HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration JPI AptsPUBLIC DRAFT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Jefferson Fontana
Apartment Project
OCTOBER 2023
Prepared for:
CITY OF FONTANA
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Contact: George Velarde, Assistant Planner
Prepared by:
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Kristen Stoner
14386.05 i
OCTOBER 2023
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE
Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................. v
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance ................................................................................ 1
1.3 Public Review Process ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.4 Initial Study Checklist ............................................................................................................................. 2
2 Project Description ............................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................................ 3
2.3 Project Characteristics ........................................................................................................................... 4
2.4 Project Construction and Phasing ......................................................................................................... 5
2.5 Project Approvals .................................................................................................................................... 5
3 Initial Study Checklist........................................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................ 11
3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................................... 13
3.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 15
3.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................... 30
3.5 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................. 36
3.6 Energy .................................................................................................................................................. 41
3.7 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................ 47
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................ 51
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................................... 58
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................................... 63
3.11 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................................................... 68
3.12 Mineral Resources .............................................................................................................................. 69
3.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................................... 69
3.14 Population and Housing ...................................................................................................................... 75
3.15 Public Services .................................................................................................................................... 76
3.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................ 78
3.17 Transportation ..................................................................................................................................... 80
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 89
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................................................. 95
3.20 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................................... 100
3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................................. 102
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 ii
OCTOBER 2023
4 References and Preparers .............................................................................................................................. 105
4.1 References Cited ............................................................................................................................... 105
4.2 List of Preparers ................................................................................................................................ 110
APPENDICES
A-1 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emission, and Energy Modeling Inputs and Outputs
A-2 Construction Health Risk Assessment
B Biological Resources Technical Memorandum
C Arborist Report
D Archaeological Report
E Geotechnical Due Diligence Evaluation
F-1 Phase I ESA
F-2 Limited Phase II ESA
G Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
H Noise and Vibration Memorandum
I Transportation Attachments
FIGURES
2-1 Project Location .............................................................................................................................................. 111
2-2 General Plan Land Use Designation .............................................................................................................. 113
2-3 Zoning Designation ......................................................................................................................................... 115
2-4 Site Plan ........................................................................................................................................................... 117
2-5 Conceptual Elevations .................................................................................................................................... 119
2-6 Tree Plan .......................................................................................................................................................... 121
3.2-1 Agricultural Resources .................................................................................................................................... 123
3.4-1 Biological Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 125
TABLES
2-1 Anticipated Project Construction Schedule ........................................................................................................ 5
3.3-1 South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Significance Thresholds ..................................... 18
3.3-2 Construction Scenario Assumptions ................................................................................................................ 20
3.3-3 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ..................................................... 21
3.3-4 Estimated Maximum Daily Operation Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions .......................................................... 22
3.3-5 Construction Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis .............................................................................. 24
3.3-6 American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model
Principal Parameters ........................................................................................................................................ 27
3.6-1 Construction Equipment Diesel Demand ........................................................................................................ 42
3.6-2 Construction Worker and Vendor Gasoline and Diesel Demand ................................................................... 42
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 iii
OCTOBER 2023
3.6-3 Operational Annual Mobile Source Petroleum Demand ................................................................................. 44
3.8-1 Estimated Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................... 53
3.8-2 Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................... 55
3.13-1 Construction Noise Model Results Summary .................................................................................................. 70
3.13-2 Stationary Operations Noise Modeling Results ............................................................................................... 72
3.13-3 Predicted Roadway Noise Change – Existing plus Project ............................................................................. 73
3.17-1 Summary of Project TAZ VMT ........................................................................................................................... 85
3.17-2 VMT of Paseo Verde Apartments Parcel north of Project ............................................................................... 86
3.17-3 VMT of Peachtree Apartments and Juniper Village Parcels northeast of Project ......................................... 86
3.17-4 VMT of Park Village Apartments Parcel northeast of Project ......................................................................... 87
3.18-1 Assembly Bill 52 Native American Tribal Outreach Results ........................................................................... 91
3.19-1 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (Acre-Feet per Year) ........................................................ 98
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 iv
OCTOBER 2023
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
14386.05 v
OCTOBER 2023
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
AB Assembly Bill
ADT average daily trips
AERMOD American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory
Model
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ATP Active Transportation Plan
BMP Best Management Practice
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CH4 methane
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System
City City of Fontana
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
County San Bernardino County
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
dBA A-weighted decibel
DPM diesel particulate matter
EIR environmental impact report
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FFPD Fontana Fire Protection District
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FUSD Fontana Unified School District
FWC Fontana Water Company
GHG greenhouse gas
gpd gallons per day
GWP global warming potential
HARP2 Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program Version 2
HIC Chronic Hazard Index
HRA health risk assessment
I Interstate
IEUA Inland Empire Utilities Agency
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 vi
OCTOBER 2023
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
ips inches per second
IS initial study
Ldn day/night average sound level
Leq equivalent continuous sound level (time-averaged sound level)
LOS level of service
LST localized significance threshold
MND mitigated negative declaration
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MT metric ton
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
N2O nitrous oxide
NOx oxides of nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
O3 ozone
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns
PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns
PPV peak particle velocity
project Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SBCTA San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOx sulfur oxides
SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
TAZ traffic analysis zone
TCR tribal cultural resource
TPA Transit Priority Area
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WMXU-1 Walkable Mixed-Use Corridor and Downtown
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
14386.05 1
OCTOBER 2023
1 Introduction
1.1 Project Overview
The City of Fontana (City) received an application from JPI (project applicant) requesting the following discretionary
approvals for development of the Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project (project or proposed project), located at the
southwest corner of Valley Boulevard and Juniper Avenue, Fontana, California:
▪ Master Case No. 22-145
▪ Tentative Parcel Map 20669 (TPM No. 22-034)
▪ Design Review No. 22-065
The approximately 11.6-acre (gross) project site is currently vacant. The project involves the construction of a
437-unit multifamily development, 4,000 square feet of retail space, 14,150 square feet of leasing and amenity
space, and associated improvements.
The project is subject to analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, the City is the lead agency with principal responsibility for considering the project
for approval (14 CCR 15000 et seq.).
1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
The City is the lead CEQA agency responsible for the review and approval of the proposed project. Based on the
findings of the initial study (IS), the City has made the determination that a mitigated negative declaration (MND) is
the appropriate environmental document to be prepared in compliance with CEQA (California Public Resources
Code, Section 21000 et seq.). As stated in CEQA Section 21064, an MND may be prepared for a project subject to
CEQA when an IS has identified no potentially significant effects on the environment.
This draft IS/MND has been prepared by the City as lead agency and is in conformance with Section 15070(a) of
the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). The purpose of the MND and the IS Checklist is to determine any
potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project and to incorporate mitigation measures into
the project design, as necessary, to reduce or eliminate the significant or potentially significant effects of the project.
1.3 Public Review Process
In accordance with CEQA, a good faith effort was made during preparation of this IS/MND to contact affected
agencies, organizations, and persons who may have an interest in this project.
In reviewing the IS/MND, affected public agencies and the interested public should focus on the sufficiency of the
document in identifying and analyzing the project’s possible impacts on the environment. The draft IS/MND and related
documents are available for review on City’s website (https://www.fontana.org/2137/Environmental-Documents).
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 2
OCTOBER 2023
Comments on the IS/MND may be submitted in writing before the end of the 25-day public review period (October
27, 2023 through November 20, 2023). Following the close of the public comment period, the City will consider
this IS/MND and comments thereto in determining whether to approve the proposed project.
Comments on the IS/MND should be addressed to:
George Velarde, Assistant Planner
City of Fontana, Community Development Department, Planning Division
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
909.350.6569
Email: gvelarde@fontana.org
1.4 Initial Study Checklist
Dudek, under the City’s guidance, prepared the project’s Environmental Checklist (i.e., IS) per CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15063–15065. The CEQA Guidelines include a suggested checklist to indicate whether a project would
have an adverse impact on the environment. The checklist is provided in Section 3 of this document. Following the
Environmental Checklist, Sections 3.1 through 3.21 include an explanation and discussion of each significance
determination make in the checklist for the project.
For this IS/MND, the following four responses to each individual environmental issue area are included in the checklist:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Less-than-Significant Impact
No Impact
The checklist and accompanying explanation of checklist responses provide the information and analysis necessary
to assess relative environmental impacts of the project. In doing so, the City will determine the extent of additional
environmental review, if any, for the project.
14386.05 3
OCTOBER 2023
2 Project Description
2.1 Project Location
The project site is in the central portion of the City in southwestern San Bernardino County (County) (Figure 2-1,
Project Location). Regionally, the City is bordered by the cities of Rialto, Rancho Cucamonga, and areas of
unincorporated San Bernardino County. Locally, the project site is located east of Cypress Avenue, south of Valley
Boulevard, north of Interstate (I) 10, and west of Juniper Avenue. The approximately 11.6-acre site (gross) consists of
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 0251-171-19, 0251-321-27, -18, -24, -21, -25, -26, -19, -20, -22, -23, -02, -15, -16, and
a portion of 0251-171-03, -14, and -29.
2.2 Environmental Setting
City of Fontana
The City is located on an alluvial plain flowing southward from the confluence of Lytle Creek and the San Sevaine
wash. The San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains to the north, and the Jurupa Hills to the south, provide a
dramatic backdrop for the developed areas of the City. In the early 1900s, the City was a diversified agricultural
community, producing major commodities such as citrus, grain, grapes, poultry, and swine. In 1942, the area began
to transition to a more industrial base with the founding of the Kaiser Steel Mill. By the 1950s, the City was the
region’s leading producer of steel and steel-related products. Today, the City is both a bedroom community, with a
commuting population of workers, and, due to its suburban location near several major freeway and rail
transportation corridors, a major Inland Empire hub of warehousing and distribution centers. These uses are located
primarily in the City’s southern half, adjacent to the I-10 corridor. Heavy industrial areas surround the former
Kaiser Steel plant and along the I-10 corridor between Valley Boulevard and Slover Avenue (City of Fontana 2003).
A range of residential neighborhoods has developed in the City. The established single-family and multifamily
residential neighborhoods and commercial core of the City is largely contained between Baseline and
Valley Boulevard. Newer residential development has occurred along the northern edge of the City west of I-15
and radiating north and south of the SR-210 corridor. A substantial portion of the City, north of SR-210, is planned
for development as a mix of planned communities and job centers (City of Fontana 2018a).
Existing Project Site
The approximately 11.6-acre rectangular shaped project site is currently vacant with no existing structures. The site
is undeveloped, and currently contains non-native grassland and disturbed habitat. The project site is located on
the southwest corner of Valley Boulevard and Juniper Avenue. The General Plan land use designation for the project
site is Walkable Mixed-Use Corridor and Downtown (WMXU-1), and the current zoning is Form-Based Code (FBC)
Valley Gateway District (Figure 2-2, Land Use Designation; Figure 2-3, Zoning Designation).
Surrounding Land Uses
Surrounding land uses include WMXU-1 to the north, east and west of the project site, resulting in a variety of
residential and commercial uses, and Light Industrial uses to the southwest of the project site (see Figure 2-2 and
Figure 2-3). I-10 is located to the south of the project site.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 4
OCTOBER 2023
2.3 Project Characteristics
The project involves the construction of a 437-unit multifamily development, 4,000 square feet of retail space,
14,150 square feet of leasing and amenity space, and associated improvements. The project would consist of eight,
4-story residential buildings that contain one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. The project would provide 126 one-
bedroom units, 271 two-bedroom units, and 40 three-bedroom units. The project is divided down the center,
providing an eastern and western portion of the site. Each portion of the site would have a main entry access point
with sliding vehicle entrance gates. Up to 4,000 square feet of retail space is proposed in the northeastern corner
of the site. Additionally, the project would include associated leasing buildings, fitness centers, pool areas, fire pits,
lounge areas, a dog park, and other miscellaneous amenities divided between the eastern and western portions of
the site (Figure 2-4, Site Plan). A total of 63,695 square feet of landscaped areas are proposed throughout the
project site. Figure 2-5 provides conceptual elevations of the project.
The residential buildings would vary in height between 45 feet 10 inches to 55 feet 6 inches and the amenity
buildings would vary in height between 13 feet 9 inches to 32 feet 2 inches. The architecture would be
contemporary in style and would utilize neutral white and gray tones with accents of wood and painted blue siding.
The overall scale of the four-story building is broken down by one- and two-story massing elements, creating a
pedestrian scale at the base of the building.
Site Access and Parking
The project site would be accessible via four entries (see Figure 2-4, Site Plan). Access to the eastern portion of the
site would be a driveway located along Juniper Avenue, with two sliding vehicle gates providing access to residential
parking stalls, and an additional driveway along Juniper Avenue for exiting traffic only. The primary access to the
western portion of the site would be a driveway off the western project boundary, through an existing parking lot
located off Valley Boulevard. The western access would also include two sliding vehicle gates providing access to
residential parking stalls. A fourth access point to the project site would be provided at the south of the site along
Washington Drive for exiting traffic only.
A total of 658 on-site surface parking stalls would be provided, with 643 dedicated residential stalls and
15 dedicated retail stalls. Residential parking would consist of 403 open standard stalls, 120 open tandem stalls,
and 120 garage stalls.
On-Site and Off-Site Adjacent Improvements
The project would also include improvements to Valley Boulevard and Juniper Avenue along the project’s street
frontages, including a landscape setback, a new sidewalk with curb and gutter, and half-width frontage
improvements within the roadway right-of-way. Consistent with City standards, all existing overhead utility service
lines adjoining and interior to the project site would be undergrounded, and new City streetlights would be installed
within the dedicated right-of-way. In conformance with the City’s approved plant palette list, a variety of trees,
shrubs, plants, and land covers would be planted in the 63,695 square feet of landscaped areas proposed
throughout the project site. Refer to Figure 2-6 for the project tree plan.
Utility and Infrastructure Improvements
The project site would connect to existing domestic water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, and dry utility infrastructure
facilities located adjacent to the site.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 5
OCTOBER 2023
2.4 Project Construction and Phasing
The project applicant intends to commence construction on or around September 2024. It is anticipated that
construction would take approximately 34 months, concluding in May 2027.1 Table 2-1 provides a tentative project
construction schedule, as used in air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impact analysis (refer to
Section 3.3 Air Quality, and Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this IS/MND; also see Appendix A-1 for Air
Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emission, and Energy Modeling Inputs and Outputs).
Table 2-1. Anticipated Project Construction Schedule
Construction Phase Duration Phase Start Date Phase End Date
Site Preparation 1.5 months September 4, 2024 October 15, 2024
Grading 1.5 months October 19, 2024 November 29, 2024
Building Construction 26 months December 2, 2024 February 8, 2027
Architectural Coating 18 months January 5, 2026 July 6, 2027
Paving 4 months January 7, 2027 May 10, 2027
Source: Appendix A-1, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emission, and Energy Modeling Inputs and Outputs
2.5 Project Approvals
The following discretionary approvals would be required prior to implementing the project:
▪ Master Case No. 22-145
▪ Tentative Parcel Map 20669 (TPM No. 22-034)
▪ Design Review No. 22-065
1 The analysis assumes a construction start date of September 2024, which represents the earliest date construction would initiate.
Assuming the earliest start date for construction represents the worst-case scenario for criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions,
because equipment and vehicle emission factors for later years would be slightly less due to more stringent standards for in-use
off-road equipment and heavy-duty trucks, as well as fleet turnover replacing older equipment and vehicles in later years.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 6
OCTOBER 2023
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
14386.05 7
OCTOBER 2023
3 Initial Study Checklist
1. Project title:
Jefferson Fontana Apartment Project
2. Lead agency name and address:
City of Fontana
Community Development Department, Planning Division
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
3. Contact person and phone number:
George Velarde, Assistant Planner
City of Fontana, Community Development Department, Planning Division
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
909.350.6569
gvelarde@fontana.org
4. Project location:
Southwest corner of Valley Boulevard and Juniper Avenue, Fontana, California.
5. Project sponsor’s name and address:
JPI
11988 El Camino Real, Suite #200
San Diego, California 92130
6. General plan designation:
Walkable Mixed-Use Corridor and Downtown (WMXU-1)
7. Zoning:
Form-Based Code (FBC) Valley Gateway District
8. Description of project. (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the
project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional
sheets if necessary):
The approximately 11.6-acre (gross) project site is currently vacant. The project involves the construction
of 437 dwelling units, 4,000 square feet of retail space, 14,150 square feet of leasing and amenity space,
and associated improvements.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 8
OCTOBER 2023
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project’s surroundings:
Surrounding land uses include WMXU-1 to the north, east and west of the project site, resulting in a variety
of residential and commercial uses, and Light Industrial uses to the southwest of the project site. I-10 is
located to the south of the project site.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control (for project coverage under the Construction General Permit and
compliance with Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System [MS4] NPDES Permit). The City’s discretionary
approvals are listed in Section 2.5, Project Approvals.
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested
consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation
that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources,
procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Refer to Section 3.18 (Tribal Cultural Resources) for details.
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 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 Mandatory Findings
of Significance
10/24/2023
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 10
OCTOBER 2023
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer
is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should
be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project would
not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative
as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or
less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the
determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.
“Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than
Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they
reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this
case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document
should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies
should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental
effects in whatever format is selected.
The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 11
OCTOBER 2023
3.1 Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The City of Fontana General Plan EIR identifies both the San Gabriel
Mountains and the Jurupa Hills as visually prominent topographic features that provide a scenic vista from
mobile and stationary viewing locations throughout the City (City of Fontana 2018b). The project site is
located approximately seven miles south and 1.5 miles north, respectively, from these scenic resources.
Based on these distances, as well as the presence of existing intervening development and topographical
variation, the project site is not located within the viewshed of these scenic vistas, and the project would
not block views of or from these scenic resources. Additionally, the current viewshed within the project area
consists of existing residential and commercial development. Thus, the inclusion of the project within the
existing viewshed would be consistent with views currently found throughout the project area. Therefore,
impacts associated with scenic vistas would be less than significant.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) designates official and eligible scenic
highways within the state. According to the Caltrans California State Scenic Highway System Map (Caltrans
2018), the only officially designated state scenic highway in San Bernardino County is a 16-mile portion of
State Route 38 from South Fork Campground to State Lane. This roadway segment is located approximately
35 miles east of the project site in the San Bernardino Mountains. Based on this distance and intervening
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 12
OCTOBER 2023
natural topography and constructed structures, the project site is not located within the viewshed of this
officially designated state scenic highway. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not
result in an impact related to scenic resources within a state scenic highway.
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. Section 21071 of the California Public Resources Code (i.e., CEQA) defines
an “urbanized area” as “(a) an incorporated city that meets either of the following criteria: (1) Has a
population of at least 100,000 persons, or (2) Has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the
population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least
100,000 persons.” As of July 1, 2021, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated the population of the City to be
210,761 persons (U.S. Census Bureau 2021). Therefore, the City is located within an urbanized area as
defined by CEQA.
To ensure that both current and future development within the City is designed and constructed to
conform to existing visual character and quality of the surrounding built environment, the City’s Municipal
Code includes design standards, specific to each Zoning District, related to building height, parking,
landscaping requirements, and other visual considerations. The purpose is to regulate and restrict the
uses of buildings and structures, and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. The City’s General
Plan Land Use Map designates the project site as WMXU-1, and the City’s Zoning Map shows the site
zoned as Form-Based Code (FBC) Valley Gateway District. The proposed project will be required to be
developed in accordance with the existing land use and zoning designations. The project’s consistency
with these land use and zoning designations would be reviewed during the plan-check phase of project
review. Therefore, because the project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations
governing scenic quality, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Additionally, development of the project would be consistent with surrounding development and would not
degrade the existing visual character of the project site and its surroundings. The project site is located in
an urbanized area of the City and is currently characterized as an undeveloped site. Construction of the
project would require the use of heavy machinery such as large trucks, cranes, bull dozers, and other
equipment needed for construction activities. These activities would be temporary and would conclude with
completion of construction of the project.
Once construction of the project is complete, the condition of the site would change from an undeveloped
site with grading activities to a developed condition for residential purposes. The project would be built
consistent with existing patterns of development in the surrounding area, which is becoming more
urbanized, including the residential neighborhood north of the project site, and the commercial uses east,
south, and west of the project site. In addition, the project would be subject to design review by the City and
would be required to meet the City’s conditions of approval, which will ensure that proposed structures and
landscaping would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project consistent with the development standards in the City’s Municipal
Code, as required by the City’s conditions of approval and as reviewed as part of the plan check process,
would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings or
result in significant visual impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 13
OCTOBER 2023
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. Currently, there are no existing lighting sources on the project site since it
is undeveloped and vacant; however, the project site is in an area where nighttime lighting is a common
feature. Existing light sources in the area include streetlights installed on Valley Boulevard to the north of
the project site and local neighborhood roads, exterior and interior lighting associated with residential and
commercial development in the surrounding area, and lights from motorists.
The project would include exterior lighting for safety and security purposes. The project would comply with the
California Green Building Standards, County ordinances, and the City’s Municipal Code requirements with
respect to lighting. Parking and site lighting would incorporate cutoff lenses to keep light from spilling over
onto adjacent properties and to keep light sources from being visible on or directing light rays onto adjoining
property as established in Section 30-471 of the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, based on compliance with
local requirements, impacts associated with light and nighttime glare would be less than significant.
3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of
forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;
and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 14
OCTOBER 2023
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. The project site is currently a vacant parcel with no existing uses. According to the California
Department of Conservation Important Farmland Finder (CDOC 2016), the project site is designated as
“Urban and Built-Up Land” (refer to Figure 3.2-1, Agricultural Resources) and does not contain Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (collectively, “Important Farmland”). The
project would not occur within a farmland location and would not result in the conversion of land to non-
agricultural use. Therefore, there would be no impact related to converting Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. According to the California Department of Conservation Important Farmland Finder
(CDOC 2016), the project site is designated as Urban and Built-up Land. Neither the project site nor the
surrounding project area contains Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(collectively, Important Farmland). In addition, City’s General Plan EIR does not identify any land under
Williamson Act or Farmland Security Zone contracts on the project site or within the project area. Further,
the City’s Zoning Map does not show agricultural zoning districts in the broader project area. Therefore,
there would be no impact related to conflict with existing zoning or a Williamson Act Contract.
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
No Impact. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, “…no portion of the City is designated or zoned or
proposed to be designated or zoned as forest land or timberland.” Additionally, no portion of the site is
considered forest land2 as defined in California Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). Timberland3 (as
2 “Forest land” is land that can support 10% native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and
that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water
quality, recreation, and other public benefits.
3 “Timberland” means land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental
forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and
other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 15
OCTOBER 2023
defined by California Public Resources Code Section 4526) or timberland-zoned timberland production4 (as
defined by Section 51104(g) of the Government Code) is not present on site, nor are there any active or
potential commercial timber operations present in the area. Therefore, the project would not conflict with
lands zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland production and no impact would occur.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. The project site is designated as “Walkable Mixed-Use Corridor and Downtown” and is located
within a developed area. There are no areas zoned for forest land within the vicinity of the project site.
Therefore, there would be no impact related to the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-
forest use. No impact would occur.
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. According to the California Department of Conservation Important Farmland Finder (CDOC 2016),
the project site is designated as Urban and Built-up Land. Neither the project site nor the surrounding project
area contains Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (collectively,
Important Farmland). In addition, City’s General Plan EIR does not identify any land under Williamson Act or
Farmland Security Zone contracts on the project site or within the project area. Further, the City’s Zoning Map
does not show agricultural zoning districts in the broader project area. No impact would occur.
Regarding forestland and timberland, the project site is designated as “Walkable Mixed-Use Corridor and
Downtown” and is located within a developed area. There are no areas zoned for forest land within the
vicinity of the project site. As such, the Project would not involve changes to the existing environment that,
due to its location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
3.3 Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
III. 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?
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?
4 “Timberland production zone” means an area is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and
harvesting timber and compatible uses.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 16
OCTOBER 2023
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which
includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County,
and is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
SCAQMD administers SCAB’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which is a comprehensive document
outlining an air pollution control program for attaining the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS)
and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Currently, the most recent approved SCAQMD AQMP
is the 2022 AQMP (SCAQMD 2022), which was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board in
December 2022. The SCAQMD 2022 AQMP was developed to address the attainment of the 2015 national
8-hour ozone ambient air quality standard (70 parts per billion) for the SCAB and Coachella Valley. The
2022 AQMP provides actions, strategies, and steps needed to reduce air pollutant emissions and meet the
ozone standard by 2037.
