impact to the environment, mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce
potential effects to less than significant levels. As such, with incorporation of the mitigation
measures imposed throughout this IS/MND, the Project would not contribute to environmental
effects that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, and impacts would be less
than significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant. The Project’s potential to result in environmental effects that could
adversely affect human beings, either directly or indirectly, has been discussed throughout this
IS/MND in each respective section. No portion of the proposed Project is anticipated to have or
cause an environmental effect that would cause substantial effects on human beings. A less than
significant impact is anticipated to occur.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 170
This page intentionally left blank.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 171
4.0 REFERENCES
Technical Studies
Kimley-Horn and Associates. March 2021. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment.
-----. March 2021. Noise Assessment.
Jericho Systems. January 29, 2021. Biological Resources Assessment and Jurisdictional Waters
Delineation.
KES Technologies Inc. November 2020. Water Quality Management Plan.
TJW Engineering, Inc. December 21, 2020. Traffic Impact Analysis.
City of Fontana. 2019. Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 – Draft Environmental
Impact Report. Available at https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015--
-2035. Accessed January 14, 2021.
-----. 2019. Chapter 30 – Zoning and Development Code. Available at
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH3
0ZODECO, accessed on January 14, 2021.
-----. (2018). Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035; Draft Environmental Impact
Report; Page 5.3-2. Accessed February 8, 2021. Available at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-
Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update
-----.July 2016. Action Plan for Implementing the North Fontana Conservation Program – Exhibit
3 Mitigation Fees. Available at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/2277/Planning-Development-Fee-
Schedule?bidId=, accessed on February 8, 2021.
-----. (2017). Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; Page 62. Available at
https://fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan.
Accessed January 14, 2021.
-----. (2018). General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report; Page 5.5-5. Available at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-
Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update. Accessed January 14, 2021.
-----. 2017. Appendix E - Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Geologic Hazard Overlays – Landslide &
Liquefaction Susceptibility, Map 7. Available at https://fontana.org/3196/Local-Hazard-
Mitigation-Plan-
LHMP#:~:text=The%20Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan%20below%20is%20an%20update,
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 172
14%2C%202018%20%E2%80%93%
20City%20Council%20Resolution%20No.%202018-072. Accessed January 14, 2021.
-----.General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. 2015-2035. Hydrology and Water
Quality. Available at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-
Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update. Accessed January 15, 2021.
-----. Fontana General Plan Update 2015-2035, Chapter 9 – Community Mobility Circulation,
Exhibit 9.5 Average Daily Trips, March 2017.
-----. 2018. Fontana Fire Protection District Strategic Plan. Accessible at
https://novus.fontana.org/AttachmentViewer.ashx?AttachmentID=16102&ItemID=1210
7. Accessed January 18, 2021.
-----. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Page 61. Available at
https://fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan.
Accessed January 14, 2021.
California Department of Conservation. (2016). California Important Farmland Finder. Available
at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed January 14, 2021.
California Energy Commission. (2021) Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and
Nonresidential Buildings. Available at https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-
topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2019-building-energy-efficiency.
Accessed January 14, 2021.
-----. (2021) Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings.
Available at https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-
energy-efficiency-standards/2019-building-energy-efficiency. Accessed January 14, 2021.
-----. (2018). Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Wildfire Hazards Profile. Available at
https://fontana.org/3196/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan-LHMP. Accessed January 18,
2021.
California Department of Finance. 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State, 2011-2020 with 2010 Census Benchmark.
CALFIRE. 2020. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Viewer. Available at https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.
Accessed on January 18, 2021.
-----. (2020). 2013-2020 Incident Database. Available at https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/.
Accessed January 18, 2021.
California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise
Analysis Protocol, Page 2-29, September 2013.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 173
CalRecycle. 2006. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Available at
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates. Accessed
January 18, 2021.
-----. 2021. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details. Available at
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662.
Accessed March 4, 2021.
County of San Bernardino. 2010. Geologic Hazards Overlays. Available at
http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/GeoHazMaps/FH29C.pdf. Accessed January 14,
2021.
Conservation Biology Institute. 2019. California Mineral Resources. Available at:
https://databasin.org/maps/new#datasets=f2985196ca6b45cf8f2ad604beb95b34.
Accessed January 15, 2021.
Fontana Water Company. (2015). Urban Water Management Plan; Page 3-2. Available at
https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/San-Gabriel-
Fontana_Amended-Final-December-2017-1.pdf. Accessed January 15, 2021.
FHWA, Noise Fundamentals, 2017. Available at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/pol
guide02.cfm. Accessed January 20, 2021.
International Code Council. (2019). 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24,
Part 11. August 21, 2020. Available at
https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBSC2019/chapter-1-administration
Inland Empire Utilities Agency. (2015). IEUA Urban Water Management Plan 2015. Available at
https://www.ieua.org/download/urban-water-management-plan-2015/. Accessed
January 18, 2021.
State of California; Department of Toxic Substances Control (EnviroStor). (2021). Hazardous
Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese). Available at
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?PAGE=3&CMD=search&ocieerp=
&business_name=&main_street_number=&main_street_name=&city=&zip=&county=&
branch=&status=ACT%2CBKLG%2CCOM&site_type=CSITES%2CFUDS&cleanup_type=&n
pl=&funding=&reporttype=CORTESE&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANC
ES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29&federal_superfund=&state_response=&voluntary_clea
nup=&school_cleanup=&operating=&post_closure=&non_operating=&corrective_actio
n=&tiered_permit=&evaluation=&spec_prog=&national_priority_list=&senate=&congre
ss=&assembly=&critical_pol=&business_type=&case_type=&display_results=&school_di
strict=&pub=&hwmp=False&permitted=&pc_permitted=&inspections=&complaints=&c
ensustract=&cesdecile=&ORDERBY=city&next=Next+50. Accessed January 14, 2021.
Courtplace at Fontana
City of Fontana Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2022 Page 174
Southern California Association of Governments. (August 2020). City of Fontana Local Housing
Data. Available at https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/fontana_he_0920.pdf?1603257841. Accessed August 22, 2020.
-----. 2016. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS). Available at http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx. Accessed on
January 15, 2021.
United States Census Bureau. (2018). Employment Status; 2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject
Tables. Available at
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?tid=ACSST5Y2018.S2301&g=1600000US624680.
Accessed January 15, 2021.
United States Energy Information Administration. (November 15, 2018). California State Profile
and Energy Estimates. Available at www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA. Accessed
January 14, 2021.
U.S Energy Information Administration. (2020). Use of Energy Explained. Available at
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/. Accessed January 14, 2021.
United States Geological Survey. (2019). U.S. Quaternary Faults GIS Map. Available at
https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a
9b0aadf88412fcf. Accessed January 14, 2021.
United States Department of Agriculture. 2020. Websoil Survey. Available at
https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed
January 14, 2021.