The purpose of a consistency finding regarding the AQMP is to determine if a project is consistent with the
assumptions and objectives of the 2022 AQMP and if it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply
with federal and state air quality standards. SCAQMD has established criteria for determining consistency
with the currently applicable AQMP in Chapter 12, Sections 12.2 and 12.3 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Handbook. These criteria are as follows (SCAQMD 1993):
▪ Consistency Criterion No. 1: Whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or
severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely
attainment of the ambient air quality standards or interim emission reductions in the AQMP.
▪ Consistency Criterion No. 2: Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or
increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.
To address the first criterion, project-generated criteria air pollutant emissions have been estimated and
analyzed for significance and are addressed under Section 3.3(b). Detailed results of this analysis are included
in Appendix A-1, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emission, and Energy Modeling Inputs and Outputs. As presented
in Section 3.3(b), the project would not generate construction or operational criteria air pollutant emissions
that exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds, and the project would therefore be consistent with Criterion No. 1.
The second criterion regarding the potential of the project to exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or
increments based on the year of project buildout and phase is primarily assessed by determining
consistency between the project’s land use designations and its potential to generate population growth.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 17
OCTOBER 2023
In general, projects are considered consistent with, and not in conflict with or obstructing implementation
of, the AQMP if the growth in socioeconomic factors is consistent with the underlying regional plans used
to develop the AQMP (SCAQMD 1993). The SCAQMD primarily uses demographic growth forecasts for
various socioeconomic categories (e.g., population, housing, and employment by industry) developed by
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for its 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/
Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (SCAG 2020a). SCAQMD uses this document, which is based
on general plans for cities and counties in the SCAB, to develop the AQMP emissions inventory
(SCAQMD 2022). The SCAG RTP/SCS and associated Regional Growth Forecast are generally consistent
with the local plans; therefore, the 2022 AQMP is generally consistent with local government plans.
The General Plan land use designation for the project site is WMXU-1, and the current zoning is Form-Based
Code (FBC) Valley Gateway District. Per the City’s zoning code, Valley Gateway District “is intended to
encourage pedestrian and transit-oriented development. Land uses should include a mixture of housing
types, retail and services, general and medical office, entertainment and education.” As the project includes
a mix of residential and retail land uses, the project would not conflict with the existing land use and zoning
designations. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the existing zoning of the project site and
does not propose a change in land use designation. As such, since the proposed project is not anticipated
to result in residential population growth or generate an increase in employment that would conflict with
existing employment-population projections, it would not conflict with or exceed the assumptions in the
2022 AQMP. Accordingly, the project is consistent with the SCAG RTP/SCS forecasts used in development
of the SCAQMD AQMP.
In summary, based on the considerations presented for the two criteria, impacts relating to the project’s
potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable AQMP would be less than significant.
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of
regional pollutants is a result of past and present development, and the SCAQMD develops and implements
plans for future attainment of ambient air quality standards. Based on these considerations, project-level
thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are used to determine whether a project’s individual
emissions would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to air quality. If a project’s emissions would
exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds, it would be considered to have a cumulatively considerable
contribution. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not
considered to be cumulatively significant (SCAQMD 2003a).
A quantitative analysis was conducted to determine whether the project might result in emissions of criteria
air pollutants that may cause exceedances of the NAAQS or CAAQS or cumulatively contribute to existing
nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Criteria air pollutants include ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide, particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or
equal to 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to
2.5 microns (PM2.5), and lead. Pollutants that are evaluated herein include volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), which are important because they are precursors to O3, as well as CO,
sulfur oxides (SOx), PM10, and PM2.5.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 18
OCTOBER 2023
Regarding NAAQS and CAAQS attainment status,5 the SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for
federal and state O3 and PM2.5 standards (CARB 2019; EPA 2020). The SCAB is also designated as a
nonattainment area for state PM10 standards; however, it is designated as an attainment area for federal
PM10 standards. The SCAB is designated as an attainment area for federal and state CO and NO2 standards,
as well as for state sulfur dioxide standards. Although the SCAB has been designated as nonattainment for
the federal rolling 3-month average lead standard, it is designated attainment for the state lead standard.6
The project would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants for which the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have adopted ambient air quality standards (i.e.,
the NAAQS and CAAQS). Projects that emit these pollutants have the potential to cause, or contribute to,
violations of these standards. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds, as revised in
April 2019, set forth quantitative emission significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants, which, if
exceeded, would indicate the potential for a project to contribute to violations of the NAAQS or CAAQS.
Table 3.3-1 lists the revised SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds (SCAQMD 2019).
Table 3.3-1. South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality
Significance Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants Mass Daily Thresholds
Pollutant Construction (Pounds per Day) Operation (Pounds per Day)
VOCs 75 55
NOx 100 55
CO 550 550
SOx 150 150
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
Leada 3 3
TACs and Odor Thresholds
TACsb Maximum incremental cancer risk 10 in 1 million
Cancer Burden >0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas 1 in 1 million)
Chronic and acute hazard index 1.0 (project increment)
Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402
Source: SCAQMD 2019.
Notes: VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate
matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; TAC = toxic air contaminant; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District. GHG emissions thresholds for industrial projects, as added in the March 2015 revision to the SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds,
were not include included in this table as they are addressed within the GHG emissions analysis and not the air quality analysis.
a The phase out of leaded gasoline started in 1976. Since gasoline no longer contains lead, the project is not anticipated to result
in impacts related to lead; therefore, it is not discussed in this analysis.
b TACs include carcinogens and noncarcinogens.
5 An area is designated as in attainment when it is in compliance with the NAAQS and/or the CAAQS. These standards for the
maximum level of a given air pollutant that can exist in the outdoor air without unacceptable effects on human health or the public
welfare are set by the EPA and CARB, respectively. Attainment = meets the standards; attainment/maintenance = achieves the
standards after a nonattainment designation; nonattainment = does not meet the standards.
6 Re-designation of the lead NAAQS designation to attainment for the Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB is expected based on
current monitoring data. The phase-out of leaded gasoline started in 1976. Since gasoline no longer contains lead, the project is
not anticipated to result in impacts related to lead; therefore, it is not discussed in this analysis.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 19
OCTOBER 2023
The project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase for O3, which is a nonattainment
pollutant, if the project’s construction or operational emissions would exceed the SCAQMD VOC or NOx
thresholds shown in Table 3.3-1. These emission-based thresholds for O3 precursors are intended to serve
as a surrogate for an O3 significance threshold (i.e., the potential for adverse O3 impacts to occur) because
O3 itself is not emitted directly, and the effects of an individual project’s emissions of O3 precursors (i.e.,
VOCs and NOx) on O3 levels in ambient air cannot be determined through air quality models or other
quantitative methods.
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 was used to estimate emissions
from construction and operation of the project, with the exception of operational mobile source emissions.7
The following discussion quantitatively evaluates project-generated construction and operational emissions
and impacts that would result from implementation of the project.
Construction Emissions
Construction of the project would result in the temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed caused
by on-site sources (e.g., off-road construction equipment, soil disturbance, and VOC off-gassing from
architectural coatings and asphalt pavement application) and off-site sources (e.g., vendor trucks, haul
trucks, and worker vehicle trips). Specifically, entrained dust results from the exposure of earth surfaces to
wind from the direct disturbance and movement of soil, resulting in PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Internal
combustion engines used by construction equipment, haul trucks, vendor trucks (i.e., delivery trucks), and
worker vehicles would result in emissions of VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction emissions can
vary from day to day depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation, and, for dust, the
prevailing weather conditions.
Emissions from the construction phase of the project were estimated using CalEEMod default values. For
the purpose of conservatively estimating project emissions, construction was modeled beginning in
September 2024 and concluding in July 20278 and lasting 34 months. The analysis contained herein is
based on the following schedule assumptions (duration of phases is approximate):
▪ Site preparation: 1.5 months (September 2024 – October 2024)
▪ Grading: 1.5 months (October 2024 – November 2024)
▪ Building construction: 26 months (December 2024–February 2027)
▪ Architectural Coating: 18 months (January 2024- July 2027)
▪ Paving: 4 months (January 2027 – May 2027)
Construction modeling assumptions for equipment and vehicles are provided in Table 3.3-2. Equipment
mix and horsepower were based on CalEEMod default values, including equipment load factor. The site
would be balanced on site without the need for import or export of earthwork materials during the grading
phase. For the analysis, it was assumed that heavy-duty construction equipment would be operating at the
site 5 days per week.
7 CalEEMod is a statewide computer model developed in cooperation with air districts throughout the state to quantify criteria air pollutant
emissions associated with construction and operational activities from a variety of land use projects, including residential, office and retail.
8 The analysis assumes a construction start date of September 2024, which represents the earliest date construction would initiate.
Assuming the earliest start date for construction represents the worst-case scenario for criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions,
because equipment and vehicle emission factors for later years would be slightly less due to more stringent standards for in-use
off-road equipment and heavy-duty trucks, as well as fleet turnover replacing older equipment and vehicles in later years.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 20
OCTOBER 2023
Table 3.3-2. Construction Scenario Assumptions
Construction
Phase
One-Way Vehicle Trips Equipment
Average
Daily
Worker
Trips
Average
Daily
Vendor
Truck
Trips
Total Haul
Truck
Trips Equipment Type Quantity
Usage
Hours
Site
Preparation
18 6 0 Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8
Grading 20 6 0 Excavators 2 8
Graders 1 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8
Scrapers 2 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8
Building
Construction
430 92 0 Cranes 1 7
Forklifts 3 8
Generator Sets 1 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7
Welders 1 8
Paving 16 0 0 Pavers 2 8
Paving Equipment 2 8
Rollers 2 8
Architectural
Coating
86 0 0 Air Compressors 1 6
Emissions generated during construction (and operation) of the project are subject to the rules and
regulations of the SCAQMD. Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, requires the implementation of measures to control
the emission of visible fugitive/nuisance dust, such as wetting soils that would be disturbed. It was
assumed that the active sites would be watered at least two times daily in compliance with requirements
of SCAQMD standard dust control measures in Rule 403. The application of architectural coatings, such as
exterior/interior paint and other finishes, and the application of asphalt pavement would also produce VOC
emissions; however, the contractor is required to procure architectural coatings that comply with the
requirements of SCAQMD’s Rule 1113, Architectural Coatings.9
Table 3.3-3 shows the estimated maximum daily construction emissions associated with the construction
phase of the project.
9 SCAQMD Rule 1113, Architectural Coatings, requires manufacturers, distributors, and end users of architectural and industrial
maintenance coatings to reduce VOC emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the VOC content of
various coating categories.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 21
OCTOBER 2023
Table 3.3-3. Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Year
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Pounds Per Day
2024 3.29 32.65 31.57 0.08 10.32 5.74
2025 2.74 16.78 30.53 0.08 5.97 1.98
2026 25.81 17.99 34.02 0.09 6.98 2.29
2027 3.73 25.20 44.07 0.01 6.56 2.41
Peak emissions 25.81 32.65 44.07 0.09 10.32 5.74
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Appendix A-1.
Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter;
PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District.
The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod.
These estimates reflect control of fugitive dust required by SCAQMD Rule 403.
As shown in Table 3.3-3, daily construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance
thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5 during project construction, and short-term construction
impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Emissions
Emissions from the operational phase of the project and operation of existing land uses were estimated
using CalEEMod. Operational year 2027 was assumed following completion of construction.
Area Sources
CalEEMod was used to estimate operational emissions from area sources, including emissions from
consumer product use, architectural coatings, and landscape maintenance equipment. Emissions
associated with natural gas usage in space heating and water heating are calculated in the building energy
use module of CalEEMod, as described in the following text.
Consumer products are chemically formulated products used by household and institutional consumers,
including detergents; cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; personal care products;
home, lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; sanitizers; aerosol paints; and automotive specialty
products. Other paint products, furniture coatings, or architectural coatings are not considered consumer
products (CAPCOA 2017). Consumer product VOC emissions were estimated in CalEEMod based on the
floor area of buildings and default factor of pounds of VOC per building square foot per day. The CalEEMod
default values for consumer products were assumed.
VOC off-gassing emissions result from evaporation of solvents contained in surface coatings, such as in
paints and primers used during building maintenance. CalEEMod calculates the VOC evaporative emissions
from the application of surface coatings based on the VOC emission factor, the building square footage,
the assumed fraction of surface area, and the reapplication rate. The VOC emissions factor is based on the
VOC content of the surface coatings, and SCAQMD’s Rule 1113, Architectural Coatings, governs the VOC
content for interior and exterior coatings. This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, and end users of
architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce VOC emissions from the use of these coatings,
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 22
OCTOBER 2023
primarily by placing limits on the VOC content of various coating categories (SCAQMD 2016). CalEEMod
default values were assumed, including the surface area to be painted, the VOC content of architectural
coatings, and the reapplication rate of 10% of area per year.
Landscape maintenance includes fuel combustion emissions from equipment such as lawn mowers,
rototillers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chainsaws, and hedge trimmers. The emissions
associated with landscape equipment use were estimated based on CalEEMod default values for emission
factors (grams per square foot of building space per day) and number of summer days (when landscape
maintenance would be performed) and winter days.
Mobile Sources
To quantify emissions associated with project operational mobile sources, trip generation rates for the
project residential land use are consistent with the traffic study prepared for the project. Trip lengths were
modified based on the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) technical memorandum prepared by Urban Crossroads
for the proposed project. Project-related traffic was assumed to include a mixture of vehicles consistent
with CalEEMod default vehicle fleet assumptions. Emission factors for 2027 (the first full year of project
operation) were used to estimate emissions associated with full buildout of the project.
Table 3.3-4 presents the maximum daily emissions associated with operation of the project in 2027 at
buildout. The values shown are the maximum summer and winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod.
Complete details of the emissions calculations are provided in Appendix A-1.Based on the phased
development of the project there would be overlap in emissions between construction and operation of
portions of the project. Therefore, per the SCAQMD’s comment letter on the Notice of Intent for the project,
overlapping construction and operational emissions are combined and compared to the SCAQMD’s
operational thresholds to determine the level of significance.
Table 3.3-4. Estimated Maximum Daily Operation Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Emissions Source
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Pounds per Day
Proposed Project
Area 11.74 6.58 38.71 0.04 0.70 0.70
Energy <0.01 0.0154 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Mobile 5.69 5.67 55.72 0.13 14.81 4.01
Total Operational 17.43 12.68 94.44 0.17 15.12 4.71
Peak construction emissions 25.81 32.65 44.07 0.09 10.32 5.74
Total Operational +
Construction
43.24 45.33 138.51 0.26 25.44 10.45
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse
particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; <0.01 = reported value
less than 0.01.
See Appendix A-1 for complete results.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 23
OCTOBER 2023
As shown in Table 3.3-4, maximum daily operational emissions of VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5
generated by the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds, and long-term
operational impacts would be less than significant.
As previously discussed, the SCAB has been designated as a federal nonattainment area for O3 and PM2.5
and a state nonattainment area for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. However, as indicated in Tables 3.3-3 and 3.3-4,
project-generated construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD emission-based
significance thresholds for VOCs, NOx, PM10, or PM2.5.
Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions of
nonattainment pollutants, and impacts would be less than significant during construction and operation.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations, as evaluated below.
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are those individuals more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population
at large. People most likely to be affected by air pollution include children, the elderly, and people with
cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. According to the SCAQMD, sensitive receptors include
sites such as residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long-term healthcare facilities,
rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes (SCAQMD 1993). The nearest sensitive
receptors are residential uses located approximately 90 feet west of the project site.
Localized Significance Thresholds
The SCAQMD recommends a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis to evaluate localized air quality
impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project because of project activities. The
impacts were analyzed using methods consistent with those in the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance
Threshold Methodology (SCAQMD 2009). Maximum daily emissions would be generated during the site
preparation and grading phases. The maximum number of acres disturbed on the peak day was
estimated using the Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds
(SCAQMD 2014), which provides estimated acres per 8-hour per day per piece of earth-moving
equipment. While the project site is greater than 5 acres, based on the SCAQMD guidance, it was
estimated that the maximum acres on the project site that would be disturbed by off-road equipment
would be 3.5 acre per day for grading and site preparation; therefore, thresholds were developed for
3.5 acres based on the 2 acre and 5 acres provided in the SCAQMD lookup tables.
The project is located within Source-Receptor Area 34 (Central San Bernardino Valley). This analysis applies
the SCAQMD LST values for a 3.5-acre site within Source-Receptor Area 34 with a receptor distance of
25 meters (82 feet), which is the shortest available distance provided in the SCAQMD’s methodology.
Project construction activities would result in temporary sources of on-site criteria air pollutant emissions
associated with off-road equipment exhaust and fugitive dust generation. According to the Final Localized
Significance Threshold Methodology, “off-site mobile emissions from the project should not be included in
the emissions compared to the LSTs” (SCAQMD 2009). Trucks and worker trips associated with the project
are not expected to cause substantial air quality impacts to sensitive receptors along off-site roadways
since emissions would be brief in nature and would cease once the vehicles pass through the main streets.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 24
OCTOBER 2023
Off-site emissions from truck trips were limited to 1,000 feet of estimated on-site activity within the LST
analysis. The maximum daily on-site emissions generated by construction of the project in each
construction year are presented in Table 3.3-5 and compared to the SCAQMD localized significance criteria
for Source-Receptor Area 34 to determine whether project-generated on-site emissions would result in
potential LST impacts.
Table 3.3-5. Construction Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis
NO2 CO PM10 PM2.5
Pounds per Day (On Site)
Maximum 32.46 33.52 10.08 5.68
SCAQMD LST Criteriaa 220 1,359 11 6
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Source: SCAQMD 2009; Appendix A-1.
Notes: NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (coarse
particulate matter); PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (fine particulate matter);
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; LST = localized significance threshold.
Maximum on-site emissions occurred during the overlap of the following phases: grading and site preparation.
a LST are shown for a 3.5-acre disturbed area corresponding to a distance to a sensitive receptor of 25 meters in Source-Receptor Area 34
(Central San Bernardino Valley).
As shown in Table 3.3-5, proposed construction activities would not generate emissions more than site-
specific LSTs for NOx, CO PM10 and PM2.5. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
Traffic-congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of CO.
Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed federal and/or state standards for CO are termed
“CO hotspots.” The transport of CO is extremely limited, as it disperses rapidly with distance from the
source. However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested
roadway or intersection may reach unhealthy levels, affecting sensitive receptors. Typically, high CO
concentrations are associated with severely congested intersections operating at an unacceptable level of
service (LOS) (LOS E or worse is unacceptable). Projects contributing to adverse traffic impacts may result
in the formation of a CO hotspot. Additional analysis of CO hotspot impacts would be conducted if a project
would result in a significant impact or contribute to an adverse traffic impact at a signalized intersection
that would potentially subject sensitive receptors to CO hotspots.
At the time that the SCAQMD Handbook (SCAQMD 1993) was published, the SCAB was designated
nonattainment under the CAAQS and NAAQS for CO. In 2007, the SCAQMD was designated in attainment
for CO under both the CAAQS and NAAQS because of the steady decline in CO concentrations in the SCAB
due to turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology
on industrial facilities. The SCAQMD conducted CO modeling for the 2003 AQMP10 (SCAQMD 2003b) for
the four worst-case intersections in the SCAB:
Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue
Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue
10 SCAQMD’s CO hotspot modeling guidance has not changed since 2003.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 25
OCTOBER 2023
La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard
Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway
At the time the 2003 AQMP was prepared, the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue was
the most congested intersection in Los Angeles County, with an average daily traffic volume of about
100,000 vehicles per day. The 2003 AQMP projected 8-hour CO concentrations at these four intersections
for 1997 and from 2002 through 2005. From years 2002 through 2005, the maximum 8-hour CO
concentration was 3.8 parts per million at the Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue intersection in 2002
and the maximum 8-hour CO concentration was 3.4 parts per million at the Wilshire Boulevard and
Veteran Avenue in 2002.
Accordingly, CO concentrations at congested intersections would not exceed the 1-hour or 8-hour CO CAAQS
unless projected daily traffic would be at least over 100,000 vehicles per day. Because the project is not
anticipated to increase daily traffic volumes at any study intersection to more than 100,000 vehicles per
day, a CO hotspot is not anticipated to occur.
Based on these considerations, the project would not generate traffic that would contribute to potential
adverse traffic impacts that may result in the formation of CO hotspots. This conclusion is supported by the
analysis in Section 3.17, which demonstrates that traffic impacts would be less than significant. In addition,
due to continued improvement in vehicular emissions at a rate faster than the rate of vehicle growth and/or
congestion, the potential for CO hotspots in the SCAB is steadily decreasing. Based on these considerations,
the project would result in a less-than-significant impact to air quality with regard to potential CO hotspots.
Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to impacts from criteria pollutants, certain projects may include emissions of pollutants
identified by the state and federal government as toxic air contaminants (TACs) or hazardous air pollutants.
State law has established the framework for California’s TAC identification and control project, which is
generally more stringent than the federal project, and is aimed at TACs that are a problem in California. The
state has formally identified more than 200 substances as TACs, including the federal hazardous air
pollutants, and is adopting appropriate control measures for sources of these TACs.
In an abundance of caution, a voluntary health risk assessment (HRA) was performed for construction
and operation of the project, as discussed below and presented in Appendix A-2, Construction Health
Risk Assessment.
The most recent guidance from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is the
2015 Risk Assessment Guidelines Manual (OEHHA 2015), which was adopted in 2015 to replace the 2003
HRA Guidance Manual. The Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act of 1999 (Senate Bill [SB] 25),
which requires explicit consideration of infants and children in assessing risks from air toxics, required
revisions of the methods for both non-cancer and cancer risk assessment and of the exposure assumptions
in the 2003 HRA Guidance Manual. Cancer risk parameters, such as age-sensitivity factors, daily breathing
rates, exposure period, fraction of time at home, and cancer potency factors were based on the values and
data recommended by OEHHA as implemented in Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program Version 2
(HARP2). SCAQMD’s Modeling Guidance for American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection
Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) (SCAQMD 2018) and Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 26
OCTOBER 2023
Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis (SCAQMD 2003c)
provide guidance to perform dispersion modeling for use in HRAs within the SCAB.
Health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are typically described in terms of cancer risk. The SCAQMD
recommends a carcinogenic (cancer) risk threshold of 10 in one million. Some TACs increase noncancer
health risk due to long-term (chronic) exposures. The Chronic Hazard Index (HIC) is the sum of the individual
substance chronic hazard indices for all TACs affecting the same target organ system. The HIC estimates
for all receptor types used the OEHHA-derived calculation method, which uses high end exposure
parameters for the inhalation and next top two exposure pathways and mean exposure parameters for the
remaining pathways for non-cancer risk estimates. The HIC is the sum of the individual substance chronic
hazard indices for all TACs affecting the same target organ system.11 A hazard index less than 1.0 means
that adverse health effects are not expected. Within this analysis, noncarcinogenic exposures of less than
1.0 are considered less than significant. The SCAQMD recommends a HIC significance threshold of 1.0
(project increment) and an acute hazard index of 1.0.
The greatest potential for TAC exposure from project construction and operation is from diesel particulate
matter (DPM), as the exhaust from diesel engines is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and particles,
many of which are known human carcinogens. DPM has established cancer risk factors and relative
exposure values for long-term chronic health hazard impacts. No short-term, acute relative exposure values
are established and regulated and therefore these are not addressed in this assessment.
The dispersion modeling was performed using AERMOD, which is the model SCAQMD requires for
atmospheric dispersion of emissions. AERMOD (Version 21112) is a steady-state Gaussian plume model
that incorporates air dispersion based on planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling
concepts, including treatment of surface and elevated sources, building downwash, and simple and
complex terrain (EPA 2018).
Construction Health Risk Assessment
A HRA was performed to evaluate potential health risk associated with construction of the project. The
following discussion summarizes the dispersion modeling and HRA methodology; supporting construction
HRA documentation, including detailed assumptions, as presented in Appendix A-2.
For risk assessment purposes, PM10 in diesel exhaust is considered DPM, originating from off-road equipment
operating at a defined location for a given length of time at a given distance from sensitive receptors. Less-
intensive, more-dispersed emissions result from on road vehicle exhaust (e.g., heavy-duty diesel trucks). For the
construction HRA, the CalEEMod scenario for the project was adjusted to reduce diesel truck one-way trip
distances to 1,000 feet (0.19 miles) to estimate emissions from truck pass-by at proximate receptors.
The air dispersion modeling methodology was based on accepted modeling practices of SCAQMD
(SCAQMD 2021a). Air dispersion modeling was performed using the EPA’s AERMOD Version 21112 modeling
system (computer software) with the Lakes Environmental Software implementation/user interface, AERMOD
View Version 10.2.1 The HRA followed the OEHHA 2015 guidelines (OEHHA 2015) and SCAQMD guidance to
calculate the health risk impacts at all proximate receptors as further discussed below. The dispersion
modeling included the use of standard regulatory default options. AERMOD parameters were selected
11 The HIC estimates for all receptor types used the OEHHA-derived calculation method (OEHHA 2015).
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 27
OCTOBER 2023
consistent with the SCAQMD and EPA guidance and identified as representative of the project site and project
activities. Principal parameters of this modeling are presented in Table 3.3-6.
Table 3.3-6. American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency
Regulatory Model Principal Parameters
Parameter Details
Meteorological Data AERMOD-specific meteorological data for the Fontana Airport air monitoring station
(KRAL) was used for the dispersion modeling (SCAQMD 2021b). A 5-year
meteorological data set from 2012 through 2016 was obtained from the SCAQMD in a
preprocessed format suitable for use in AERMOD.
Urban versus Rural
Option
Urban dispersion option was selected due to the developed nature of the project area
and per SCAQMD guidelines.
Terrain
Characteristics
The elevation of the site is 1,237 feet (377 meters) above sea level.
Elevation Data Digital elevation data were imported into AERMOD and elevations were assigned to
receptors and emission sources, as necessary. Digital elevation data were obtained
through the AERMOD View in the United States Geological Survey’s National Elevation
Dataset format with a resolution of 1/3 degree (approximately 10 meters), consistent
with the SCAQMD guidance (SCAQMD 2022).
Source Release
Characterizations
Air dispersion modeling of DPM emissions was conducted assuming the off-road
equipment would operate in accordance with the modeling scenario estimated in
CalEEMod (Appendix A-1). The construction equipment and on-site truck travel DPM
emissions were modeled as a line of adjacent volume sources across the project site
to represent project construction with a release height of 3.4 meters, plume height of
6.8 meters, and plume width of 8.6 meters (EPA 2018).
Note: AERMOD = American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model; SCAQMD = South Coast Air
Quality Management District; DPM = diesel particular matter; CalEEMod = California Emissions Estimator Model.
See Appendix A-1.
Regarding receptors, the construction scenario used a 1-kilometer by 1-kilometer Cartesian receptor grid
with 50-meter spacing to establish the impact area and evaluate locations of maximum health risk
impact (SCAQMD 2021a). Discrete receptors were placed over residential and daycare facilities in closest
proximity to the site.
The health risk calculations were performed using the HARP2 Air Dispersion and Risk Tool (dated 22118).
AERMOD was run with all sources emitting unit emissions (1 gram per second) to obtain the necessary
input values for HARP2. The line of volume sources was partitioned evenly based on the one gram per
second emission rate. The ground-level concentration plot files were then used to estimate the long-term
cancer health risk to an individual, and the non-cancer chronic health indices. There is no reference
exposure level for acute health impacts from DPM, and, thus, acute risk was not evaluated.
Cancer risk is defined as the increase in probability (chance) of an individual developing cancer due to
exposure to a carcinogenic compound, typically expressed as the increased chances in one million.
Maximum Individual Cancer Risk is the estimated probability of a maximally exposed individual potentially
contracting cancer because of exposure to TACs over a period of 30 years for residential receptor locations.
For the purposes of this construction HRA, given the less-than-lifetime exposure period, and the higher
breathing rates and sensitivity of children to TACs, the cancer risk calculation assumes that the exposure
would affect children early in their lives. The 34-month exposure duration was assumed to start during the
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 28
OCTOBER 2023
third trimester of pregnancy through 34 months of age based on the duration of construction. The exposure
pathway for DPM is inhalation only.
The SCAQMD has also established non-carcinogenic risk parameters for use in HRAs since some TACs
increase non-cancer health risk due to long-term (chronic) exposures and some TACs increase non-cancer
health risk due to short-term (acute) exposures. No short-term, acute relative exposure level has been
established for DPM; therefore, acute impacts of DPM are not addressed in the HRA. Chronic exposure is
evaluated in the construction HRA. Non-carcinogenic risks are quantified by calculating a hazard
index, expressed as the ratio between the ambient pollutant concentration and its toxicity or reference
exposure level, which is a concentration at or below which health effects are not likely to occur. The chronic
hazard index is the sum of the individual substance chronic hazard indices for all TACs affecting the same
target organ system. A hazard index less of than one (1.0) means that adverse health effects are not expected.
The Maximum Individual Cancer Risk and the Chronic Hazard Index for residential receptors because of
project construction are presented in Table 3.3-7.
Table 3.3-7. Construction Health Risk Assessment Results - Unmitigated
Impact Parameter Units
Project
Impact
CEQA
Threshold
Level of
Significance
Maximum Individual Cancer Risk–
Residential
Per Million 6.92 10 Less than Significant
Chronic Hazard Index–Residential Index Value 0.02 1.0 Less than Significant
Source: SCAQMD 2019; Appendix A-2
Notes: CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act.
As shown in Table 3.3-7, project construction activities would result in a Residential Maximum Individual
Cancer Risk of 6.92 in 1 million, which is less the significance threshold of 10 in 1 million. Project
construction would result in a Residential Chronic Hazard Index of 0.05, which is below the 1.0 significance
threshold. Therefore, air quality impacts related to DPM from construction related emissions would be less
than significant.
Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants
Construction and operation of the project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions; however, estimated
construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD mass-emission daily thresholds as
shown in Tables 3.3-3 and 3.3-4, respectively. As previously discussed, the SCAB has been designated as a
federal nonattainment area for O3 and PM2.5 and a state nonattainment area for O3, PM10, and PM2.5.
Health effects associated with O3 include respiratory symptoms, worsening of lung disease leading to
premature death, and damage to lung tissue (CARB 2021). VOCs and NOx are precursors to O3, for which
the SCAB is designated as nonattainment with respect to the NAAQS and CAAQS. The contribution of VOCs
and NOx to regional ambient O3 concentrations is the result of complex photochemistry. The increases in
O3 concentrations in the SCAB due to O3 precursor emissions tend to be found downwind from the source
location to allow time for the photochemical reactions to occur. However, the potential for exacerbating
excessive O3 concentrations would also depend on the time of year that the VOC emissions would occur
because exceedances of the O3 ambient air quality standards tend to occur between April and October
when solar radiation is highest. The holistic effect of a single project’s emissions of O3 precursors is
speculative because of the lack of quantitative methods to assess this impact. Because construction and
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 29
OCTOBER 2023
operation of the project would not result in O3 precursor emissions (i.e., VOCs or NOX) that would exceed
the SCAQMD thresholds, as shown in Tables 3.3-3 and 3.3-4, the project is not anticipated to substantially
contribute to regional O3 concentrations and their associated health impacts.
Health effects associated with NOx include lung irritation and enhanced allergic responses (CARB 2021).
Construction and operation of the project would not generate NOx emissions that would exceed the
SCAQMD mass daily thresholds; therefore, construction and operation of the project is not anticipated to
contribute to exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for NO2 or contribute to associated health effects. In
addition, the SCAB is designated as in attainment of the NAAQS and CAAQS for NO2, and the existing NO2
concentrations in the area are well below the NAAQS and CAAQS standards.
Health effects associated with CO include chest pain in patients with heart disease, headache, light-
headedness, and reduced mental alertness (CARB 2021). CO tends to be a localized impact associated
with congested intersections. CO hotspots were discussed previously as a less-than-significant impact.
Thus, the project’s CO emissions would not contribute to the health effects associated with this pollutant.
Health effects associated with PM10 and PM2.5 include premature death and hospitalization, primarily for
worsening of respiratory disease (CARB 2021). As with O3 and NOX, and as shown in Tables 3.3-3 and 3.3-4,
the project would not generate emissions of PM10 or PM2.5 that would exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds.
Accordingly, the project’s PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are not expected to cause an increase in related health
effects for this pollutant.
In summary, construction and operation of the project would not result in exceedances of the SCAQMD
significance thresholds for certain criteria pollutants, and potential health effects associated with criteria
air pollutants would be less than significant.
In addition, an analysis of the project’s potential to exceed the SCAQMD LSTs is presented above. The
SCAQMD developed the LST analysis in response to CARB Governing Board’s Environmental Justice
Enhancement Initiative I-4. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or
contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable NAAQS or CAAQS (which are health protective
standards) at the nearest sensitive receptor, taking into consideration ambient concentrations in each
source receptor area, project size, and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LSTs has been developed
for NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. As presented above, the project’s localized construction emissions would not
exceed site-specific LSTs. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The occurrence and severity of potential odor impacts depends on numerous
factors. The nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; the wind speeds and direction; and the sensitivity of
receiving location each contribute to the intensity of the impact. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical
harm, they can be annoying and cause distress among the public and generate citizen complaints.
Construction could generate odors from vehicles and/or equipment exhaust emissions. Odors produced
would be attributable to concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction
equipment, architectural coatings, and asphalt pavement application. Such odors would disperse rapidly
and would occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. As such, construction
odors are not anticipated to be a concern.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 30
OCTOBER 2023
Land uses and industrial operations associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater
treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and
fiberglass molding. Odors are not a concern associated with residential and retail development and are not
anticipated to be a concern for this project.
3.4 Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
The following analysis is based on a due diligence biological resource assessment conducted by Dudek Biologist
Kimberly Narel on June 20, 2022. This assessment included a review of the latest available relevant reports, maps,
soil data, data on biological baselines, special-status habitats, and species distributions to determine those
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 31
OCTOBER 2023
resources that have the potential to occur within the project site and surrounding 100-foot buffer (study area).
Attachments referenced herein are included in Appendix B, Biological Resources Technical Memorandum. These
attachments include the biological resources memorandum, aerial figures of the study area location and a biological
resources map, a list of special-status biological resources recorded in the region, an inventory of observed species
on the study area, and photos taken of the study area during the due diligence site assessment.
The study area is an undeveloped parcel in an urban setting, surrounded by a mixture of commercial and residential
development. The study area is bound by Cypress Avenue to the west, Valley Boulevard to the north, I-10 to the
south, and Juniper Avenue to the east (Figure 2-1, Project Location). The study area is depicted on Section 19 of
Township 1 South Range 5 West on the San Bernardino Principal Meridian.
A field assessment was conducted to characterize the environmental conditions, vegetation communities/land
covers, and any common or special-status plants or wildlife (or their habitats) that could be impacted during project
implementation. During the field survey, vegetation communities and land covers were mapped according to the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status
Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW 2018) and List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations
(CDFW 2020), also referred to as the National Communities List, which is based on A Manual of California
Vegetation, Second Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009). Dudek compiled a general inventory of plant and wildlife species
detected by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other field indicators, and determined the potential for special-status
species to inhabit the study area. Additionally, Dudek conducted a preliminary investigation of the extent and
distribution of jurisdictional waters of the United States regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, jurisdictional
waters of the state regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFW jurisdictional
streambeds and/or associated riparian habitat. Potential and/or historic drainages and aquatic features were
investigated based on a review of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) database
(USFWS 2022), and the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Web Soil Survey (USDA 2022).
Dudek queried the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2022), and the California Native Plant
Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2022) to identify special-status biological resources
known to occur in the U.S. Geological Survey Fontana 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle on which the study area
is located, and the surrounding eight quadrangles (Guasti, Cucamonga Peak, Devore, San Bernardino North, San
Bernardino South, Corona North, Riverside West, and Riverside East).
Three vegetation communities and/or land covers were observed on the study area: non-native grassland, disturbed
habitat, and urban/developed land. Stands of ornamental vegetation border the north and south project site
boundaries and are associated with adjacent urban development. No native or sensitive vegetation communities
are present on the study area. Species diversity was low during the survey and consisted of species expected to
occur in urban and developed environments. A total of six native wildlife and 33 plants (8 native, 25 non-native)
were observed on the study area (Appendix B, Species Compendium). The study area has been previously graded
and is relatively flat, with evidence of prior discing/tiling, and ranges in elevation from 1,110 feet to 1,120 feet
above mean sea level (AMSL). Disturbed habitat on the study area is devoid of vegetation but retains a previous
surface; it consists of dirt access paths leading to gravel and broken concrete foundation which is used as a semi-
truck rest area. Species diversity on the study area is impacted by the amount of surrounding development, onsite
disturbances from the semi-truck rest area and lack of native habitats.
Soils onsite have been compacted from prior grading activities, while the western portion of the study area has
recently been tilled/disced. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, the study
area occurs within the Southwestern Part of San Bernardino County (CA677) and Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 5%
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 32
OCTOBER 2023
slopes, is mapped on the entire study area. However, a portion of the observed surface soils onsite have been
compacted and altered from their natural composition via urban development, and no longer support natural
habitats. No hydric soils or Delhi fine sands occur on the study area. No wetlands or riparian habitats were observed,
and there are no NWI-mapped wetlands on the study area.
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the results of California Natural
Diversity Database and California Native Plant Society database queries, there are 82 special-status plants
and 64 special-status wildlife with recorded occurrences in the Fontana 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey
topographic quadrangle and surrounding eight quadrangles. No special-status plants and wildlife were
observed on the study area, and no sensitive or native vegetation communities are present.
Of the 82 special-status plants, 14 of these species have a low potential to occur on the study area due to
the presence of limited or low-quality suitable habitats (Appendix B, Special-Status Plant Species with a
Potential to Occur on the Study Area). The remaining 68 species are not expected to occur based on an
evaluation of species ranges/elevation and known habitat preferences. No special-status plants were
determined to have a moderate to high potential to occur on the study area based on an evaluation of
species ranges/elevation and known habitat preferences in relation to the low quality, disturbed habitat
and soils present onsite. Due to the ongoing disturbances from pedestrian traffic associated with the semi-
truck rest area on the study area, as well as previously graded/compacted soils, the limited grassland
habitat is of low-quality. Therefore, the project will result in no impact to special-status plants.
Of the 54 special-status wildlife species listed in the California Natural Diversity Database and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service databases, 40 species were determined to have no potential to occur based on an evaluation
of species ranges/elevations and known habitat preferences. No special-status wildlife were determined to
have a moderate or high potential to occur on the study area, and 14 special-status wildlife were determined
to have a low potential to occur due to limited suitable vegetation (Appendix B, Special-Status Wildlife with a
Potential to Occur on the Study Area). None of these species were observed during the biological
reconnaissance. In addition, it is unlikely that special-status mammals or reptiles will occupy the low-quality
grassland on the study area because it is surrounded by development and fragmented, lacks native
vegetation communities, and supports ongoing pedestrian and vehicular disturbances from the semi-truck
rest area. As such, species with only a low potential to occur are unlikely to be impacted by the proposed
project; therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact to special-status wildlife.
Although no nesting birds were observed during the due diligence assessment, stands of ornamental trees
along the southern and northern project site boundaries could support foraging and nesting opportunities for
raptors and migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game (CFG)
Code Section 3500. Project-related impacts to nesting and migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and CFG Code would be considered significant absent mitigation. To avoid impacts, MM BIO-1 shall
be implemented. With implementation of MM BIO-1, potential impacts to migratory and nesting bird species
would be less than significant.
MM BIO-1: Nesting Bird Avoidance. The project should avoid the avian nesting season to reduce all
potential impact to protected birds and their nests. In the event the project must
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 33
OCTOBER 2023
commence during the nesting season (February – September), a pre-construction nesting
survey should be conducted within 3 days prior to ground disturbing activities to determine
the presence/absence of nesting birds. If an active nest is found on the study area, a
qualified biologist will establish a buffer around the nest (up to 500 feet for raptors and
300 feet for passerine birds) and ongoing biological monitoring during construction may
be required until the nestlings have fledged and the nest is no longer active. The buffer will
be established by a biologist based on the sensitivity of the species to disturbance and the
proximity to project activities. Construction activities may commence outside of the buffer
under the discretion of a monitoring biologist. One the monitoring biologist has determined
the nest is no longer active, the buffer can be removed, and construction may continue.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The study area occurs in an urban environment and consists of non-native grassland, disturbed
habitat, and developed land that lacks any sensitive vegetation communities, natural drainages, or
watercourses capable of supporting riparian habitat. Further, due to the lack of natural wetland
characteristics including hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology on the study area, no sensitive
riparian community was observed or has the potential to occur within the study area. Therefore, vegetation
clearing and grading for construction of the proposed project is anticipated to have no impact on riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural communities, and no mitigation is required.
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. No formal jurisdictional wetland delineation was conducted on the study
area. A preliminary assessment of potential jurisdictional waters on the study area determined there are
no waterways or drainages within the project site that would be subject to regulatory agency jurisdiction.
Additionally, no NWI-mapped ‘blue line’ wetlands are mapped on the project site. However, the NWI depicts
a channelized concrete flood channel along the southern portion of the study area buffer, approximately
60 feet south of the project site boundary footprint (Figure 3.4-1, Biological Resources Map). This flood
control channel flows east-west into the West Fontana Channel, a tributary to the San Sevaine Channel and
the Santa Ana River, which drains to the Pacific Ocean.
Although proposed construction activities are not anticipated to directly impact or encroach into this
concrete flood control channel, short term indirect impacts from construction related to erosion, runoff, and
dust could occur. Indirect project impacts to mapped jurisdictional waters and wetlands are considered
significant absent mitigation and/or permitting from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, RWQCB, and/or CDFW.
Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, b) details the Best Management Practices (BMPs) which the
project would be required to adhere to during all construction-related activities to prevent indirect impacts
caused by ground disturbing activities (i.e., runoff, sedimentation, dust accumulation, etc.). With required
implementation of BMPs described in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project
would have a less than significant impact to state and federally protected waters and wetlands.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 34
OCTOBER 2023
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. The study area is a fragmented parcel of previously graded and disced/tilled land with non-
native grassland and stands of ornamental trees in an urban setting. The study area does not occur within
any designated wildlife corridors or habitat linkages, nor does it provide opportunities for wildlife movement
through the study area to larger habitat blocks in the region, such as the Santa Ana River further south. On
a local scale, the study area is fragmented, within an urban setting, and lacks a riparian corridor or other
continuing natural habitat that f small to medium sized mammals and reptiles may use to travel locally to
other fragmented undeveloped parcels to the south and northeast. Ongoing human activities from the semi-
truck rest stop and dirt access paths would also prevent wildlife from using the study area for local or
regional movement. In addition,, I-10 is a paved road with consistent high traffic volume that lies
immediately to the south of the southernmost project site boundary and would significantly impede local
wildlife movement. Further, chain-link fencing surrounding the project site as well as existing surrounding
developments serve as habitat barriers that prevent wildlife species from dispersing across the study area
into other habitats. As such, the study area does not function as a wildlife corridor or linkage, and
construction activities would result in no impact or impediment to regional wildlife movement.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Fontana’s Tree Preservation and
Protection Ordinance (Chapter 38, Article III of the City’s Code of Ordinances) regulates the planting,
maintenance, preservation, and removal of heritage, significant, and specimen tree species within the city
(City of Fontana 2016). The study area contains heritage and significant trees protected by the City of
Fontana’s Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance. Specifically, one significant western sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) occurs on the southeastern project site boundary, adjacent to Juniper Avenue. In
addition, one heritage European olive (Olea europaea) tree is interspersed with other ornamental trees and
a row of Eucalyptus trees along the southern project site boundary. Further, Eucalyptus trees were observed
along a chain-link fence that bisects the tilled/disced soils on western portion of the project site from the
previously graded ad compacted soil on the central and eastern portions of the project site. Another row of
Eucalyptus trees occurs along the northern project site boundary parallel to Valley Boulevard. These may
be considered Eucalyptus windrows, and if so, are also considered heritage trees. Project impacts related
to local tree preservation ordinances would be considered significant absent mitigation.
Dudek’s International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborists performed various tasks associated
with surveying, inventorying, and evaluating the condition of the project site’s trees (Appendix C, Arborist
Report). The report details the physical characteristics, mapped locations, impact, and preservation totals,
and recommended protected tree impact mitigation. In summary, the proposed project site is undeveloped
with most of the trees scattered throughout the property and within a historic windrow that is primarily
located on an adjacent property. The trees on site are comprised of multiple species, including jacaranda
(Jacaranda mimosifolia), Chinaberry (Melia azedarach), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa).
Australian willow (Geijera parviflora), olive, red gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), and tree of
heaven (Ailanthus altissima). In total, the 78 trees are located on or immediately adjacent of the project
site and consist of 13 heritage trees (red gum Eucalyptus), one significant tee (California sycamore), and
64 other trees as defined by the City of Fontana. In total, 49 of the 78 trees would require removal to
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 35
OCTOBER 2023
accommodate the proposed project. Of the 49 trees requiring removal, none are recommended for removal
based on health (dead). As such, all 49 trees require mitigation in accordance with the Fontana Code of
Ordinances. The 49 trees include one protected heritage tree, one significant tree, and 47 other trees.
None of the impacted trees are considered candidates for relocation.
In addition to the 49 trees requiring removal, an additional 19 trees would be encroached upon by the
project. All 19 encroachment trees are recommended for preservation and protection. The
19 encroachment trees are comprised of eight heritage trees and 11 other trees. Encroachment is an
indirect impact expected when soil and roots are disturbed within the tree-protected zone, but the trees will
not require removal.
With project implementation of MM BIO-2, direct and indirect impacts related to local policies and
ordinances are reduced to a less than significant level.
MM BIO-2: Tree Removal Permit, Protection, Replacement, and Monitoring Program. A tree removal
permit must be obtained from the Fontana community development department prior to
removal of any heritage or significant tree on the study area. Tree replacement is required
and the ratio is dependent on the overall condition and size of the protected trees onsite.
Heritage and significant tree preservation on the site is preferred to relocation or
replacement. Dudek recommends that the 49 protected and other impacted trees be
mitigated (planted and/or and in-lieu fee) with a minimum of 110 trees, as outlined in
Appendix C, Arborist Report. Based on a review of the landscape plan, the proposed project
would incorporate 146 24-inch box trees (not including 17 24” box palm trees)and 22 48-
inch box trees into the post-development landscape. In total, the proposed landscape
includes the planting of 168 trees (not including 17 palm trees), which is greater than that
required by the Fontana Code of Ordinance and results in 58 additional trees onsite (not
including palms). Trees shall be planted in early winter and followed by a 1-year monitoring
period, as required by the City. Further, 29 trees on or immediately adjacent to the project
site will be retained; of these 29 trees, 10 are dead. As such, any remaining live trees,
especially those that would be encroached upon, shall be protected according to the tree
protection measures described in Appendix C.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. The study area does not occur within any approved, in pross, or implementing Habitat
Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plans for local or regional protection of species and
habitats. As such, no impacts to regional habitat conservation plans would occur from construction of the
proposed project, and no mitigation is required.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 36
OCTOBER 2023
3.5 Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
The following analysis is based, in part, on the Archaeological Resources Assessment prepared by Dudek in
November 2022, included as Appendix D.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As defined by the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR
15000 et seq.), a “historical resource” is considered to be a resource that is listed in or eligible for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), has been
identified as significant in a historical resource survey, or is listed on a local register of historical resources.
Under CEQA, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it may cause “a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” (Public Resources Code Section 21084.1;
14 CCR 15064.5(b)). If a site is listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or included in a local register of
historic resources, or identified as significant in a historical resources survey (meeting the requirements of
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(q)), it is a historical resource and is presumed to be historically or
culturally significant for the purposes of CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21084.1;
14 CCR 15064.5(a)).
According to the historical topographic maps and aerial photographs review, the proposed Project site was
depicted as undeveloped as early as 1896. By 1938, the proposed Project site was in use for agricultural
purposes and roadways were present. Development within the proposed Project site began as early as the
1940s with the presence of structures scattered throughout the proposed Project site, including the
establishment of the formal roadways that border the proposed Project site, including Valley Boulevard,
Cypress Road, and Juniper Road. Development and removal of structures/buildings within the proposed
Project site continued through to the early 2010s, including the establishment of Washington Drive and a
trailer park within the northeastern quadrant of the proposed Project site in 1969. By 2014, the proposed
Project site had been subjected to substantial ground disturbance through grading activities and the
removal of all buildings/structures, consistent with present-day site conditions.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 37
OCTOBER 2023
A review of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) database records search for the
proposed Project site identified 19 resources within the records search area. All 19 resources are historic
built environment resources; none of these resources are located within or are adjacent to the proposed
Project site. No archaeological resources have been previously recorded within the proposed Project site
or within the 1-mile records search area. It is important to note that the entirety of the proposed Project
site has not been subject to any previous archaeological investigations. However, at least 20 cultural
resource investigations, most including pedestrian surveys, have been conducted within one mile of the
proposed Project site none of which resulted in the identification of archaeological resources. An
archaeological pedestrian survey of the proposed Project site was conducted and did not result in the
identification of archaeological resources within the proposed Project footprint site.
Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known
historical resource pursuant to §15064.5. However, the potential for intact cultural deposits to exist within
native soils (below between 1 and 3.25 feet bgs) to the depths of proposed ground disturbance is unknown.
In the event that unanticipated cultural resources are encountered during project implementation, an
assessment and evaluation of the resource would be conducted potentially resulting in the determination
that the resource is historical in accordance with the definition outlined in §15064.5. As a result, the Project
has a potential to impact and thus cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a yet unknown
historical resource.
Thus, mitigation is required to address impacts related to the inadvertent discovery of yet unknown
historical resources, as outlined in MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2, MM-CUL-3 and MM CUL-4. MM-CUL-1 requires
the development of a Cultural Resource Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan by a qualified
archaeologist. MM CUL-2 requires that all project construction personnel participate in a Workers
Environmental Awareness Program training for the proper identification and treatment of inadvertent
discoveries. MM CUL-3 requires the retention of an on-call qualified archaeologist and a survey of the
proposed Project site after the removal of fill soils. MM CUL-4 requires construction work occurring within
100 feet of a cultural resource discovery and 100 feet of a human remains discovery be immediately halted
until the qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards
for Archaeology, can assess and evaluate the discovery pursuant to CEQA. Additionally, MM CUL-3 requires
the inadvertent discovery clause be included on all construction plans. With implementation of MM CUL-1,
MM CUL-2, MM-CUL-3 and MM CUL-4, potential impacts to historical resources would be reduced to less
than significant.
MM-CUL-1 Cultural Resource Conditional Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan. A
qualified archaeologist shall be retained to assess information available (final grading and
construction plans, geotechnical testing results, as-built plans, etc.) and determine the
depth at which native soils exist and would be impacted by Project implementation. The
depth of native soils shall be included in the Plan so as to guide when a pedestrian survey
of native soils shall occur after fill soils have been removed. Potential impacts to cultural
resources shall be minimized through implementation of pre- and post- construction tasks.
Tasks pertaining to cultural resources include the development of a cultural resource
inadvertent discovery plan (Plan). The purpose of the Plan is to outline a program of
treatment and mitigation in the case of an inadvertent discovery of cultural resources
during ground-disturbing phases (including but not limited to preconstruction site
mobilization and testing, grubbing, removal of soils for remediation, construction ground
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 38
OCTOBER 2023
disturbance, construction grading, trenching, and landscaping) and to provide for the
proper identification, evaluation, treatment, and protection of any cultural resources
throughout the duration of the Project. This Plan shall define the process to be followed for
the identification and management of cultural resources in the Project area during
construction. Existence of and importance of adherence to this Plan shall be stated on all
Project site plans intended for use by those conducting the ground disturbing activities.
The Plan shall also include the conditions under which monitoring is required, if at all,
based on the results of the pedestrian survey and the manner of facilitation.
MM CUL-2 Workers Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the start of construction activities,
all construction personnel and monitors shall be trained regarding identification and
treatment protocol for inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources (archaeological and
tribal) and human remains. A basic presentation and handout or pamphlet shall be
prepared in order to ensure proper identification and treatment of inadvertent discoveries
of cultural resources and human remains. The purpose of the Workers Environmental
Awareness Program (WEAP) training is to provide specific details on the kinds of materials
that may be identified during ground disturbing activities and explain the importance of
and legal basis for the protection of human remains and significant cultural resources.
Each worker shall also be trained in the proper procedures to follow in the event that
cultural resources or human remains are uncovered during ground disturbing activities.
These procedures include but are not limited to work curtailment or redirection, and the
immediate contact of the site supervisor and archaeological monitoring staff.
MM CUL-3 Retention of an On-Call Qualified Archaeologist. A qualified archaeologist shall be
retained and on-call to respond and address any inadvertent discoveries identified project
implementation. Additionally, in consideration of the potential to encounter intact cultural
deposits beneath fill soils, the qualified archaeologist shall survey the project site once fill
soils have been removed to ensure no cultural deposits underly the fill layer. If is
determined, based on the aforementioned survey, that cultural resources are present or
may be present and may be impacted during project construction, monitoring may be
warranted. Additionally, any identified cultural resources shall be assessed and evaluated
pursuant to CEQA. If it is determined that monitoring is warranted, a qualified
archaeological principal investigator, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards, shall oversee and adjust monitoring efforts as needed (increase,
decrease, or discontinue monitoring frequency) based on the observed potential for
construction activities to encounter cultural deposits or material. The archaeological
monitor will be responsible for maintaining daily monitoring logs.
MM CUL-4 Inadvertent Discovery Clause. In the event that potential archaeological resources (sites,
features, or artifacts) are exposed during ground disturbing, all construction work occurring
not less than 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop and the qualified archaeologist
that has been retained on call must be notified immediately to assess the significance of
the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the
significance of the find under the CEQA, the archaeologist may simply record the find and
allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work (e.g.,
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 39
OCTOBER 2023
preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, data recovery, or monitoring) may
be warranted if the resource cannot be feasibly avoided.
In the event that human remains are inadvertently encountered during construction
activities, the remains and associated resources shall be treated in accordance with state
and local regulations that provide requirements with regard to the discovery of human
remains, including California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, California Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). In
accordance with these regulations, if human remains are found, the County Coroner must
be immediately notified of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the project
site or any nearby (no less than 100 feet) area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent
remains can occur until the County Coroner has determined if the remains are potentially
human in origin. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to
be, Native American, he or she is required to notify the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) that shall notify those persons believed to be the most likely
descendant. The most likely descendant shall determine, in consultation with the property
owner, the disposition of the human remains.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A CHRIS database records search,
background research, including a review of a geotechnical report, and an archaeological pedestrian survey
were conducted as part of an Archaeological Resources Assessment that was prepared for the project
(Appendix D).
A review of the CHRIS records search (completed June 17, 2022) indicates that 20 cultural resource studies
have been conducted within 1-mile of the proposed Project site between 1984 and 2014. None of these
studies address the proposed Project site. This suggests that the proposed Project site has not been subject
to any archaeological investigations, including pedestrian surveys prior to the placement of fill soils. SCCIC
records also indicate that 19 cultural resources, all of which are historic built environment resources, have
been previously recorded within 1-mile of the proposed Project site, none of which are located within or are
adjacent to the proposed Project site. No record of previously recorded historic-period or prehistoric
archaeological resources are on file with the SCCIC as being present within proposed Project site.
A review of aerial photographs for all available years indicates that in general, the proposed project site has
been subjected to consistent ground disturbance, shifting from agricultural use in the 1930s and
transforming steadily to include the development of buildings/structures between the late 1940s to the
early 2000s. By 2014, the proposed Project site is shown to be consistent with the present site conditions.
A review of a geotechnical report (Appendix E) prepared for the proposed Project site determined that fill
soils were encountered from surface to between 1 and 3.25 feet below existing ground surface within all
exploratory boring/infiltration testing locations. Current Project design indicates that the depths of ground
disturbance across the proposed project site is 5 feet below the existing ground surface and up to 6 feet
below the existing ground surface for underground utilities.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 40
OCTOBER 2023
An intensive-level archaeological survey of the proposed project site was conducted November 11, 2022.
Ground surface visibility within the proposed project site was variable due to the current site conditions,
including presence of dense vegetation, including shrubs and trees, structures (e.g. existing fencing), piles of
modern refuse, concrete pad, areas overlaid with gravel, and parked or staged vehicles. Given the site
conditions at the time of the survey, ground surface visibility within the proposed project site was variable
within each parcel and ranged between non-existent to excellent (see Appendix D of this CEQA Document for
a detailed discussion of the survey results for each parcel). Overall, the visible existing surface is comprised
of fill soils characterized as typically brown silty sand with scattered rounded fine to coarse gravel and
generally loose to medium dense, which are visible within the proposed project site. No cultural materials
were observed within the proposed project site as a result of the archaeological pedestrian survey.
It should be noted, however, that the geotechnical study revealed that the proposed project site is
predominately covered in fill soils, although the origin of the soils is not known. The presence of fill soils
demonstrates that native soils within which cultural deposits might exist in context could not have been
observed during the survey; this fact demonstrates that the survey findings are less than reliable. As such,
any exposed soils observed during the survey were likely fill soils and not a good representation of the
native soils present prior to development/ground disturbing activities.
In consideration of all these factors, the potential to encounter intact deposits containing archaeological
resources within soils from the current grade and between 1 and 3.25 feet below existing ground surface
is unlikely. However, the potential for intact cultural deposits to exist within native soils (below between 1
and 3.25 feet below existing ground surface) to the depths of proposed ground disturbance is unknown.
For these reasons, the proposed project site should be treated as potentially sensitive for archaeological
resources. In the event that unanticipated archaeological resources are encountered during project
implementation, impacts to these resources would be potentially significant.
Thus, mitigation is required to address impacts related to the inadvertent discovery of archaeological
resources during construction, as outlined in MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2, and MM CUL-3 above. MM CUL-1
requires that all project construction personnel participate in a Workers Environmental Awareness Program
training for the proper identification and treatment of inadvertent discoveries. MM CUL-2 requires the
retention of an on-call qualified archaeologist and a survey of the proposed project site after the removal
of fill soils. MM CUL-3 requires construction work occurring within 100 feet of a cultural resource discovery
and 100 feet of a human remains discovery be immediately halted until the qualified archaeologist,
meeting the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology, can assess and
evaluate the discovery pursuant to CEQA. Additionally, MM CUL-3 requires the inadvertent discovery clause
be included on all construction plans. With implementation of MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2, and MM CUL-3
(above), potentially significant impacts to unknown archaeological resources would be reduced to less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. No prehistoric or historic period burials, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries, were identified within the proposed project site as a result of the CHRIS records search
or pedestrian survey. In the event that human remains are inadvertently encountered during ground
disturbing activities, they shall be treated consistent with state and local regulations including California
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and the
California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e). In accordance with these regulations, if human remains
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 41
OCTOBER 2023
are found, the County Coroner must be immediately notified of the discovery. No further excavation or
disturbance of the project site or any nearby (no less than 100 feet) area reasonably suspected to overlie
adjacent remains can occur until the County Coroner has determined if the remains are potentially human
in origin. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, Native American, he
or she is required to notify the NAHC that shall notify those persons believed to be the most likely
descendant. The most likely descendant shall determine, in consultation with the property owner, the
disposition of the human remains. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that impacts to human
remains resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant.
3.6 Energy
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VI. Energy – Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The electricity and natural gas used for construction of the proposed project
would be temporary, would be substantially less than that required for project operation, and would have a
negligible contribution to the project’s overall energy consumption. Although the project would see an
increase in petroleum use during construction and operation, vehicles would use less petroleum due to
advances in fuel economy and potential reduction in VMT over time.
Construction
Electricity
Temporary electric power for as-necessary lighting and electronic equipment (such as computers inside
temporary construction trailers) would be provided by Southern California Edison. The electricity used for
such activities would be temporary, would be substantially less than that required for project operation,
and would have a negligible contribution to the project’s overall energy consumption.
Natural Gas
Natural gas is not anticipated to be required during construction of the project. Fuels used for construction
would primarily consist of diesel and gasoline, which are discussed below under the Petroleum subsection.
Any minor amounts of natural gas that may be consumed because of project construction would be
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 42
OCTOBER 2023
substantially less than that required for project operation and would have a negligible contribution to the
project’s overall energy consumption.
Petroleum
Heavy-duty construction equipment associated with construction activities would rely on diesel fuel.
Construction workers would travel to and from the project site throughout the duration of construction. It is
assumed in this analysis that construction workers would travel to and from the site in gasoline-powered
passenger vehicles.
Heavy-duty construction equipment of various types would be used during each phase of project
construction. Appendix A-1 lists the assumed equipment usage for each phase of construction.
Fuel consumption from construction equipment was estimated by converting the total carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions from each construction phase to gallons using the conversion factors for CO2 to gallons of
gasoline or diesel. Construction is estimated to occur from 2024 to 2027 based on the construction
phasing schedule. The conversion factor for gasoline is 8.78 kilograms per metric ton CO2 per gallon, and
the conversion factor for diesel is 10.21 kilograms per metric ton CO2 per gallon (The Climate
Registry 2021). The estimated diesel fuel usage from construction equipment is shown in Table 3.6-1.
Table 3.6-1. Construction Equipment Diesel Demand
Phase
Pieces of
Equipment
Equipment
CO2 (MT) kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons
Site Preparation 7 50.19 10.21 4,916
Grading 8 89.96 10.21 8,811
Building Construction 9 662.11 10.21 64,849
Paving 6 16.72 10.21 1,638
Architectural Coating 1 88.08 10.21 8,627
Total 88,840
Sources: Pieces of equipment and equipment CO2 (Appendix A-1); kg/CO2/Gallon (The Climate Registry 2021).
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; MT = metric ton; kg = kilogram.
Fuel consumption from worker and vendor trips is estimated by converting the total CO2 emissions from
each construction phase to gallons using the conversion factors for CO2 to gallons of gasoline or diesel.
Worker vehicles are assumed to be gasoline and vendor vehicles are assumed to be diesel. The project
also includes haul truck trips for the export of demolition waste and import of earthwork materials.
Calculations for total worker, vendor truck and haul truck fuel consumption are provided in Table 3.6-2.
Table 3.6-2. Construction Worker and Vendor Gasoline and Diesel Demand
Phase Trips
Vehicle
MT CO2 kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons
Worker (Gasoline)
Site Preparation 540 2.30 8.78 261.96
Grading 660 2.81 8.78 320.05
Building Construction 245,530 1,007.14 8.78 114,708.43
Paving 7,568 45.68 8.78 5,202.73
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 43
OCTOBER 2023
Table 3.6-2. Construction Worker and Vendor Gasoline and Diesel Demand
Phase Trips
Vehicle
MT CO2 kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons
Architectural Coating 2,096 5.59 8.78 636.67
Vendor (Diesel)
Site Preparation 180 1.58 10.21 154.75
Grading 198 1.74 10.21 170.42
Building Construction 52,532 447.98 10.21 43,876.59
Paving 0 0 10.21 0
Architectural Coating 0 0 10.21 0
Total 44,202
Sources: Trips and vehicle CO2 (Appendix A-1); kg/CO2/Gallon (The Climate Registry 2021).
Notes: MT = metric ton; CO2 = carbon dioxide; kg = kilogram.
In summary, construction of the project is anticipated to consume 121,130 gallons of gasoline and
133,042 gallons of diesel over the course of 34 months. The project will be subject to CARB’s In-Use Off-
Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation, which applies to certain off-road diesel engines, vehicles, or equipment
greater than 25 horsepower. The regulation: (1) imposes limits on idling, requires a written idling policy,
and requires a disclosure when selling vehicles; (2) requires all vehicles to be reported to CARB (using the
Diesel Off-Road Online Reporting System) and labeled; (3) restricts the adding of older vehicles into fleets
starting on January 1, 2014; and (4) requires fleets to reduce their emissions by retiring, replacing, or
repowering older engines, or installing Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (i.e., exhaust retrofits).
The fleet must either show that its fleet average index was less than or equal to the calculated fleet average
target rate, or that the fleet has met the Best Achievable Control Technology requirements.
Operation
Electricity
The operation of the project would require electricity for multiple purposes, including cooling, lighting, and
appliances. Additionally, the supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water would indirectly result
in electricity usage. Electricity consumption associated with project operation is based on the CalEEMod
outputs and spreadsheet calculations for water, wastewater, and electric forklifts presented in Appendix A-1.
CalEEMod default values for energy consumption for each land use were applied for the project analysis.
The energy use from non-residential land uses is calculated in CalEEMod based on the California
Commercial End-Use Survey database. Energy use in buildings (both natural gas and electricity) is divided
by the program into end use categories subject to Title 24 requirements (end uses associated with the
building envelope, such as the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] system; water heating
system; and integrated lighting) and those not subject to Title 24 requirements (such as appliances,
electronics, and miscellaneous “plug-in” uses).
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations serves to enhance and regulate California’s building
standards. The most recent amendments to Title 24, Part 6, referred to as the 2019 standards,
became effective on January 1, 2020. According to these estimations, the project would consume
approximately 2,730,571 kilowatt-hours per year during operation (Appendix A-1).
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 44
OCTOBER 2023
Natural Gas
The operation would require natural gas for various purposes, including water heating and natural gas
appliances. Natural gas consumption associated with operation is based on the CalEEMod outputs in
Appendix A-1.
CalEEMod default values for energy consumption for each land use were applied for the project analysis.
The energy use from non-residential land uses is calculated in CalEEMod based on the California
Commercial End-Use Survey database. Energy use in buildings (both natural gas and electricity) is divided
by the program into end use categories subject to Title 24 requirements (end uses associated with the
building envelope, such as the HVAC system, water heating system, and integrated lighting) and those not
subject to Title 24 requirements (such as appliances, electronics, and miscellaneous “plug-in” uses).
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations serves to enhance and regulate California’s building
standards. The most recent amendments to Title 24, Part 6, referred to as the 2019 standards, became
effective on January 1, 2020. According to these estimations, the project would consume approximately
43,536 thousand British thermal units per year.
Petroleum
During operations, most of the fuel consumption resulting from the project would involve motor vehicles
traveling to and from the project site.
Petroleum fuel consumption associated with motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site is a
function of the VMT as a result of project operation. As shown in Appendix A-1 and as discussed in
Section 3.3 and Section 3.8, the annual VMT attributable to the project is expected to be 6,630,127 miles.
Like the construction worker and vendor trips, fuel consumption from worker and truck trips are estimated
by converting the total CO2 emissions from operation of the project to gallons using the conversion factors
for CO2 to gallons of gasoline or diesel. Mobile source emissions were estimated using EMFAC2017.
Calculations for annual mobile source fuel consumption are provided in Table 3.6-3.
Table 3.6-3. Operational Annual Mobile Source Petroleum Demand
Fuel Source Vehicle MT CO2 kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons
Gasoline Vehicles 1,807.34 8.78 205,847
Diesel Vehicles 246.45 10.21 24,139
Total 229,985
Sources: Trips and vehicle CO2 (Appendix A-1); kg/CO2/Gallon (The Climate Registry 2021).
Notes: MT = metric ton; CO2 = carbon dioxide; kg = kilogram
As shown in Table 3.6-3, total petroleum consumption for the project annually is estimated to be
229,985 gallons.12
12 For context, California as a whole is expected to consume approximately 18.0 billion gallons of petroleum per year by 2023 (CARB
2021). Countywide total petroleum use by vehicles is expected to be 1,114 million gallons per year by 2024 (CARB 2021).
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 45
OCTOBER 2023
Summary
In summary, although natural gas and electricity usage would increase due to the implementation of the
project, the project would be subject to the State Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Although the project
would see an increase in petroleum use during construction and operation, vehicles would use less
petroleum due to advances in fuel economy and potential reduction in VMT over time. Therefore, impacts
to energy resources during operation would be less than significant.
Over the lifetime of the project, the fuel efficiency of the vehicles being used by the visitors and employees
of the project is expected to increase. As such, the amount of gasoline consumed because of vehicular trips
to and from the project site during operation would decrease over time. There are numerous regulations in
place that require and encourage increased fuel efficiency. For example, CARB has adopted a new
approach to passenger vehicles by combining the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions
into a single coordinated package of standards. The new approach also includes efforts to support and
accelerate the number of plug-in hybrids and zero-emission vehicles in California (CARB 2017a).
Additionally, in response to SB 375, CARB has adopted the goal of reducing per-capita GHG emissions from
2005 levels by 8% by the year 2020 and 13% by the year 2035 for light-duty passenger vehicles in the
SCAG planning area. This reduction would occur by reducing VMT through the integration of land use
planning and transportation. As such, operation of the project is expected to use decreasing amounts of
petroleum over time, due to advances in fuel economy.
The project would create additional electricity and natural gas demand by adding residential, office and
retail facilities. New facilities associated with the proposed project would be subject to the State Building
Energy Efficiency Standards, embodied in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The efficiency
standards apply to new construction of non-residential buildings and regulate energy consumed for heating,
cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. The project will meet applicable Title 24 requirements,
other renewable energy systems including wind turbine generation, geothermal generation, energy storage
and other renewable energy generation features are not considered technically or economically feasible
and or demonstrated for a similar project. Additionally, site constraints include limited land availability and
incompatibility with land use for large scale power generation facilities as well as unknown interconnection
feasibility and compatibility with utility provider systems. For these reasons other onsite renewable energy
systems are not considered feasible for the proposed project.
In summary, implementation of the project would increase the demand for electricity and natural gas at the
project site and petroleum consumption in the region during construction and operation. However, as the
project would be consistent with current regulations and policies, the project would not be wasteful, inefficient,
and would not result in unnecessary energy resource consumption. The project’s energy consumption
demands during construction and operation would conform to the State’s Title 24 standards such that the
project would not be expected to wastefully use gas and electricity. Since the proposed project would comply
with Title 24 conservation standards, the proposed project would not directly require the construction of new
energy generation or supply facilities or result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.
Moreover, vehicle usage associated with the project would use less petroleum due to advances in fuel
economy and potential reduction in VMT over time. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 46
OCTOBER 2023
Renewable Energy Potential
As part of the Project’s design process, the Project Applicant considered how the Project could potentially
increase its reliance on renewable energy sources to meet the Project’s energy demand. Renewable energy
sources that were considered for their potential to be used to power the Project, consistent with the CEC’s
definition of eligible renewables, include biomass, geothermal, solar, wind, and small hydroelectric facilities.
Given the Project’s location in an urban area and the nature of the Project (i.e., a residential and commercial
project on approximately 12 acres), there are considerable site constraints including limited land
availability, incompatibility with onsite and surrounding land uses for large scale power generation facilities,
unknown interconnection feasibility, compatibility with utility provider systems, and no known water or
geothermal resources to harness, that would eliminate the potential for biomass, geothermal, and
hydroelectric renewable energy to be installed onsite.
Regarding wind power, first, due to the urban nature of the site and surrounding land uses, wind turbines
are generally not feasible as it represents an incompatible use. Specifically, a general rule of thumb is to
install a wind turbine on a tower with the bottom of the rotor blades at least 30 feet above anything within
a 500-foot horizontal radius and to be sited upwind of buildings and trees (APA 2011; NREL 2015), which
the project site cannot accommodate. Secondly, ideal places for wind turbines are where the annual
average wind speed is at least 9 miles per hour for small wind turbines and 13 miles per hour for utility-
scale turbines (EIA 2022), while the yearly average windspeed at the San Bernardino International Airport
is 7.2 miles per hour, which is determined to be the most available representative data set for the project
site (Weatherspark 2022). As such, wind power was not determined to be feasible for the Project.
Regarding solar power, building roofs would include solar panels, consistent with the requirements of title
24 standards. The exact size of the photovoltaic system will be based on the available roof area and the
condition floor area per title 24 standards. While the proposed project does not propose battery storage at
the time, the project does not preclude installation of battery storage in the future if determined to be a
feasible and compatible land use of the site.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The project would be subject to and would comply with, at a minimum, the
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (24 CCR, Part 6). Part 6 of Title 24 establishes energy
efficiency standards for non-residential buildings constructed in California to reduce energy demand and
consumption. The non-residential portion of the project would comply with the California code requirements
for energy efficiency.
Part 11 of Title 24 sets forth voluntary and mandatory energy measures that are applicable to the project
under the California Green Building Standards. California Green Building Standards institute mandatory
minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up, new construction of commercial, low-
rise residential, high-rise residential, state-owned buildings, schools, and hospitals, as well as certain
residential and non-residential additions and alterations. On this basis, the project would not conflict with
or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 47
OCTOBER 2023
3.7 Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VII. 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.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
The following analysis is based, in part, on the Geotechnical Due Diligence Evaluation for the Proposed Jefferson
Fontana Mixed-Use Development, Southwest of the Intersection of Juniper Avenue and Valley Boulevard, City of
Fontana, California, prepared by Leighton in June 2022 (Appendix E).
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 48
OCTOBER 2023
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
No Impact. The Alquist-Priolo Zones Special Studies Act defines active faults as those that have
experienced surface displacement or movement during the last 11,000 years. The project site is
not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no active faults are known to cross
the site (Appendix E). The closest known active faults are the San Jacinto Fault Zone, located
6.9 miles east of the project site, and the Cucamonga Fault Zone, located 7.1 miles north of the
project site. The nearest potentially active fault to the site is the Fontana Seismic Trend which is
located approximately 2.0 miles to the west of the project site (Appendix E). Therefore, no direct or
indirect impacts associated with fault rupture would occur.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. Similar to other areas located in the seismically active Southern
California region, the City is susceptible to strong ground shaking during an earthquake. However,
as previously addressed above in Section 3.7(a)(i), the project site is located 6.9 miles west of the
San Jacinto Fault Zone and 7.1 miles south of the Cucamonga Fault Zone. Additionally, the project
would be designed in accordance with all applicable provisions established in the current California
Building Code, which sets forth specific engineering requirements to ensure structural integrity
during a seismic event. Compliance with these requirements would reduce the potential risk to
both people and structures with respect to strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, direct and
indirect impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
No Impact. Liquefaction occurs when partially saturated soil loses its effective stress and enters
a liquid state, which can result in the soil’s inability to support structures above. Liquefaction can
be induced by ground-shaking events and is dependent on soil saturation conditions. The County
of San Bernardino has mapped the site to be outside of a zone for liquefaction susceptibility
(Appendix E). Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts associated with seismic-related ground
failure, including liquefaction, would occur.
iv) Landslides?
No Impact. The project site and surrounding area are flat and lack any hillsides or topographic
features typically susceptible to landslides. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, the City is
generally flat and not at risk from the threat of landslides (City of Fontana 2018b). Therefore, no
direct or indirect impacts associated with landslides would occur.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project would involve earthwork and other construction activities that
would disturb surface soils and temporarily leave exposed soil on the ground’s surface. Common causes of
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 49
OCTOBER 2023
soil erosion from construction sites include stormwater, wind, and soil being tracked off site by vehicles. To
help curb erosion, project construction activities would comply with all appliable federal, state, and local
regulations for soil erosion. The project would be required to comply with standard regulations, including
SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, which would reduce construction related wind erosion impacts. For
stormwater discharges associated with construction activity in the State of California, the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has adopted the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated
with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit) to avoid and minimize
water quality impacts attributable to such activities. The Construction General Permit applies to all projects
in which construction activity disturbs more than one acre or more of soil. Construction activity subject to
this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling and excavation.
The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a stormwater pollution
prevention plan (SWPPP), which includes a schedule for the implementation and maintenance of erosion
control measures and a description of the erosion control practices, including appropriate design details
and a time schedule. The SWPPP would consider the full range of erosion control BMPs, including effluent
monitoring and compliance, post-construction-period requirements, worker training, and various other
measures designed to minimize potential for soil erosion and loss of topsoil. Routine inspection of all BMPs
is required under the provisions of the Construction General Permit, and the SWPPP must be prepared and
implemented by qualified individuals as defined by the SWRCB (SWRCB 2022a). Further, stormwater BMPs
would include those recommended by the California Stormwater Quality Association.
In addition to requirements of the Construction General Permit, the project would be required to adhere to
relevant construction practices required under the City Municipal Code, including the Jurisdictional Runoff
Management Program and Erosion/Sediment Control requirements. With required adherence to these
regulations and implementation of the SWPPP and BMPs, project construction would have a less-than-
significant impact associated with soil erosion and loss of topsoil.
Upon completion of construction, the multifamily residential complex would improve the project site,
reducing the possibility for soil erosion or loss of topsoil compared to current conditions. Collectively, on-
site areas, such as landscape areas and parking, the potential for soil erosion and topsoil loss would be
reduced compared to existing conditions. The structural and paved improvements would be impervious
areas lacking any exposed soils, except for the proposed stormwater biofiltration basins. The landscape
areas, although pervious, would contain vegetation that would help stabilize and retain surface soils on the
project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
No Impact. As previously discussed above in Section 3.7(a)(iii) and (iv), the project site is not located in an
area with potential for seismic hazards. Additionally, the project’s geotechnical evaluation concluded that
the potential for lateral spreading and subsidence is very low (Appendix E). Therefore, no impacts
associated with unstable geologic units or soils would occur.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 50
OCTOBER 2023
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
No Impact. Expansive soils are characterized by their potential shrink/swell behavior. Shrink/swell is the
change in volume (expansion and contraction) that occurs in certain fine-grained clay sediments from the
cycle of wetting and drying. Clay minerals are known to expand with changes in moisture content. The higher
the percentage of clay soils present in near surface soils, the higher the potential for soil expansion.
The project’s geotechnical evaluation concluded that the project site’s soils have a very low expansion
potential (Appendix E). Therefore, no impacts associated with expansive soils would occur.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact. Wastewater treatment would be provided by Inland Empire Utilities Authority and
implementation of the proposed project would not include septic tanks or other alternative wastewater
treatment methods. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in no impact
associated with soils incapable of supporting septic systems or alternative wastewater treatment methods.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. As described in Appendix E, Geotechnical Due Diligence Evaluation, the
project site is underlain by artificial fill material over Late Holocene age young alluvial fan deposits
consisting predominantly of well-graded sand to silty sand with gravel. Holocene age alluvium has a low
probability of encountering fossil remains and is considered to possess a low paleontological sensitivity.
Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geological feature. Although not expected to occur, in the event that previously
uncovered paleontological resources are encountered during project construction, the construction
manager would be required to halt construction activities in the immediate area, in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(f). A qualified paleontologist would make an immediate evaluation of the
significance and appropriate treatment of the resources, in accordance with Society for Vertebrate
Paleontology guidelines for identification, evaluation, disclosure, avoidance, recovery, and/or curation, as
appropriate. Any fossils recovered during treatment shall be deposited to an accredited and permanent
scientific institution. A qualified professional paleontologist is a professional with a graduate degree in
paleontology, geology, or related field, with demonstrated experience in the vertebrate, invertebrates, or
botanical paleontology of California, as well as at least one year of full-time professional experience, or
equivalent specialized training in paleontological research, (i.e., the identification of fossil deposits,
application of paleontological field and laboratory procedures and techniques, and curation of fossil
specimens), and at least four months of supervised field and analytic experience in general North American
paleontology. Construction activities may continue on other parts of the construction site while evaluation
and treatment of paleontological resources take place, if necessary. Compliance with these existing policies
would ensure that impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 51
OCTOBER 2023
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate
(e.g., temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns) lasting for an extended period of time (i.e., decades or
longer). The Earth’s temperature depends on the balance between energy entering and leaving the planet’s
system, and many factors (natural and human) can cause changes in Earth’s energy balance. The
greenhouse effect is the trapping and buildup of heat in the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface (the
troposphere). The greenhouse effect is a natural process that contributes to regulating the Earth’s
temperature, and it creates a livable environment on Earth. Human activities that emit additional GHGs to
the atmosphere increase the amount of infrared radiation that gets absorbed before escaping into space,
thus enhancing the greenhouse effect and causing the Earth’s surface temperature to rise. Global climate
change is a cumulative impact; a project contributes to this impact through its incremental contribution
combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs. Thus, GHG impacts are recognized
exclusively as cumulative impacts (CAPCOA 2008).
A GHG is any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere; in other words, GHGs trap heat in the
atmosphere. As defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 38505(g) for purposes of
administering many of the state’s primary GHG emissions reduction programs, GHGs include CO2, methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen
trifluoride (see also CEQA Guidelines Section 15364.5). The three GHGs evaluated herein are CO2, CH4,
and N2O because these gases would be emitted during project construction and operation.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change developed the global warming potential (GWP) concept to
compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The reference gas
used is CO2; therefore, GWP-weighted emissions are measured in metric tons (MT) of CO2 equivalent (CO2e).
Consistent with CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0, this GHG emissions analysis assumed the GWP for CH4 is 25
(i.e., emissions of 1 MT of CH4 are equivalent to emissions of 25 MT of CO2), and the GWP for N2O is 298,
based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007).
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 52
OCTOBER 2023
As discussed in Section 3.3, the project is located within SCAQMD jurisdictional boundaries. In October 2008,
the SCAQMD proposed recommended numeric CEQA significance thresholds for GHG emissions for lead
agencies to use in assessing GHG impacts of residential and commercial development projects as presented
in its Draft Guidance Document—Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold
(SCAQMD 2008). This document, which builds on the previous guidance prepared by the California Air
Pollution Control Officers Association, explored various approaches for establishing a significance threshold
for GHG emissions. The draft interim CEQA thresholds guidance document was not adopted or approved by
the Governing Board. However, in December 2008, the SCAQMD adopted an interim 10,000 MT CO2e per-
year screening level threshold for stationary source/industrial projects for which the SCAQMD is the lead
agency (SCAQMD 2008). The 10,000 MT CO2e per-year threshold, which was derived from GHG reduction
targets established in Executive Order S-3-05, was based on the conclusion that the threshold was consistent
with achieving an emissions capture rate of 90% of all new or modified stationary source projects.
The SCAQMD formed a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group to work with SCAQMD staff on
developing GHG CEQA significance thresholds until statewide significance thresholds or guidelines are
established. From December 2008 to September 2010, the SCAQMD hosted working group meetings and
revised the draft threshold proposal several times, although it did not officially provide these proposals in
a subsequent document. The SCAQMD has continued to consider adoption of significance thresholds for
residential and general land-use development projects. The most recent proposal issued by SCAQMD,
issued in September 2010, uses the following tiered approach to evaluate potential GHG impacts from
various uses (SCAQMD 2010):
Tier 1. Determine if CEQA categorical exemptions are applicable. If not, move to Tier 2.
Tier 2. Consider whether or not the project is consistent with a locally adopted GHG reduction plan that
has gone through public hearing and CEQA review, that has an approved inventory, includes
monitoring, etc. If not, move to Tier 3.
Tier 3. Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of screening thresholds for
individual land uses. The 10,000 MT CO2e per-year threshold for industrial uses would be
recommended for use by all lead agencies. Under option 1, separate screening thresholds are
proposed for residential projects (3,500 MT CO2e per year), commercial projects (1,400 MT CO2e
per year), and mixed-use projects (3,000 MT CO2e per year). Under option 2, a single numerical
screening threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year would be used for all non-industrial projects. If the
project generates emissions in excess of the applicable screening threshold, move to Tier 4.
Tier 4. Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of applicable performance
standards for the project service population (population plus employment). The efficiency targets were
established based on the goal of AB 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
If the project generates emissions in excess of the applicable efficiency targets, move to Tier 5.
Tier 5. Consider the implementation of CEQA mitigation (including the purchase of GHG offsets)
to reduce the project efficiency target to Tier 4 levels.
The City has not adopted project-specific significance thresholds, To determine the proposed project’s
potential to generate GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment, the
proposed project’s GHG emissions were estimated and then compared to the project quantitative threshold
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 53
OCTOBER 2023
of 3,000 MT CO2e per year under Tier 3, Option 1. The SCAQMD’s interim thresholds used the Executive
Order S-3-05-year 2050 goal as the basis for the screening threshold, therefore, the approach would be
consistent with SB 32 long-term emissions reduction goal of 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050.
Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction of the project would result in GHG emissions, which are primarily associated with the use of
off-road construction equipment, on-road haul and vendor trucks, and worker vehicles. The SCAQMD Draft
Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold (SCAQMD 2008)
recommends that “construction emissions be amortized over a 30-year project lifetime, so that GHG
reduction measures will address construction GHG emissions as part of the operational GHG reduction
strategies.” Thus, the total construction GHG emissions were calculated, amortized over 30 years, and
added to the total operational emissions for comparison with the GHG significance threshold of 3,000 MT
CO2e per year. The determination of significance, therefore, is addressed in the operational emissions
discussion following the estimated construction emissions.
CalEEMod was used to calculate the annual GHG emissions based on the construction scenario described in
Section 3.3. Construction of the project is anticipated to commence in September 2024 and conclude in July
2027 (34 months) On-site sources of GHG emissions include off-road equipment and off-site sources include
haul trucks, vendor trucks, and worker vehicles. Table 3.8-1 presents construction GHG emissions for the
project from on-site and off-site emission sources.
Table 3.8-1. Estimated Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Year
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Metric Tons per Year
2024 232.05 0.05 <0.01 234.62
2025 975.11 0.09 0.04 989.48
2026 1,023.05 0.09 0.04 1,037.41
2027 191.67 0.04 <0.01 193.83
Total 2,455.34
Amortized Emissions (over 30 years) 81.84
Source: Appendix A-1.
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent.
As shown in Table 3.8-1, the estimated total GHG emissions during construction of the project would be
approximately 2,455 MT CO2e. Estimated project-generated construction emissions amortized over
30 years would be approximately 81 MT CO2e per year. As with project-generated construction air quality
pollutant emissions, GHG emissions generated during construction of the project would be short-term in
nature, lasting only for the duration of the construction period, and would not represent a long-term source
of GHG emissions. Because there is no separate GHG threshold for construction, the evaluation of
significance is discussed in the operational emissions analysis in the following text.
Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 was used to estimate potential project-generated and exiting land use
operational GHG emissions from area sources (landscape maintenance), natural gas combustion, electrical
generation, water supply and wastewater treatment, solid waste, and off-road equipment (forklifts). As with
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 54
OCTOBER 2023
the air quality analysis, mobile source GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod based on EMFAC2017
emission factors. Emissions from each category—area sources, energy sources, mobile sources, solid waste,
water supply and wastewater treatment, and off-road equipment—are discussed in the following text with
respect to the project. For additional details, see Section 3.3 for a discussion of operational emission
calculation methodology and assumptions, specifically for area, energy (natural gas), and mobile sources.
Operational year 2027 was assumed to be the first full year of operation following completion of construction.
Area Sources
CalEEMod was used to estimate GHG emissions from the project’s area sources, including operation of
gasoline-powered landscape maintenance equipment, which produce minimal GHG emissions. It was
assumed that 100% of the landscaping equipment would be gasoline powered. Consumer product use and
architectural coatings result in VOC emissions, which are analyzed in air quality analysis only, and low to no
GHG emissions.
Energy Sources
The estimation of operational energy emissions was based on CalEEMod land use defaults and square
footage of the project’s land uses. For non-residential buildings, CalEEMod energy intensity value
(electricity or natural gas usage per square foot per year) assumptions were based on the California
Commercial End-Use Survey database. Emissions are calculated by multiplying the energy use by the
utility carbon intensity (pounds of GHGs per kilowatt-hour for electricity or 1,000 British thermal units for
natural gas) for CO2 and other GHGs.
The current Title 24, Part 6 standards, referred to as the 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards,
became effective on January 1, 2020. The current version of CalEEMod assumes compliance with the 2019
Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CAPCOA 2021).
The CalEEMod default energy intensity factor (CO2, CH4, and N2O mass emissions per kilowatt-hour) were
utilized for Southern California Edison. SB X1 2 established a target of 33% from renewable energy sources
for all electricity providers in California by December 31, 2020, and SB 100 calls for further development
of renewable energy, with a target of 44% by December 31, 2024; 52% by December 31, 2027; and 60%
by December 31, 2030. As such, GHG emissions associated with project electricity demand would continue
to decrease over time.
Mobile Sources
All details for criteria air pollutants discussed in Section 3.3 are also applicable for the estimation of
operational mobile source GHG emissions. Regulatory measures related to mobile sources include
Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (Pavley) and related federal standards. AB 1493 required that CARB establish GHG
emission standards for automobiles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles determined by CARB to be
vehicles that are primarily used for noncommercial personal transportation in the state. In addition, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and EPA have established corporate fuel economy standards
and GHG emission standards, respectively, for automobiles and light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles.
Implementation of these standards and fleet turnover (replacement of older vehicles with newer ones) will
gradually reduce emissions from the project’s motor vehicles. The effectiveness of fuel economy
improvements was evaluated to the extent it was captured in the EMFAC2017 emission factors for motor
vehicles in 2027.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 55
OCTOBER 2023
Solid Waste
The project would generate solid waste and therefore, would result in CO2e emissions associated with
landfill off-gassing. CalEEMod default values for solid waste generation were used to estimate GHG
emissions associated with solid waste.
Water and Wastewater
Supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water for the project require the use of electricity, which
would result in associated indirect GHG emissions. Similarly, wastewater generated by the project requires
the use of electricity for conveyance and treatment, along with GHG emissions generated during wastewater
treatment. Water consumption estimates for both indoor and outdoor water use and associated electricity
consumption from water use and wastewater generation were estimated using CalEEMod default values.
The estimated operational (year 2027) GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, motor vehicles,
solid waste generation, water usage and wastewater generation, and off-road equipment are shown in
Table 3.8-2.
Table 3.8-2. Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emission Source
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
metric tons per year
Proposed Project
Area 96.58 <0.01 <0.01 97.28
Energy 393.08 0.03 <0.01 395.11
Mobile 2,053.79 0.03 0.09 2,083.22
Solid waste 33.28 1.97 0.00 82.45
Water supply and wastewater 102.18 0.082 0.02 128.80
Project Total 2,786.86
Amortized Construction Emissions 81.84
Proposed Project + Amortized Construction Emissions Total 2,868.70
Source: Appendix A-1.
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent.
As shown in Table 3.8-2, estimated annual generated GHG emissions would be approximately 2,787 MT
CO2e per year as a result of project operation. Estimated annual operational emissions in 2027 with
amortized project construction emissions of approximately 82 MT CO2e per year would be approximately
2,869 MT CO2e per year. Annual operational GHG emissions with amortized construction emissions would
not exceed the threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year.
b) Would the project generate conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to conflicts
with GHG emission reduction plans, for the reasons described as follows.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 56
OCTOBER 2023
Potential to Conflict with the San Bernardino County Regional GHG Reduction Plan
The San Bernardino Council of Governments (SBCOG) adopted a Regional GHG Reduction Plan in March 2021
(SBCOG 2021). The GHG Reduction Plan compiled an inventory of GHG emissions and developed reduction
measures that could be adopted by the 21 Partnership cities of San Bernardino County. The regional GHG
Reduction Plan serves as the basis for cities in the County to develop a more detailed community or local level
climate action plan. As discussed in the GHG Reduction Plan, The City of Fontana selected a goal to reduce
its community GHG emissions to a level that is 46% below its 2008 emissions by 2030. The City will meet
and exceed this goal subject to reduction measures that are technologically feasible and cost-effective
through a combination of state (approximately 75%) and local (approximately 25%) efforts. The Pavley vehicle
standards, the state’s low carbon fuel standard, the renewable portfolio standard, and other state measures
will reduce GHG emissions in Fontana’s on-road, solid waste, and building energy sectors in 2030. However,
the City of Fontana has not adopted a local climate action plan. Nonetheless, the project would comply with
or not prevent the City from pursuing the relevant GHG reduction measures and regulations outlined in the
Regional GHG reduction Plan, including compliance with applicable Title 24 building standards, and
compliance with the City’s off-road equipment idling ordinance. The Regional GHG Reduction Plan is not a
qualified GHG reduction plan under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. Therefore, this discussion is for
informational purposes only and is not determinative of significance.
Potential to Conflict with the CARB Scoping Plan
The Climate Change Scoping Plan, approved by CARB in 2008 and updated in 2014 and 2017, provides a
framework for actions to reduce California’s GHG emissions and requires CARB and other state agencies
to adopt regulations and other initiatives to reduce GHGs. The Scoping Plan is not directly applicable to
specific projects, and it is not intended to be used for project-level evaluations.13 Under the Scoping Plan,
however, several state regulatory measures aim to identify and reduce GHG emissions. CARB and other
state agencies have adopted many of the measures identified in the Scoping Plan. Most of these measures
focus on area-source emissions (e.g., energy usage and high-GWP GHGs in consumer products) and
changes to the vehicle fleet (e.g., hybrid, electric, and more fuel-efficient vehicles) and associated fuels,
among others. Nonetheless, the project would comply with various GHG emission reduction regulations to
the extent they apply to the project’s emissions sources including CARB’s tractor-trailer GHG regulations
and Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas Standards for New Vehicle and Engines.
Potential to Conflict with the Southern California Association of Governments 2020–
2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
The SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal) is a regional growth management strategy that targets
per capita GHG reduction from passenger vehicles and light trucks in the Southern California Region
pursuant to SB 375. In addition to demonstrating the Region’s ability to attain the GHG emission-reduction
targets set forth by CARB, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS outlines a series of actions and strategies for
integrating the transportation network with an overall land use pattern that responds to projected growth,
housing needs, changing demographics, and transportation demands. Thus, successful implementation of
the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS would result in more complete communities with various transportation and
housing choices while reducing automobile use.
13 The Final Statement of Reasons for the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines reiterates the statement in the Initial Statement of Reasons
that “[t]he Scoping Plan may not be appropriate for use in determining the significance of individual projects because it is conceptual at
this stage and relies on the future development of regulations to implement the strategies identified in the Scoping Plan” (CNRA 2009).
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 57
OCTOBER 2023
The following strategies are intended to be supportive of implementing the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and
reducing GHGs: focus growth near destinations and mobility options; promote diverse housing choices;
leverage technology innovations; support implementation of sustainability policies; and promote a green
region (SCAG 2020a). The strategies that pertain to SCAG’s support of local jurisdiction sustainability efforts
would not apply to the project. The project’s potential to conflict with the remaining applicable strategies is
presented in the following text.
Focus Growth Near Destinations and Mobility Options. One of the strategies within the 2020–2045
RTP/SCS’s focuses on growth near existing transit and implementation of first/last mile strategies. The project
would not conflict with this strategy of the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, as the project site is served by passenger
rail and bus services. As discussed in Section 3.17 Transportation, the Fontana Metrolink Station, located
approximately 1.7 miles north of the project site, would serve as the nearest Metrolink station serving the San
Bernardino Line. Omnitrans provides public transit bus service in the City of Fontana. Omnitrans Route 61 is
the closest bus route to the project site, with stops along San Bernardino Avenue. The San Bernardino at
Cypress Avenue bus stop serves Route 61 and is located 0.5-mile to the north of the project site. The Fontana
Metrolink Station connects with Omnitrans Routes 14, 19, 61, and 66.
Promote Diverse Housing Choices. The proposed project would comply with this strategy of the 2020–2045
RTP/SCS since it would result in the development of a diverse set of residential units to increase a mix of
housing supply options within the City.
Leverage Technology Innovations. One of the technology innovations identified in the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS
that would apply to the project is the promotion and support of low emission technologies for transportation,
such as alternative fueled vehicles to reduce per capita GHG emissions. The project would not conflict with
SCAG’s ability to implement this strategy because it would include rooftop solar, electric vehicle charging
stations, and energy star appliances in compliance with title 24 building standards.
Promote a Green Region. The third applicable strategy within the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, for individual
developments, such as the project, involves promoting a green region through efforts such as supporting
local policies for renewable energy production and promoting more resource efficient development (e.g.,
reducing energy consumption) to reduce GHG emissions. The project would support this measure by
complying with the title 24 building standards.
Based on the analysis above, the project would be consistent with the SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS.
Potential to Conflict with SB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05. Regarding consistency with SB 32 (goal of
reducing GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030) and Executive Order S-3-05 (goal of reducing
GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050), there are no established protocols or thresholds of
significance for that future-year analysis. However, CARB has expressed optimism about both the 2030 and
2050 goals. It states in the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework that
“California is on track to meet the near-term 2020 GHG emissions limit and is well-positioned to maintain and
continue reductions beyond 2020 as required by AB 32” (CARB 2014). Regarding the 2050 target for
reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels, CARB (2014) states the following:
This level of reduction is achievable in California. In fact, if California realizes the expected
benefits of existing policy goals (such as 12,000 megawatts of renewable distributed
generation by 2020, net zero energy homes after 2020, existing building retrofits under
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 58
OCTOBER 2023
Assembly Bill 758, and others) it could reduce emissions by 2030 to levels squarely in line
with those needed in the developed world and to stay on track to reduce emissions to 80%
below 1990 levels by 2050. Additional measures, including locally-driven measures and
those necessary to meet federal air quality standards in 2032, could lead to even greater
emission reductions.
In other words, CARB believes that the state is on a trajectory to meet the 2030 and 2050 GHG
reduction targets set forth in AB 32, SB 32, and Executive Order S-3-05. This is confirmed in the 2017
Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, which states (CARB 2017b):
The Scoping Plan builds upon the successful framework established by the Initial Scoping
Plan and First Update, while identifying new, technologically feasible and cost-effective
strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction targets in a way that promotes
and rewards innovation, continues to foster economic growth, and delivers improvements
to the environment and public health, including in disadvantaged communities.
In addition, the specific path to compliance for the state regarding the long-term, future goals will require
development of new technology or other changes that are not currently known or available. As such,
identifying ways that the project would be consistent with future goals would be speculative and cannot be
meaningfully discussed at this time. However, the proposed project’s consistency with current goals,
policies, and regulations would assist in meeting the City’s contribution to GHG emission reduction targets
in California. With respect to future GHG targets under SB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05, CARB has also
made clear its legal interpretation that it has the requisite authority to adopt whatever regulations are
necessary, beyond the AB 32 horizon year of 2020, to meet the SB 32 40 percent reduction target by 2030
and the Executive Order S-3-05 80 percent reduction target by 2050. This legal interpretation by an expert
agency provides evidence that future regulations will be adopted to continue the trajectory toward meeting
these future GHG targets.
Based on the above considerations, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. This impact would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
IX. 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?
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 59
OCTOBER 2023
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site that is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Short-Term Construction Impacts
Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. In June 2022, a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) (Appendix F-1) was prepared by Leighton in accordance with American Society of Testing
and Materials Standards and Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries. The Phase I ESA covered
the entirety of the project site. Based on the results of the research, available data, and a site survey, the
Phase I ESA found four recognized environmental conditions that could pose a hazard to future occupants
of the project site, which include the following:
▪ Former agricultural usage on the site
▪ A leaking container filled with tar-like material was observed on the project site
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 60
OCTOBER 2023
▪ A soil pile mixed with demolition debris (concrete and asphalt fragments) was observed on the
project site
▪ Staining observed in the soil in the northwestern and southeastern portions of the project site
Additionally, a former gasoline underground storage tank (UST) was identified as a historic recognized
environmental condition (HREC) associated with the site. This gasoline UST was removed from the
project site in the late 1970s, and a documented regulatory closure has been completed. No further
action is recommended.
Based on the findings of the Phase I ESA, a Limited Phase II ESA (Appendix F-2) was prepared to assess
the potential for the release of hazardous substances at the project site associated with the identified
recognized environmental conditions. As part of this process, 10 soil borings were taken on the project site.
Soil samples were taken across the site to investigate for soil impacts related to former agricultural use.
Additional samples were taken beneath the tar container, from the construction debris stockpile, and in
areas of stained soil. Soil samples were collected at 0.5 and 1.5 feet below ground surface across the site
and below the tar container, six inches below the surface of the construction debris stockpile, and 0.5 and
2 feet below ground surface in areas of stained soil.
The results of the soil testing found that the project site includes primarily nondetectable concentrations of
pesticides, VOCs, and hydrocarbons. Except for soil samples collected in the northwestern (SS1-0.5) and
southeastern (SS2-0.5) areas of soil staining, the results of the soil investigation did not detect
concentrations of the targeted analytes above their respective practical quantitation limits for residential
uses of the site (Appendix F-2). Samples collected from the northwestern and southeastern areas of soil
staining contain diesel-range total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations that exceed the allowable limit
of total petroleum hydrocarbons in soil in a residential setting. Concentrations of oil- range total petroleum
hydrocarbons that exceed the allowable limit of total petroleum hydrocarbons in soil in a residential setting
were also present in the southeastern stained area of the project site. The areas of stained soil are each
ten feet by ten feet or less. To ensure that this contamination does not threaten the health of future
occupants of the project site, MM HAZ-1 shall be required. MM HAZ-1 will require the removal and disposal
of the stained soil in the vicinity of soil samples SS1-0.5 and SS2-0.5 prior to grading of the site.
Implementation of MM HAZ-1 would ensure that previous contamination would not result in adverse health
and safety impacts to workers during construction of the project or to future occupants of the site.
Upon completion of soil remediation efforts in compliance MM HAZ-1, potentially hazardous materials
would be handled on the project site as part of project construction. These materials would include gasoline,
diesel fuel, lubricants, and other petroleum-based products required to operate and maintain construction
equipment. Handling of these potentially hazardous materials would be temporary and would coincide with
the short-term construction phase of the project.
Although these materials would be stored on the project site, storage would be required to comply with the
guidelines set forth by each product’s manufacturer and with all applicable federal, state, and local
regulations pertaining to the storage of hazardous materials. Consistent with federal, state, and local
requirements, the transport of hazardous materials to and from the project site would be conducted by a
licensed contractor. Any handling, transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would comply with all
relevant federal, state, and local agencies and regulations, including the EPA, the California Department of
Toxic Substances Control, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Caltrans, the
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 61
OCTOBER 2023
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the SCAQMD, and the County Fire Department Hazardous
Materials Division. Therefore, short-term construction impacts related to the transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
MM HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall retain a qualified
contractor to remove and dispose of contaminated soil in the northwestern (SS1-0.5) and
southeastern (SS2-0.5) areas of soil staining of soil samples, as identified in the July 2022
Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Fontana Residential
Development, Southwest of the Intersection of Juniper Avenue and Valley Boulevard,
Fontana, California, prepared by Leighton, or any updates to that report. The removal,
transport, and disposal of refuse shall be done in accordance with all applicable local,
state, and federal guidelines related to hazardous materials handling. A summary of the
soil removal and disposal activities shall be provided to the City of Fontana within a
reasonable timeframe following completion of these activities.
Long-Term Operational Impacts
Less-Than-Significant Impact. As a primarily residential land use, potentially hazardous materials
associated with operation of the project would include those materials typically associated with cleaning
and maintenance activities. Although these materials would vary, they would include household cleaning
products, solvents, paints, fertilizers, and herbicides and pesticides. Many of these materials are
considered household hazardous wastes, common wastes, and universal wastes by the EPA, which
considers these types of wastes common to businesses and households and to pose a lower risk to people
and the environment than other hazardous wastes when properly handled, transported, used, and disposed
of (EPA 2022). Federal, state, and local regulations typically allow these types of wastes to be handled and
disposed of under less-stringent standards than other hazardous wastes, and many of these wastes do not
need to be managed as hazardous waste.
In addition, any potentially hazardous material handled on the project site would be limited in quantity and
concentration, consistent with other similar residential uses located in the City, and any handling, transport,
use, and disposal of such material would comply with applicable federal, state, and local agencies and
regulations. In addition, as mandated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, all hazardous
materials stored on the project site would be accompanied by a Materials Safety Data Sheet, which would
inform on-site personnel and residents of the necessary remediation procedures in the case of accidental
release (OSHA 2012). Therefore, long-term operational impacts associated with the use, transport, and
disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Refer to response provided in Section 3.9(a).
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 62
OCTOBER 2023
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact. The nearest school to the project site is Cypress Elementary School (9751 Cypress Avenue),
which is located approximately 0.4 miles northwest of the project site. Therefore, no impacts associated
with emitting or handling hazardous materials within 0.25 miles of a school would occur.
d) Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
No Impact. The project site is not included on any hazardous waste site lists, including the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control’s EnviroStor database, the State Water Resources Control Board’s
GeoTracker site, the Cortese list, or other lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government
Code (CalEPA 2022; DTSC 2022; SWRCB 2022b). Therefore, no impacts associated with hazardous
materials sites would occur.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive
noise for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The nearest operational public-use airport to the project site is Ontario International Airport,
which is located approximately eight miles west. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan
or within two miles of a public use airport. Therefore, the project would not result in excessive noise or safety
hazards, and no impact would occur.
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan was adopted by the City Council in 2018. The City also
adopted an Emergency Operations Plan in 2019. No revisions to the adopted EOP would be required as a
result of the proposed project. As detailed in Section 3.17, Transportation, a total of four driveways would
provide access to emergency services and their vehicles from all sides of the project site. All driveways
would be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles and would allow the project site to be safely
accessed from any direction and all project site plans would be required to be reviewed and approved by
the Fire Department prior to the certificate of occupancy is issued. In addition, the City requires that projects
conducting construction work within the City roadway rights of way obtain Traffic Control Permits approved
by the City Department of Engineering. The project site would remain accessible to emergency vehicles and
emergency access routes during the construction and operation of the proposed project. Therefore,
construction and operation of the proposed project would not interfere with implementation of an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, including the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
The impact would be less than significant.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 63
OCTOBER 2023
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. According to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s (CAL FIRE) 2008 High
Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the Local Response Area map for the City, the project site is not located in
an area identified as being susceptible to wildland fire. The project site is in a developed portion of the
City, and no wildland–urban interfaces occur in the project area. Therefore, no impacts associated with
wildland fire would occur.
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
X. 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?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on-
or offsite;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 64
OCTOBER 2023
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Short-Term Construction Impacts
Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction of the project would include earthwork activities that could
potentially result in erosion and sedimentation, which could subsequently degrade downstream receiving
waters and violate water quality standards. Stormwater runoff during the construction phase may contain
silt and debris, resulting in a short-term increase in the sediment load of the municipal storm drain system.
Substances such as oils, fuels, paints, and solvents may be inadvertently spilled on the project site and
subsequently conveyed via stormwater to nearby drainages, watersheds, and groundwater.
For stormwater discharges associated with construction activity in the State of California, the SWRCB has
adopted the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land
Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit) to avoid and minimize water quality impacts
attributable to such activities. The Construction General Permit applies to all projects in which construction
activity disturbs more than one acre or more of soil. Construction activity subject to this permit includes
clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling and excavation. The Construction
General Permit requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP, which would include and specify
water quality BMPs designed to prevent pollutants from contacting stormwater and keep all products of
erosion from moving off site into receiving waters (in this case, the I-10 Channel, the San Sevaine Channel,
the Santa Ana River, and its discharge into the Pacific Ocean) (Appendix G). Routine inspection of all BMPs
is required under the provisions of the Construction General Permit, and the SWPPP must be prepared and
implemented by qualified individuals as defined by the SWRCB (SWRCB 2022a).
The City of Fontana is a co-permittee under San Bernardino County’s National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (No. CAS618036), and as such is required to adhere to the County-
wide NPDES permit requirements. Because land disturbance for project construction activities would
exceed one acre, the project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the Construction
General Permit issues by the SWRCB prior to the start of construction within the project site. Specifically,
the Construction General Permit requires that the following be kept on site at all times: (i) a copy of the
Notice of Intent to Comply with Terms of the General Permit to Discharge Water Associated with
Construction Activity; (ii) a waste discharge identification number issues by the SWRCB; (iii) a SWPPP and
Monitoring Program Plan for the construction activity requiring the construction permit; and (iv) records of
all inspections, compliance and non-compliance reports, evidence of self-inspection, and good
housekeeping practices.
The SWPPP requires the construction contractor to implement water quality BMPs to ensure that water
quality standards are met, and that stormwater runoff from the construction work areas do not cause
degradation of water quality in receiving water bodies. The SWPPP must describe the type, location, and
function of stormwater BMPs to be implemented, and must demonstrate that the combination of BMPs
selected are adequate to meet the discharge prohibitions, effluent standards, and receiving water
limitations are contained in the Construction General Permit. Therefore, short-term construction impacts
associated with water quality, stormwater drainage, and stormwater runoff would be less than significant.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 65
OCTOBER 2023
Long-Term Operational Impacts
Less-than-Significant Impact. The project would be subject to the municipal stormwater permit, the MS4
Permit, issued to San Bernardino County and incorporated cities within the County by the Santa Ana
Regional Water Quality Control Board. The MS4 Permit requires implementation of LID BMPs to prevent
pollutants from being discharged off site by mimicking pre-development site hydrology and feasible source
control. The LID Ordinance is designed to reduce runoff from impervious surfaces, including new
development, through landscape design that promotes water retention, permeable surface design, natural
drainage systems, and on-site retention where feasible (RWQCB 2010). These project-specific designs
would reduce impacts to water quality associated with redevelopment.
As required by the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System NPDES Permit, a
preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) was prepared for the project in October 2022
(Appendix G). The WQMP is a post-construction management program that outlines implementation
measures to ensure water quality standards are met, including implementation of source control and
operational BMPs such as designing landscape to minimize irrigation and runoff; utilizing covered and leak
proof trash dumpsters; and sweeping and litter control of loading areas to prevent pollutants from entering
runoff. The WQMP would be implemented prior to the issuance of grading/building permits as required by
the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System NPDES Permit. The project would
not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during long-term operation through
compliance with the WQMP. Therefore, long-term operational impacts associated with water quality,
stormwater drainage, and stormwater runoff would be less than significant.
In summary, project grading and construction would be completed in accordance with an NPDES-mandated
SWPPP, which would include standard BMPs to reduce potential off-site water quality impacts related to
erosion and incidental spills of petroleum products and hazardous substances from equipment. Surface
water runoff during project operations would be managed using a proposed underground infiltration system
near the southeast corner of the project site. Therefore, the project would not violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater
quality and water quality impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Groundwater Supplies
Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is located within the service area of the Fontana Water
Company (FWC). The FWC’s main water supply is from the Chino, Rialto-Colton, and Lytle Basins, which
provided 22,944 acre-foot per year of groundwater on average over the last four years (FWC 2021). The
proposed project would connect to existing water lines within Valley Boulevard and Juniper Avenue.
Additionally, according to the project’s geotechnical investigation (Appendix E), groundwater was not
encountered during test excavations, and historic high groundwater in the vicinity has been recorded
greater than 268 feet below grade at nearby wells. As such, the project’s subsurface construction activities,
which would only extend a few feet below grade, are highly unlikely to encounter groundwater, and
dewatering activities are not anticipated to be necessary. Therefore, impacts associated with groundwater
supplies would be less than significant.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 66
OCTOBER 2023
Groundwater Recharge
Less-than-Significant Impact. While not developed, the project site is highly disturbed and does not
contain a groundwater recharge basin or other facilities that promote groundwater recharge. Thus, under
the existing condition, the project site is not considered an important location for groundwater recharge.
Following construction, the project site would contain landscape areas and other pervious surfaces that
would allow for water to percolate into the subsurface soils compared to the existing conditions. Therefore,
impacts associated with groundwater recharge would be less than significant.
c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Under the existing conditions, the project site is undeveloped and flat.
The project would involve grading activities that would bring the project site to a flat grade and the
construction of new paved surfaces, residential buildings, and landscape areas. The project would
also include a new engineered stormwater drainage system that would feature structural BMPs such
as retention facilities to treat and manage stormwater flows. While the project’s future drainage
conditions would be designed to mimic the existing on-site drainage conditions to the maximum
extent practicable, construction activities would inevitably result in changes to the internal drainage
patterns of the site. However, the project’s future storm drain system will be designed to conform
with applicable federal, state, and local requirements related to drainage, hydrology, and water
quality. In addition, the project’s structural BMPs would be designed such that any potential
sediments collected on site would be captured in retention facilities so that they would not be
conveyed to downstream waters and result in siltation (Appendix G). As such, alteration of the on-site
drainage pattern would be conducted in a manner consistent with all applicable standards related to
the collection and treatment of stormwater, such that it would not result in substantial erosion or
siltation on or off site. Therefore, impacts associated with altering the existing drainage pattern of the
project site and erosion or siltation would be less than significant.
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite?
Less-than-Significant Impact. As discussed above in Section 3.10(c)(i), the project would
inevitably result in changes to the internal drainage patters of the project site. However, the
project’s future storm drain system will be designed to conform with applicable federal, state, and
local requirements related to drainage, hydrology, and water quality. As such, alteration of the on-
site drainage pattern would be conducted in a manner consistent with all applicable standards
related to the collection and treatment of stormwater.
In addition, according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06071C8654H for the project area,
the project site is located within Zone X, which is defined by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency as an area located outside of the 100-year and 500-year flood plains (FEMA 2008).
Therefore, impacts associated with altering the existing drainage pattern of the project site and
flooding would be less than significant.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 67
OCTOBER 2023
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. As previously addressed, the project would inevitably alter the
drainage patters of the project site; however, the project would include a new engineered
stormwater drainage system that would be designed to conform with applicable federal, state, and
local requirements related to drainage, hydrology, and water quality. Alteration of the on-site
drainage pattern would be conducted in a manner consistent with all applicable standards related
to the collection and treatment of stormwater. Therefore, impacts associated with altering the
existing drainage pattern of the project site and stormwater would be less than significant.
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is in Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard per
the Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM panel 06071C8654H effective August 28, 2008
(FEMA 2008). Zone X is defined as an area located outside of the 100-year and 500-year flood
plains. In addition, as previously discussed, although internal drainage patterns would be altered
as a result of project development, the project would maintain adequate stormwater conveyance
as to not result in an increase of surface runoff that would result in flooding on- or off-site
associated with the 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Therefore, impacts associated with impeding
or redirecting flood flows would be less than significant.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact. The project site is located approximately 40 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. Because of the
project site’s inland location, the project would not be subject to tsunami. Additionally, due to the lack of a
larger adjacent perennial waterbody such as a reservoir or lake, the project site would not be susceptible
to seiche. Further, the project site’s flat topography and lack of nearby hillside would eliminate any impact-
related mudflow. Therefore, the project would not risk release of pollutants due to inundation associated
with these natural phenomena, and no impacts would occur.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Refer to responses provided in Section 3.10(a) and 3.10(b). The project
would comply with regional and local regulations requiring preparation of a SWPPP and would not obstruct
existing water quality control plans or groundwater sustainable management plans. The proposed project
would provide an on-site stormwater detention basin, which would help the City sustainably manage
groundwater levels. Therefore, impacts associated with conflict with a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan would be less than significant.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 68
OCTOBER 2023
3.11 Land Use and Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a linear
feature (such as a major highway or railroad tracks) or removal or a means of access (such as a local road
or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community or between a community and outlying
area. Under the existing condition, the 11.6-acre project site is currently vacant. It is not used as a
connection between established communities. Instead, connectivity within the area surrounding the project
site is facilitated via local roadways and pedestrian sidewalks. Therefore, no impacts associated with
physical division of an established community would occur.
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact. The City’s General Plan designated the project site for WMXU-1 uses and the site is zoned for
Form-Based Code (FBC) Valley Gateway District, per the City’s Zoning Code. The proposed project would be
consistent with Article III, Division 3, Section 30-359 and Section 30-370 of the City’s Zoning and
Development Code. Section 30-359 states that a residential use within mixed-use development having a
commercial component is a permitted use by right subject to design review by the Planning Commission or
administrative site plan review by the Director of Community Development (City of Fontana 2022). This
zoning is consistent with the Walkable Mixed-Use Corridor and Downtown land use designation of the
General Plan (City of Fontana 2018a). Per the City’s Zoning and Development Code, Valley Gateway District
“is intended to encourage pedestrian and transit-oriented development. Land uses should include a
mixture of housing types, retail and services, general and medical office, entertainment and education.” As
the project includes a mix of residential and retail land uses, the project would not conflict with the existing
land use and zoning designations. Section 30-370 of the City’s Zoning and Development Code states that
residential or mixed-used uses in the Valley Gateway District allows a maximum density of 39 units per
acre, and a minimum density of 20 units per acre. The project proposes a density of 38.9 units per acre,
and therefore would be consistent with Section 30-370 of the City’s Zoning and Development Code. As
such, the project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning and Development Code and
no impacts would occur.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 69
OCTOBER 2023
3.12 Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. According to the City’s General Plan, no known deposits of precious gemstones, ores, or unique
or rare minerals have been identified within the vicinity of the project site (City of Fontana 2018a). Thus,
no impact would occur in this regard.
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. There are no known mineral resources located on or near the project site. Accordingly, no
impact to the availability of a regionally or locally important mineral resource would occur.
3.13 Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIII. NOISE – Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 70
OCTOBER 2023
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
a) Would the project result in 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 with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction noise is considered a short-
term impact and would be considered significant if construction activities exceed, during the allowable
hours of operation as permitted by the City, the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) advisory threshold of
80 dBA (A-weighted decibel) Leq over an 8-hour daytime period at a residential land use. Noise-sensitive
land uses in the vicinity of the project include residences to the south, east, and north of the project site.
Two calculation scenarios were analyzed and described as follows:
▪ Usage of the shortest activity-to-receptor distance for the loudest equipment type and quantity
associated with the studied construction phase, with less noisy equipment types at successive
distance increments of 50 feet; and
▪ An “acoustic centroid” approach, akin to the FTA general assessment technique for estimating
construction noise, whereby all listed equipment for a construction phase is represented by a
common location at the geographic center of the studied construction zone or area.
Using the Roadway Construction Noise Model-emulating model, the predicted noise level exposures from
the proposed construction activities at the nearest studied residential receptors are summarized in
Table 3.13-1. Details of the modeling input and output are provided in Attachment C of Appendix H.
Table 3.13-1. Construction Noise Model Results Summary
Construction Phase
Construction Noise at Nearest Sensitive
Receptor Distances (dBA 8-hour Leq)
Nearest Distance
(20 feet)
Acoustic Center
(450 feet)
Site Preparation (dozer, tractor) 86 64
Grading (excavator, grader, dozer, scraper, backhoe) 87 64
Building Construction (crane, man-lift, generator, backhoe,
welder/torch) 86 62
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 71
OCTOBER 2023
Table 3.13-1. Construction Noise Model Results Summary
Construction Phase
Construction Noise at Nearest Sensitive
Receptor Distances (dBA 8-hour Leq)
Nearest Distance
(20 feet)
Acoustic Center
(450 feet)
Architectural Coating (air compressor) 84 59
Paving (concrete mixer truck, paver, backhoe, roller) 80 50
Notes: See Attachment C of Appendix H for complete results.
As discussed in Appendix H, the City’s Noise Ordinance does not establish quantitative construction noise
standards; however, Section 430.469-Noise of the City’s Municipal Code restricts noise-generating
construction activities to the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The construction contractor would thus
be required to comply with these noise regulations prescribing the hours allowed for construction activity.
Were the FTA guidance limit of 80 dBA Leq to be applied as a standard, Table 3.13-1 informs that the
predicted noise level exposure at the offsite noise sensitive receptor closest to the construction boundary
(i.e., a distance of only 20 feet) is 87 dBA and exceeds this standard by 7 dB. Hence, despite construction
activity hours complying with City regulations, project construction noise impacts could be significant
without mitigation. Mitigation measure (MM) NOI-1 below is subsequently presented to address this
potentially significant impact and would be expected to reduce construction noise to levels that are
compliant with the FTA-based criterion of 80 dBA 8-hour Leq.
On-Site Operational Noise
Implementation of the project would result in changes to existing noise levels on and around the project
site by developing new stationary sources of noise, including introduction of additional outdoor HVAC
equipment. These sources may affect noise-sensitive vicinity land uses off the project site.
Rooftop HVAC
Based on the available architectural and mechanical roof plans and other design information for the
proposed project, there are a number of residential HVAC units on each of the residential and commercial
project buildings, with a total of 441 units. Rooftop HVAC reference sound levels were available from the
design plans and “product data” information submittals.
Sound Propagation Prediction
The aggregate noise emission from these outdoor-exposed HVAC sound sources has been predicted with
the Datakustik CadnaA sound propagation program. Table 3.13-2 presents the predicted aggregate noise
level exposures from these operating HVAC systems at each of five (5) nearby offsite noise-sensitive
receptors (i.e., existing residences). Predicted levels shown in Table 3.13-2 range between 32 to 36 dBA
hourly Leq, which is below the City’s noise standard of 45 dBA Leq for single-family residential properties.
Figure 3 of Appendix H displays the location of the studied noise-sensitive receptors and noise contours.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 72
OCTOBER 2023
Table 3.13-2. Stationary Operations Noise Modeling Results
Studied Noise-Sensitive Receptor
(approximate address)
Predicted Project-Attributed Noise
Exposure Level at Nearby Noise-Sensitive
Receptors
Project HVAC (dBA hourly Leq)
R1 (10050 Juniper Ave) 35
R2 (10050 Juniper Ave) 36
R3 (10050 Juniper Ave) 36
R4 (10050 Juniper Ave) 34
R5 (16592 Washington Dr) 32
Note: Leq = equivalent continuous sound level (time-averaged sound level); dBA = A-weighted decibels; HVAC = heating, ventilating,
and air-conditioning. See Figure 3 of Appendix H for locations of studied noise-sensitive receptors.
Aggregate noise emission from continuously operating outdoor-exposed rooftop air-conditioning units is
expected to be below the City of Fontana (City) exterior noise threshold of 65 dBA Leq.
Parking Lot Activity
A comprehensive study of noise levels associated with surface parking lots was published in the Journal
of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management (Baltrënas et al. 2004). The study found that
average noise levels during the peak period of use of the parking lot (generally in the morning with arrival
of commuters, and in the evening with the departure of commuters), was 47 dBA at 1 meter (3.3 feet)
from the outside boundary of the parking lot. The project parking spaces are located throughout the
project area, including directly adjacent to noise sensitive receptor property lines. Since parking lot noise
is considered transient, the hourly Leq would not exceed the City’s noise standard of 45 dBA at the nearest
noise sensitive property line.
Therefore, noise impacts associated with onsite sources (HVAC and parking lot activity) would be less
than significant.
Project-Generated Off-Site Traffic Noise
The project is expected to generate a total of 2,170 trips to the roadway system. As shown in Table 1 of the
project’s Transportation Technical Memorandum, during the PM peak-hour, approximately 184 vehicles
are estimated to enter or exit the project site. Utilizing this information, as well as additional traffic data
shown in Attachment D of Appendix H, an emulator based on the FHWA’s Highway Traffic Noise Prediction
Model RD-77-108 was used to estimate potential noise impacts at adjacent noise-sensitive uses.
Consistent with Caltrans guidance (Caltrans 2013), this analysis assumes 80% of the average daily time
(ADT) occurs during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), 5% during the evening (7:00 p.m. to
10:00 p.m.), and 15% during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The truck percentages used in the
noise model for existing arterials were 2.0% medium trucks and 1.0% heavy trucks, generally consistent
with similar studies where such arterial roadways accept truck traffic.
The change in roadway noise levels was predicted for two conditions: existing and existing plus project.
Traffic noise level predictions presented in Table 3.13-3 are calculated for the Valley Boulevard – Cypress
Avenue to Juniper Avenue roadway segment bounded by intersections within the project area.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 73
OCTOBER 2023
Table 3.13-3. Predicted Roadway Noise Change – Existing plus Project
Modeled Roadway Segment
Existing (2022)
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Existing (2022)
Plus Project Noise
Level (dBA CNEL)
Project-Related
Noise Level
Increase (dBA)
Valley Blvd: Cypress Ave – Juniper Ave 69.2 69.6 0.4
Source: Attachment D of Appendix H
Note: Community Noise Equivalent Level = CNEL
In the context of community noise (i.e., outside of a controlled environment) a change in noise levels of less
than 3 dBA is not perceptible to the average human listener. Additionally, based upon the FICON thresholds
presented in Section 3.1.2 of Appendix H, an increase of less than 5 dBA when the ambient sound level is
less than 60 dBA day/night average sound level (Ldn) /Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)less than
3 dBA when the ambient sound level is less than between 60 and 65 dBA Ldn/CNEL, or less than 2 dBA
when the ambient sound level is greater than 65 dBA Ldn/CNEL would not be substantial.
Project-attributed traffic would cause increases in roadway volumes or trips on Valley Boulevard and Juniper
Avenue, but not at levels expected to yield significant impacts. Using the information from Section 5.3.1 of
Appendix H, the predicted change in roadway traffic noise from Valley Boulevard will be less than 0.4 dB,
which would be considered an imperceptible difference and thus a less than significant impact—especially
in an urban environment with existing noise levels expected to already exceed 65 dBA.
Conclusion
As described above, project-attributed construction noise exposure levels at the nearest offsite residential
land uses would have the potential to exceed an FTA guidance-based threshold and thereby cause a
significant impact; however, implementation of MM NOI-1 would reduce construction noise levels to be
within this adopted daytime threshold for construction to reduce impacts to be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated. Additionally, all operational noises from the project were determined to be less
than significant.
MM NOI-1Reduce Construction Noise Levels. The applicant and/or project contractor shall implement
the following measures:
▪ All construction equipment must have appropriate sound muffling devices, which shall
be properly maintained and used at all times such equipment is in operation.
▪ The project contractor shall place stationary construction equipment so that emitted
noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site.
▪ The construction contractor shall locate on-site equipment staging areas so as to
maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive
receptors nearest the Project site during the construction period.
▪ All noise producing construction activities, including warming-up or servicing
equipment and any preparation for construction, shall be limited to the hours between
7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
▪ A minimum eight (8) foot tall temporary noise barrier shall be erected along the
southern Project site property line where the property line is adjacent to the nearest
noise sensitive receptor.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 74
OCTOBER 2023
With implementation of MM NOI-1 above and as further indicated in Appendix H, an 8’-tall temporary noise
barrier (e.g., typical plywood sheeting or suspension of acoustical blankets) would reduce construction
noise to below 80 dBA at all nearby offsite noise-sensitive receptors. Therefore, implementation of MM NOI-
1 would reduce construction noise impacts to a less-than-significant level.
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. The closest distance between anticipated vibration-producing construction
equipment (e.g., a roller) and offsite residential structures appears to be at least 20 feet, which according
to FTA prediction methodology would be adequate for attenuating ground-borne vibration to levels that, per
FTA or Caltrans guidance with respect to building damage risk and occupant annoyance, would not exceed
relevant criteria and thus be a less than significant impact. In detail, the groundborne vibration propagation
expression appearing in Section 5.2 can be used with FTA reference data for a roller (0.21 inches per
second [ips] peak particle velocity [PPV] at 25 feet) as follows:
PPVrcvr = PPVref * (25/D)^1.5 = 0.29 = 0.21 * (25/20)^1.5
The predicted 0.29 ips PPV for the on-site roller is less than the threshold for structural building damage,
which typically occurs at vibration levels of 0.5 inches per second PPV or greater for buildings of reinforced-
concrete, steel, or timber construction and less than 0.4 ips PPV with respect to occupant annoyance.
Therefore, impacts associated with groundbourne vibration would be less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The nearest public airport is well over 5 miles away, and there are no apparent private airfields
in the project vicinity. Therefore, project worker or future residence exposure to aviation traffic noise is not
expected. No impacts related to aircraft and airport-related noise would occur.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 75
OCTOBER 2023
3.14 Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
a) Would the project 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)?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. According to SCAG’s 2020–2045 RTP/SCS growth forecast, the City is
projected to add approximately 75,700 people, 26,300 households, and 18,400 jobs in the future, based
on regional demographic and economic assumptions (SCAG 2020b). Specifically, SCAG’s forecast indicated
the population will increase from the 2016 population of 211,000 to the projected 2045 population of
286,700 (an increase of 36%).
The project would directly induce population growth in the City by constructing a 437-unit multifamily
residential community on a property that is currently designated for mixed-uses. According to SCAG, the
average household size in the City is 4.0 persons (SCAG 2019). Using this factor of 4.0 persons per
household, the project could support a residential population of approximately 1,748 persons. By
comparison to SCAG’s growth forecast, the project’s 1,748 additional residents would represent 2.3% of
the projected growth in the City. As such, the project’s direct population growth does not constitute a
substantial unplanned population growth within the City.
The project would not lead to significant indirect growth, as the project does not propose substantial
infrastructure improvements that would allow for additional unplanned growth in the area. It is noted
that the surrounding area has already been developed for residential and commercial uses, and the
project site is designated and zoned for residential supporting mixed-uses. As such, direct impacts to
population growth would be less than significant. Therefore, impacts related to substantial population
growth would be less than significant.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 76
OCTOBER 2023
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. Given that no residential uses are located on the project site, the project would not displace
existing housing, nor would it impede future residential development potential. Therefore, no impacts
associated with the displacement of people or housing would occur.
3.15 Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project:
a) 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:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
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:
Fire protection?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD) provides fire protection services
within the City of Fontana. Emergency response, administrative and support services are provided through
a contractual agreement with the San Bernardino County Fire Department (City of Fontana 2018b). There
are seven fire stations that provide fire and emergency medical services to the City (City of Fontana 2018b).
The nearest fire station is Fontana Station #72 (15380 San Bernardino Avenue), which provides fire
protection services to the project site and is located approximately 1.6 miles northwest of the project site.
According to the City’s General Plan EIR, the areas designated for development in the General Plan Update
are already within the service area of the Fontana Fire Protection District (City of Fontana 2018b).
Based on the proximity of the project site to other residential developments, and since the project site is in a
developed part of the City that is within the service area of the FFPD, it is anticipated that the project could
be served without adversely affecting personnel-to-resident ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives. Additionally, incremental impacts would be mitigated through payment of development mitigation
fees for fire facilities (City of Fontana 2018b). Further, FFPD must review this project to ensure that adequate
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 77
OCTOBER 2023
fire flow would occur at the project site as a part of the project review and approval process. Therefore, impacts
associated with the need for new or expanded FFPD facilities would be less than significant.
Police protection?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Fontana Police Department provides police protection services within
the City of Fontana (City of Fontana 2018b). According to the City’s General Plan EIR, law enforcement
protection for the City will increase as the population increases (City of Fontana 2018b). The project site is
located within existing patrol routes, and the police station (17005 Upland Avenue) is located approximately
2.2 miles northeast of the project site.
Based on the proximity of the project site to other residential developments, and since the project site is in a
developed part of the City that is within the service area of the Fontana Police Department, it is anticipated that
the project could be served without adversely affecting personnel-to-resident ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives. Additionally, incremental impacts would be mitigated through payment of the
Development Impact Fee’s law enforcement component. Therefore, impacts associated with the need for new
or expanded Fontana Police Department facilities would be less than significant.
Schools?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The City of Fontana is primarily served by two public school districts: the
Fontana Unified School District (FUSD) and the Etiwanda School District. In addition to these two school
districts, small areas of Fontana are covered by the Colton Joint Unified School District, the Chaffey Joint
Union High School District, and the Rialto School District. The project site is within the boundaries of the
Fontana Unified School District, and the assigned resident schools are Cypress Elementary School (grades
K–5), Truman Middle School (grades 6–8), and Citrus High School (grades 9–12) (FUSD 2019).
According to the California Department of Education, during the 2021/2022 school year, Cypress
Elementary School had 621 students enrolled, Truman Middle School had 1,010 students enrolled, and
Citrus High School had 310 students enrolled (CDE 2022). The Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan for
the FUSD indicates that these schools have a district standard capacity of 968 students, 988 students,
and 806 students, respectively (FUSD 2015). As such, enrollment at Truman middle school was slightly
over standard capacity during the 2021/2022 school year.
The estimated school generation rates for the project are as follows based on the generation rates included
in the FUSD’s Developer Fee Justification Study (FUSD 2022) 14:
▪ The project would generate approximately 83 elementary school students
▪ The project would generate approximately 31 middle school students
▪ The project would generate approximately 57 high school students
Additionally, the project would be subject to SB 50, which requires the payment of mandatory impact fees to
offset any impact to school facilities. In accordance with SB 50, the project applicant would pay its fair share
of school impact fees based on the number of proposed dwelling units and square footage per Government
Code Section 65995(h). Specifically, FUSD charges developer fees for multifamily units of $4.79 per square
14 Refer to Table 5: Projected Enrollment for student generation factors (FUSD 2022).
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 78
OCTOBER 2023
foot of assessable space (FUSD 2022). Per Government Code Section 65996, development fees authorized
by SB 50 are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation.” Therefore, impacts associated
with the need for new or expanded school facilities would be less than significant.
Parks?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project would include a 437-unit multifamily residential complex that
would house approximately 1,748 residents. At least a portion of these residents are anticipated to
patronize various public parks and recreational facilities located in proximity to the project site. However,
the project would include park and recreation amenities that would support some of the new residents’
park and recreation needs. Additionally, the project would be required to comply with the payment of
development impact fees to enhance park and recreation facilities within the City. Further, the project is
consistent with the underlying land use and zoning anticipated for the project site, and the City’s long-range
park planning projects would accommodate for project residents to use various recreational facilities
throughout the City. Therefore, impacts associated with the need for new or expanded park facilities would
be less than significant.
Other public facilities?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. As previously stated, the project would include amenities that would
support some of the new residents’ other public facility needs. The project would incrementally add to the
existing demand for library services. These incremental needs are mitigated through the payment of the
Development Impact Fee, which contains a library component. Payment of Development Impact Fee is
deemed adequate mitigation for the project as it will offset future demand generated by potential new
residents. Therefore, impacts associated with the need for new or expanded public facilities would be less
than significant.
3.16 Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVI. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 79
OCTOBER 2023
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. The City maintains over 40 parks, sports facilities, and community centers
separated into four “Areas.” The project site is located within Area 3 of the City’s Parks and Recreation
Facilities. City parks and recreational facilities within Area 3 closest to the project site include Veterans
Park, Jack Bulik Park, and the Jack Bulik Center (City of Fontana 2023).
The City’s General Plan Conservation, Open Space, Parks, and Trails Element established a minimum
standard of 5 acres of public parkland per 1,000 persons. The City currently has 1359.3 acres of park and
recreation land, resulting in 5.7 acres of park and recreation land per 1,000 residents (City of
Fontana 2018a). The project would include a 437-unit multifamily residential complex that would house
approximately 1,748 residents. At least a portion of these residents are anticipated to patronize various
public parks and recreational facilities located in proximity to the project site. Thus, project development
would create a demand for 8.74 acres of parkland based on the City’s five acres per 1,000 residents
standard. Due to the current surplus of park and recreation land within the City, this standard of five acres
per 1,000 residents would remain met with implementation of the project.
Additionally, the project would include park and recreation amenities that would support some of the new
residents’ park and recreation needs. As described in Section 2, Project Description, the project would
include a recreation building, pool areas, fire pits, lounge areas, a dog park, and other miscellaneous
amenities divided between the eastern and western portions of the site (Figure 2-4, Site Plan). Additionally,
the project would be required to comply with the payment of development impact fees to enhance park and
recreation facilities within the City. Further, the project is consistent with the underlying land use and zoning
anticipated for the project site, and the City’s long-range park planning projects would accommodate for
project residents to use various recreational facilities throughout the City. Therefore, impacts associated
with the increased use of existing recreational facilities would be less than significant.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project site is vacant with no existing recreational facilities on or near
the project site and is designated for multifamily residential use. The project would not include any
recreational facilities beyond those installed for resident and resident guest use only. These on-site
amenities would be within the project site and are part of the project. Any potential environmental impacts
related to the construction and operation of these on-site recreational amenities are already accounted for
in this IS/MND as part of the impact assessment conducted for the entirety of the project. No adverse
physical impacts beyond those already disclosed in this document would occur because of implementation
of the project’s on-site recreational facilities. Therefore, impacts associated with the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities would be less than significant.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 80
OCTOBER 2023
3.17 Transportation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
This section analyzes the potential impacts of the project based on CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), which
focuses on newly adopted criteria (VMT) for determining the significance of transportation impacts. Pursuant to
SB 743, the focus of transportation analysis changed from level of service (LOS) or vehicle delay to VMT. The related
updates to the CEQA Guidelines required under SB 743 were approved on December 28, 2018. This new
methodology was required to be used statewide beginning July 1, 2020. The City of Fontana’s Traffic Impact Analysis
Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (2020) include the local guidelines and
procedures for implementation of the provisions of CEQA and general plan consistency requirements related to
levels of service or operational analysis.
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.
City of Fontana General Plan Community Mobility and Circulation Element
The following goals were developed and included in the General Plan Community Mobility and
Circulation Element to expand the options for transit, bicycle, and pedestrian mobility within the City
(City of Fontana 2018a):
Goal 1. The City of Fontana has a comprehensive and balances transportation system, with safety and
multimodal accessibility the top priority of citywide transportation planning, as well as
accommodating freight movement (Policies 1.1 through 1.4).
Goal 2. Fontana’s road network is safe and accessible to all users, especially the most vulnerable such as
children, youth, older adults, and people with disabilities (Policies 2.1 through 2.2).
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 81
OCTOBER 2023
Goal 3. Local transit within the City of Fontana is a viable choice for residents, easily accessible and serving
destinations throughout the City (Policies 3.1 through 3.2).
Goal 4. The neighborhood streets of Fontana maintain a residential character and support a range of
transit options (Policies 4.1 through 4.2).
Goal 5. Fontana’s commercial and mixed-use areas include a multi-functional street network that ensures
a safe, comfortable, and efficient movement of people, goods, and services to support a high
quality of life and economic vitality (Policies 5.1 through 5.2).
Goal 6. The city has attractive and convenient parking facilities, including electric charging station, for both
motorized and non-motorized vehicles that meet needs that fit the context (Policies 6.1 through 6.2).
Goal 7. The City of Fontana participates in shaping regional transportation policies to reduce traffic
congestion, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions (Policies 7.1 through 7.4).
Roadway Network
The project site is located on the southwest corner of Valley Boulevard and Juniper Avenue. A description
of the nearby roads serving the site is provided below.
I-10 is the southernmost east-west, cross-county highway on the American Interstate Highway System. I-10
originates in Santa Monica, California, and travels eastward through the southwestern and southeastern
states of the country, then terminates in Jacksonville, Florida. In the project vicinity, I-10 is a 10 lane (five
lanes in each direction) freeway facility with interchanges at Sierra Avenue and Citrus Avenue.
Sierra Avenue, oriented in a north-south direction, is a six-lane roadway classified as a Major Highway on
the City’s Mobility and Circulation Element. In the project vicinity, Sierra Avenue has raised medians and
has a single-point interchange at I-10, and it primarily serves access to several retail shopping centers and
Kaiser Permanente Hospital. On-street parking is not permitted on either side of the roadway, and the
posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour (MPH).
Valley Boulevard in the project vicinity is an east-west, four-lane divided (raised and painted medians) roadway
that runs through the cities of Fontana, Rialto and Bloomington. Valley Boulevard is classified as a Major
Highway by the City. Per the City’s Mobility and Circulation Element, Major Highways may have up to six lanes
in most situation. However, east of the project site, Valley Boulevard has five lanes with two or three lanes
occurring in either direction. West of the project site, Valley Boulevard is generally four lanes with on-street
parking permitted on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit in the project vicinity is 45 MPH.
Juniper Avenue, oriented in a north-south direction, is classified as a Collector Street north of Valley
Boulevard, and has an undetermined roadway functional class south of Valley Boulevard, along the
project’s frontage. Juniper Avenue is a roadway with a single lane in each direction and has no posted
speed limit along the project’s frontage. This segment of Juniper Avenue (south of Valley Boulevard)
primarily serves as an access road to the parking lots of the existing Inland Empire Center shopping mall.
Cypress Avenue in the project vicinity is a north-south, four-lane divided roadway that crosses over I-10
without direct interchange access. It is classified as a Collector Street north of Valley Boulevard, and a
Secondary Highway south of Valley Boulevard. North of Valley Boulevard Cypress Avenue transitions to a
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 82
OCTOBER 2023
two-lane roadway as it continues north into existing residential neighborhoods. On-street parking is not
permitted south of Valley Boulevard but permitted north of Valley Boulevard. There is no posted speed limit
south of Valley Boulevard.
Citrus Avenue, oriented in a north-south direction, is classified as a Modified Secondary Highway north of
Valley Boulevard, classified as a Major Highway from Valley Boulevard to Slover Avenue, and a Secondary
Highway south of Slover Avenue. Citrus Avenue is generally a four-lane roadway, however between Valley
Boulevard and Slover Avenue (i.e., over I-10), Citrus Avenue has three northbound lanes and two southbound
lanes. On-street parking is permitted north of Valley Boulevard only. The posted speed limit is 40 MPH.
City of Fontana Active Transportation Plan
The 2017 Fontana Active Transportation Plan (ATP) is used to implement infrastructure improvements for
better connectivity throughout Fontana, to surrounding cities, and to the region, by providing safe and
comfortable walking and biking linkages.
Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities
The project site is served by passenger rail and bus services. The Fontana Metrolink Station, located
approximately 1.7 miles north of the project site, would serve as the nearest Metrolink station serving the
San Bernardino Line.
Omnitrans provides public transit bus service in the City of Fontana. Omnitrans Route 61 is the closest bus
route to the project site, with stops along San Bernardino Avenue. The San Bernardino at Cypress Avenue
bus stop serves Route 61 and is located approximately 0.5-mile to the north of the project site. The Fontana
Metrolink Station connects with Omnitrans Routes 14, 19, 61, and 66. Project construction would not
require the temporary or permanent relocation of bus stops nor interfere with the existing services.
Therefore, development of the project would not conflict with the existing bus routes or bus stops. Impacts
to transit would be less than significant.
There are existing Class II striped bike lanes, which provides an exclusive roadway space for cyclists,
demarcated through pavement marking and signage currently exists along Citrus Avenue and Cypress
Avenue between Valley Boulevard and Slover Avenue. Per the City of Fontana 2017 ATP, Valley Boulevard
is proposed to have a Class II striped bike lane.
Pedestrian connection to the surrounding residential developments is provided via existing public sidewalks
along Juniper Avenue and Valley Boulevard in the vicinity of the Project. The intersection of Juniper Avenue
and Valley Boulevard currently provides crosswalks along the northern, western, southern, and eastern legs
which provides pedestrians safe and convenient access from the Project site across Juniper Avenue and/or
Valley Boulevard. The existing sidewalk system within the Project vicinity provides direct connectivity to the
surrounding residential communities, as well as public transit along San Bernardino Avenue.
Conclusion
The project would not be inconsistent with any program, plan, or policy related to the above-mentioned goals
nor would it preclude the City from implementing adopted transportation-related programs, plans, or policies.
Since SB 743 went into effect, consistency with LOS is not part of the CEQA impact assessment. However,
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 83
OCTOBER 2023
the City of Fontana requires separate LOS-base traffic analysis to demonstrate that the traffic added by the
project would maintain mobility performance goals outlined in the City’s General Plan. As such, the LOS-based
traffic study was submitted to the City under separate cover for review and approval.
The project would not conflict with any plans or policies regarding existing or proposed bicycle or pedestrian
facilities in the study area and would be consistent with the City’s General Plan Community Mobility and
Circulation Element and ATP. As discussed above, the project would not conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed into law, which creates a
process to change the way that transportation impacts are analyzed under CEQA. SB 743 required the
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS
for evaluating transportation impacts. Under the new transportation guidelines, LOS, or vehicle delay, will
no longer be considered an environmental impact under CEQA. The Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research recommended VMT as the most appropriate measure of project transportation impacts for land
use projects and land use plans. The updates to the CEQA Guidelines required under SB 743 were approved
on December 28, 2018.
The Updated CEQA Guidelines state that “…generally, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate
measure of transportation impacts…” and define VMT as “…the amount and distance of automobile travel
attributable to a project….” It should be noted that “automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles,
specifically cars and light trucks. Heavy-duty truck VMT could be included for modeling convenience and
ease of calculation (for example, where models or data provide combined auto and heavy truck VMT). Other
relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel.
The City released VMT specific TIA guidelines on October 21, 2020, detailing the City’s methodology for SB
743 compliance. Per the City’s guidelines, “…a VMT analysis should be conducted for land use projects 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.” Additionally, “…these guidelines are based on the SBCTA SB743 Implementation Study, which
provides options for both methodologies and VMT screening. The methodologies and significance
thresholds presented [in the City’s guidelines] are based on SBCTA recommendations from the
Implementation Study.”
VMT Project Screening
The following screening criteria have been used in the project’s VMT assessment, consistent with the City’s
TIA Guidelines for VMT and LOS Analysis. Per the City’s guidelines, the VMT screening was conducted using
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 84
OCTOBER 2023
the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) (online) VMT Screening Tool. The results of
the VMT screening analysis from the online tool are provided in Attachment A.
▪ Step 1: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening: Projects located within a TPA15 may be presumed to
have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. This presumption
may NOT be appropriate if the project:
- Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75
- Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than
required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking)
- Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the
lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization)
- Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income
residential units
As shown in Attachment A, the VMT screening tool indicates that the proposed project is located within a
TPA. However, the bus routes nearest to the project are OmniTrans Route 61 with 20-minute headways;
Route 19 with 60-minute headways; and, Route 82 with 60+ minute headways. Also, only Route 61 is ½
mile or less from the project site. Therefore, although the screening tool indicates the project site is within
a TPA, the bus routes have been verified to not have 15 minutes, or less, headways. As such, the project
cannot be screened out using the proximity to transit availability criteria.
▪ Step 2: Low VMT Area Screening: Residential and office projects located within a low VMT- generating
area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the
contrary. In addition, other employment-related and mixed-use land use projects may qualify for the
use of screening if the project can reasonably be expected to generate VMT per resident, per worker,
or per service population that is similar to the existing land uses in the low VMT area.
The SBCTA VMT screening tool was used to determine whether the proposed project would be located in a low VMT-
generating area. Per the City’s guidelines, a low VMT-generating area is determined as 15% below the baseline
County of San Bernardino VMT per resident, per worker, or per service population.
As shown in Table 3.17-1, the VMT per resident for the project TAZ is 7.4, and the County of San Bernardino VMT
per resident is 16.0. Therefore, the TAZ would be 53.6% below the County’s threshold, which would meet the
required 15% below baseline screening criteria established in the City’s guidelines. As such, the proposed project
can be screened out using this criterion. However, under VMT per Service Population (SP), the project TAZ is 84.1,
and the County VMT per SP is 33.4. Therefore, the TAZ would be 151.5% above the baseline criteria and would not
screen out using this criterion.
15 The City of Fontana TIA Guidelines for VMT and LOS Analysis defines a TPA as a half mile area around an existing major transit
stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor, per the definitions below:
Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 (“‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal
served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval
of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”)
Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 (“For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus
service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.”).
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 85
OCTOBER 2023
Table 3.17-1. Summary of Project TAZ VMT
Base Year (2023) VMT
PA VMT per Resident1
Project TAZ (53727301) 7.4
Jurisdiction 16.0
% Difference (Project TAZ – Jurisdiction) -53.6%
Threshold 13.6
OD VMT per Service Population1
Project TAZ (53727301) 84.1
Jurisdiction 33.4
% Difference (Project TAZ – Jurisdiction) 151.5%
Threshold 28.4
Source: SBCTA VMT Screening Tool output (attached)
3 The TAZ of the project currently does not contain any existing residential uses so the reported VMT per Resident and VMT per
SP may not be representative of the TAZ.
However, it should be noted that the TAZ of the project currently does not contain any existing residential uses so
the reported VMT per Resident and VMT per SP may not be representative of the TAZ. Therefore, the parcels and
their corresponding TAZs of adjacent existing multifamily residential uses similar to the proposed project were also
analyzed for VMT per resident and VMT per SP to provide an accurate assessment of residential VMT in the project’s
TAZ. These existing parcels and their land uses are:
• Paseo Verde Apartments: 10050 Juniper Avenue, located adjacent to, and north of the proposed project,
across Valley Boulevard.
• Peachtree Apartments: 16775 San Bernardino Avenue, located northeast of the proposed project, near the
southeast corner of Juniper Avenue/San Bernardino Avenue.
• Juniper Village: 16700 Marygold Avenue, located northeast of the proposed project, at the northeast corner
of Juniper Avenue/Marygold Avenue.
• Park Village Apartments: 10033 Juniper Avenue, located northeast of the proposed project, across from
the Paseo Verde Apartments.
Tables 3.17-2, 3, and 4 summarize the VMT per Resident and VMT per SP for those adjacent parcels and TAZs with
existing similar multifamily residential units.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 86
OCTOBER 2023
Table 3.17-2. VMT of Paseo Verde Apartments Parcel north of Project
Base Year (2023) VMT
PA VMT per Resident
Project TAZ (53727201) 13.0
Jurisdiction 16.0
% Difference (Project TAZ – Jurisdiction) -18.8%
Threshold 13.6
OD VMT per Service Population
Project TAZ (53727201) 27.8
Jurisdiction 33.4
% Difference (Project TAZ – Jurisdiction) -16.9%
Threshold 28.4
Source: SBCTA VMT Screening Tool output (attached)
Table 3.17-3. VMT of Peachtree Apartments and Juniper Village Parcels northeast of
Project
Base Year (2023) VMT
PA VMT per Resident
Project TAZ (53727101) 10.2
Jurisdiction 16.0
% Difference (Project TAZ – Jurisdiction) -35.9%
Threshold 13.6
OD VMT per Service Population
Project TAZ (53727101) 28.5
Jurisdiction 33.4
% Difference (Project TAZ – Jurisdiction) -14.9%
Threshold 28.4
Source: SBCTA VMT Screening Tool output (attached)
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 87
OCTOBER 2023
Table 3.17-4. VMT of Park Village Apartments Parcel northeast of Project
Base Year (2023) VMT
PA VMT per Resident
Project TAZ (53727101) 10.2
Jurisdiction 16.0
% Difference (Project TAZ – Jurisdiction) -35.9%
Threshold 13.6
OD VMT per Service Population
Project TAZ (53727101) 28.5
Jurisdiction 33.4
% Difference (Project TAZ – Jurisdiction) -14.9%
Threshold 28.4
Source: SBCTA VMT Screening Tool output (attached)
Based on review of the VMT of the adjacent parcels and TAZs with existing multifamily residential units similar to
those of the proposed project, those residential land uses within those TAZs generate low VMT per Resident and
low VMT per SP. This is due to the proximity of the existing complementary residential, retail, and employment uses,
and the proximity of existing transit stops along Sierra Avenue. The complementary uses surrounding the project
site include the existing apartment complexes listed above, the adjacent Inland Empire Center shopping mall, other
retail/commercial/restaurant uses adjacent to Sierra Avenue/Valley Boulevard, and the Kaiser Permanente
Medical Center (employment).
Therefore, the proposed multifamily units (project) would also generate similar levels of low VMT, and the project
can be screened out using the Low VMT Area Screening criteria, and impacts to VMT would be less than significant.
▪ Step 3: Low Project Type Screening: Local serving retail projects less than 50,000 square feet may
be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.
Local serving retail generally improves the convenience of shopping close to home and has the
effect of reducing vehicle travel.
The City’s guidelines identify several local serving land uses; however, the proposed project is
primarily a residential project with a relatively small retail component (4,200 square feet).
Therefore, the project cannot be screened out from further VMT analysis using this criterion.
▪ Step 4: Project net daily trips less than 500 ADT: Projects that generate fewer than 500 average daily
trips (ADT) would not cause a substantial increase in the total citywide or regional VMT and are
therefore presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT. Appendix B, City of Fontana SB
743 Small Project Testing, provides additional discussion and analysis regarding the application of
the 500 ADT screening criteria and how it has been established within the context of CEQA.
Projects which generate less than 500 ADT include the following:
- Single family residential – 52 Dwelling Units or fewer
- Multi-family residential – 68 Dwelling Units or fewer
- General Office – 51,000 square feet or less
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 88
OCTOBER 2023
- Light Industrial – 100,000 square feet or less
- Warehousing – 287,000 square feet or less
- High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse – 357,000 square feet or less
The proposed project is the construction and development of 464 multifamily DUs and
4,200 square feet of retail/commercial uses, estimated to generate 2,336 ADT as shown in
Table 1. Therefore, the proposed project would exceed the 500 ADT screening threshold and
cannot be screened out from further VMT analysis using this criterion.
Conclusion
As the proposed project meets one of the four screening criteria (Low VMT Area Screening) established in
the City’s TIA Guidelines for VMT and LOS Analysis, a project-level detailed VMT analysis would not be
required, and project impacts to VMT would be less than significant.
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would be developed within the vacant and
undeveloped property, with the addition of roadway modifications, sidewalk improvements, and
driveways. The project would complete the unimproved southern half-section of Valley Boulevard and
provide a continuous connection of the existing lane geometries on either side of the project site, three
eastbound through lanes east and west of the project site. In addition, there will be adequate space to
stripe the proposed Class II bike lanes as indicated in the ATP. The proposed project would not introduce
any new driveways along Valley Boulevard but would utilize the existing driveway and drive aisle along
the west side of the project side, shared with the existing thrift store and church to the west
(approximately 750-feet west of the Valley Boulevard/Juniper Avenue intersection). The access would
remain stop controlled, right-turn in and right-turn out only. All other driveways would be stop controlled.
Additionally, a driveway would be provided along Juniper Avenue, and would be aligned with the existing
shopping mall access to the east (approximately 300-feet south of the Valley Boulevard/Juniper Avenue
intersection) and would be full access (all movements permitted). These two driveways would comprise
the primary driveways and main access points for the project site. Secondary driveways would be
provided for exiting traffic only in areas with low traffic volumes, along Washington Drive (approximately
800-feet east of Paul Balbach Drive), and along another access driveway along Juniper Avenue
(approximately 600-feet south of the Valley Boulevard/Juniper Avenue intersection).
The existing access along Valley Boulevard would remain right-turn in and right-turn out, thereby
minimizing critical left-turn movements on Valley Boulevard. The west driveways along Juniper Avenue
would be served by the adjacent signal at Valley Boulevard/Juniper Avenue which would efficiently serve
critical left-turn movements to/from the project site, including the associated retail uses of the proposed
project. All queue storage areas within the project site would adequately support the expected level of
traffic, and the main egress/ingress would be split largely between the two primary driveways (along
Valley Boulevard and Juniper Avenue).
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 89
OCTOBER 2023
Conclusion
The design of the proposed project, including all egress/ingress, driveways, roadway modifications, would
be designed according to all relevant City guidelines and would be reviewed by the City’s Public
Works/Engineering Department. All driveways would have adequate queue storage areas, would be
perpendicular to existing roads, and would not cause hazards due to a geometric design feature. All
driveways would provide adequate line of sight for vehicles entering and exiting the project site. Further,
the proposed project is a mixed-use development with residential and commercial uses and would not
result in land uses that would be incompatible with the existing land uses surrounding the project site,
which consist mainly of commercial and residential uses. Therefore, impacts regarding increases in hazards
due to geometric design features or incompatible uses would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. As discussed previously, the proposed project would provide a total of four
driveways that would also provide access to emergency services and their vehicles from all sides of the
project site. All driveways would be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles and would allow the
project site to be safely accessed from any direction. All project site plans would be required to be reviewed
and approved by the Fire Department prior to the certificate of occupancy is issued. The project site would
remain accessible and would have a limited impact on emergency vehicles and emergency access routes
during the construction and operation of the proposed project.
Conclusion
The proposed project would provide multiple access points, with a total of four driveways, each from
different sides of the project site. All driveways would be accessible by emergency vehicles, and the project
site would remain accessible during construction and operation of the site. Therefore, impacts regarding
the project resulting in inadequate emergency access would be less than significant.
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined
in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 90
OCTOBER 2023
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to
a California Native American tribe.
The evaluation of potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources is based on the findings resulting from tribal
consultation conducted by the City, as the lead agency, as well as the findings of the Archaeological Resources
Assessment conducted by Dudek in 2022 (Appendix D).
Assembly Bill 52
AB 52 of 2014 amended PRC Section 5097.94 and added PRC Sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2,
21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3. AB 52 established that tribal cultural resources must be considered
under CEQA and also provided for additional Native American consultation requirements for the lead agency. PRC
Section 21074 describes a tribal cultural resource as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object
that is considered of cultural value to a California Native American Tribe. A tribal cultural resource (TCR) is either:
▪ On the CRHR or a local historic register;
▪ Eligible for the CRHR or a local historic register; or
▪ 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 PRC Section 5024.1.
AB 52 formalizes the lead agency–tribal consultation process, requiring the lead agency to initiate consultation
with California Native American groups that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area,
including tribes that may not be federally recognized. Lead agencies are required to begin consultation prior to
the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report by
contacting those tribal groups who have previously provided formal written request for notification of projects
under the agency’s jurisdiction.
Section 1 (a)(9) of AB 52 establishes that “a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource has a
significant effect on the environment.” Effects on TCRs should be considered under CEQA. Section 6 of AB 52 adds
Section 21080.3.2 to the PRC, which states that parties may propose mitigation measures “capable of avoiding or
substantially lessening potential significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource or alternatives that would avoid
significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource.” Further, if a California Native American tribe requests consultation
regarding project alternatives, mitigation measures, or significant effects to TCRs, the consultation shall include
those topics (PRC Section 21080.3.2[a]). Finally, the environmental document, for which the tribal consultation is
focused, and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (where applicable), developed in consideration of
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 91
OCTOBER 2023
information provided by tribes during the formal consultation process, shall include any mitigation measures that
are adopted (PRC Section 21082.3[a]).
Assembly Bill 52 Consultation
The project is subject to compliance with AB 52 (PRC 21074), which requires consideration of impacts to TCRs as
part of the CEQA process, and that the lead agency notify California Native American Tribal representatives (that
have requested notification) who are traditionally or culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed
project. All NAHC-listed California Native American Tribal representatives that have requested project notification
pursuant to AB 52 were sent letters by the City on January 17, 2023, via certified mail (NOTE: the letters were
mistakenly dated February 17, 2023). The notification letters contained a project summary, an invitation to consult,
a Project site plan, and contact information for the appropriate lead agency representative. Table 3.18-1
summarizes the results of the AB 52 process for the Project.
Table 3.18-1. Assembly Bill 52 Native American Tribal Outreach Results
Native American
Tribal
Representatives
AB 52 Delivery
Method and Date
of Notification
from City to Tribe
Response to City
Notification
Letters Consultation Date and Notes
Andrew Salas,
Chairperson
Gabrieleño Band of
Mission Indians –
Kizh Nation
January 17, 2023
via certified mail
letter
February 6, 2023 March 1, 2023: The Tribe emailed the City
and requested consultation through email
and stated they would send over
“substantial evidence” and mitigation
measures.
March 14, 2023: The Tribe emailed the
City and provided Mitigation Measures to
the City.
March 23, 2023 – Consultation meeting
occurred between the City and the Tribe.
March 29, 2023 – The Tribe emailed the
City and provided documentation for the
City’s review including requested mitigation
measures
June 26, 2023 – The Tribe emailed the City
following up on their previous email dates
March 29, 2023.
June 28, 2023 – The City emailed the Tribe
and provided their determination and City’s
standard tribal resources Conditions of
Approval.
June 28, 2023 – The Tribe emailed City
asking if the City would be implementing
the Tribe’s suggested mitigation measures.
July 6, 2023 – The City and emailed the
Tribe and stated that City’s standard tribal
resources Conditions of Approval would be
implemented for the Project.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 92
OCTOBER 2023
Table 3.18-1. Assembly Bill 52 Native American Tribal Outreach Results
Native American
Tribal
Representatives
AB 52 Delivery
Method and Date
of Notification
from City to Tribe
Response to City
Notification
Letters Consultation Date and Notes
July 6, 2023 – The Tribe emailed the City
asked to be provided the City’s standard
tribal resources Conditions of Approval.
July 6, 2023 – The Tribe emailed the City
providing documentation as attachments.
August 29, 2023 – The Tribe emailed the
City providing documentation both in the
email body and as attachments.
August 29, 2023 – The City emailed the
Tribe thanking the Tribe for its involvement
in consultation and provided the City’s
determination that in the absence of
substantial evidence demonstrating the
potential for significant impacts to tribal
cultural resources, the City has
nevertheless included presentation of
tribal cultural resources as a condition of
approval for the Project.
September 7, 2023 – The tribe emailed
the City and provided requested mitigation
measures
Anthony Morales,
Chief-San Gabriel
Band of Mission
Indians
January 17, 2023
via certified mail
letter
None As no response was received, consultation
was assumed declined.
Joseph Ontiveros,
Cultural Resource
Director-Soboba
Band of Luiseno
Indians
January 17, 2023
via certified mail
letter
None As no response was received, consultation
was assumed declined.
Lee Claus, Director
of Cultural
Resources-San
Manuel Band of
Mission Indians
January 17, 2023
via certified mail
letter
None As no response was received, consultation
was assumed declined.
Jessica Mauck,
Director of Cultural
Resources
San Manuel Band
of Mission Indians
January 17, 2023
via certified mail
letter
March 2, 2023 –
Tribe contacted
the City via email.
March 2, 2023– The Tribe emailed the City
and requested a copy of cultural reports
generated from the project and requested
mitigation measures. The mitigation
measures provided by the Tribe are
consistent with the City’s standard
conditions of approval.
Michael Mirelez,
Cultural Resources
Coordinator-Torres
January 17, 2023
via certified mail
letter
None As no response was received, consultation
was assumed declined.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 93
OCTOBER 2023
Table 3.18-1. Assembly Bill 52 Native American Tribal Outreach Results
Native American
Tribal
Representatives
AB 52 Delivery
Method and Date
of Notification
from City to Tribe
Response to City
Notification
Letters Consultation Date and Notes
Martinez Desert
Cahuilla Indians
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
Less-than-significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.5 above, the project site does not contain any
known resources that are either listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR or in a local register of historical
resources as defined in California Public Resources Code, Section 5020.1(k). However, there is always a
possibility that unidentified resources exist subsurface that may have the potential to meet the criteria
required to be eligible for listing in the CRHR. Therefore, impacts associated with historical resources would
be less than significant.
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In
applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project is subject to compliance with AB
52 (California Public Resources Code, Section 21074), which requires consideration of impacts to Tribal
Cultural Resources as part of the CEQA process. AB 52 requires the City, as the lead agency responsible
for CEQA compliance for the project, to notify any groups (who have requested notification) of the project
who are traditionally or culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project. Because AB 52 is a
government-to-government process, all records of correspondence related to AB 52 notification and any
subsequent consultation are on file with the City. In accordance with AB 52, on January 17, 2023, the City
sent notification letters to the tribal representatives that have formally requested such notice under AB 52.
Two of the tribes sent notification letters responded, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and the
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. No TCRs have been identified within or adjacent to the
proposed Project site through tribal consultation under AB 52, and the lead agency has not identified any
TCRs within or adjacent to the proposed Project site that would warrant discretionary designation of a
resource as a TCR. Tribal consultation is considered by the City as closed.
The site is undeveloped and currently contains non-native grassland and disturbed habitat. It is always
possible that intact tribal cultural resources deposits are present at subsurface levels, and the City is
committed to preserving the integrity of such resources. Thus, implementation of the City’s standard
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 94
OCTOBER 2023
conditions, provided below as MM-TCR-1 through MM-TCR-3, would reduce potential impacts to Tribal
Cultural Resources to a less-than-significant level.
MM-TCR-1 Workers Environmental Awareness Program - All Consulting Tribes shall be notified by
the applicant/owner/developer of the time and location of the Worker Environmental
Awareness Program (WEAP) training no later than 72 hours prior to its scheduled
occurrence. The applicant/owner/developer shall provide all Consulting Tribes access and
opportunity to participate in the WEAP training. Further details and requirements pertaining
to the WEAP training, please see MND Section 3.5 Cultural Resources mitigation measure
MM-CUL-2.
MM-TCR-2 Retention of a Native American Monitoring - Prior to any ground disturbance activities,
the applicant/owner/developer shall contact all Consulting Tribes with notification of the
approximate commencement of ground disturbing activities. The applicant/owner/developer
shall make arrangements with the Consulting Tribes to enter into a Native American
Monitoring Agreement with the intent of securing a total of one Native American monitor
(from any Tribe under contract) to be present during initial ground disturbance occurring from
1 foot above native soils and below. Initial ground disturbance is defined as initial
construction-related earthmoving of sediments from their place of deposition. As it pertains
to cultural resource (archaeological or Native American) monitoring, this definition excludes
movement of sediments after they have been initially disturbed or displaced by current
Project-related construction. The timing of when cultural resource monitoring (archaeological
and Native American) shall be required shall be outlined in the Cultural Resource Monitoring
and Inadvertent Discovery Plan pursuant to MM-CUL-1. The Plan will be provided to each
Consulting Tribe under contract prior to commencement of ground disturbing activities. More
than one monitor may be required if multiple areas within the Project site are simultaneously
exposed to initial ground disturbance causing monitoring to be hindered by the distance
(more than 100 feet apart) of the simultaneous activities. If more than one of the Consulting
Tribes would like to serve as a contracted monitoring entity, each Consulting Tribe will be
retained under contract with the applicant/owner/developer and monitoring will occur on a
nonsynchronous, rotational basis allowing each Consulting Tribe the opportunity to monitor
as equally as possible based on the construction schedule and availability of each Consulting
Tribe’s monitors.
MM-TCR-3 Inadvertent Discovery Clause - In the event that potential prehistoric or historic-era
Native American/Tribal resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during
construction activities for the project, all construction work occurring not less than 50 feet
of the find shall immediately stop and all Consulting Tribes must be notified immediately
and be consulted with throughout the assessment of the find and determination of whether
or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the nature of the discovery, the
archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves
potentially significant under CEQA, additional work such as subsurface testing may be
warranted. If the discovery is determined significant under CEQA and avoidance is not
feasible, data recovery will be required.
In the event that human remains and associated funerary objects are inadvertently
encountered during construction activities, the remains and funerary objects shall be
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 95
OCTOBER 2023
treated in accordance with state and local regulations that provide requirements with
regard to the accidental discovery of human remains, including California Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5, California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). In accordance with these regulations, if human remains
are found, the County Coroner must be immediately notified of the discovery. Additionally,
all Consulting Tribes must be notified of the discovery immediately. No further excavation
or disturbance of the Project site or any nearby (no less than 100 feet) area reasonably
suspected to overlie adjacent remains can occur until the County Coroner has determined,
within 2 working days of notification of the discovery, if the remains are potentially human
in origin. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be,
Native American, he or she is required to notify the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC must
immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descendant from the
deceased Native American. The most likely descendant must then complete their
inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The most likely descendant
would then determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition and
treatment of the human remains.
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
waste water treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the waste
water treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 96
OCTOBER 2023
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, waste water
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. The project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of
new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunication facilities for the reasons discussed in the following subsections.
Water Facilities
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project is in an urban area served by existing water facilities and
infrastructure and the construction of a 437-unit multifamily residential community would increase demand
for water supply on the project site. Water service would be provided by the FWC operated by the
San Gabriel Valley Water Company (SGVWC), and would connect to existing water main lines adjacent to
the site within Valley Boulevard and Juniper Avenue. According to the FWC 2020 Urban Water Management
Plan (UWMP), the anticipated demand for water supply within FWC’s service area is anticipated to be
greater than the demand for water in the future, which indicates that FWC has available capacity to serve
the proposed project (see Section 3.19(b) below). Additionally, SGVWC provided a will serve letter, dated
June 27, 2022, indicating that SGVWC has sufficient water resources available to supply water service to
the project. It is anticipated that the project’s nominal contribution to the total water demand (see
Section 3.19(b) below) could be served by existing water facilities serving the project area without requiring
new or expanded facilities. Therefore, impacts associated with the construction or expansion of water
facilities would be less than significant.
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Less-Than-Significant Impact. Wastewater collection would be provided by the City’s sanitary sewer
system and a sewer main line extension from the site would connect to existing sanitary sewer facilities
within Valley Boulevard and Washington Drive. Wastewater generated at the project site would be treated
at the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) Regional Plant 1 (RP-1) or Regional Plant 4 (RP-4). The treatment
capacity of RP-1 is 44 million gallons per day (gpd) and RP-1 currently treats 28 million gpd. The treatment
capacity of RP-4 is 14 million gpd and RP-4 currently treats approximately 10 million gpd (City of
Fontana 2018b). According to CalEEMod outputs (Appendix A-1), the project is anticipated to require
approximately 43.5 million gallons of water per year. Assuming that total water demand is equivalent to
approximately 120 percent of wastewater generation, the project would generate approximately 52 million
gallons of wastewater per year, or approximately 0.143 million gallons per day, which would account for
approximately 0.875 percent or 3.57 percent of the remaining capacities of RP-1 and RP-4, respectively.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 97
OCTOBER 2023
Wastewater generated by the project would represent only a nominal percentage of the average dry-
weather flow capacity and average wastewater flow. Additionally, a will serve letter dated June 22, 2022,
states that the City’s existing sanitary sewer facilities are available for connection to the project site. Thus,
the IEUA would have adequate capacity to provide wastewater treatment for the proposed project and the
proposed project would not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater conveyance or
treatment facilities. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Stormwater Drainage Facilities
Less-Than-Significant Impact. An existing storm drain is located within Juniper Avenue. Although new
stormwater drainage facilities would be constructed, these improvements are part of the project analyzed
herein, and as such, any potential environmental impacts related to these components of the project are
already accounted for in this IS/MND as part of the impact assessment conducted for the entirety of the
project. No adverse physical effects beyond those already disclosed in this IS/MND would occur because
of implementation of the project’s stormwater drainage system improvements. Therefore, impacts
associated with stormwater drainage facilities would be less than significant.
Electric Power Facilities
Less-Than-Significant Impact. Electric power service would be provided to the project site by SCE. At full
built-out, the project’s operational phase would require electricity for building operations (appliances,
lighting, etc.). Additionally, the project would meet the Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards that require the
roofs of the proposed structures to be “solar-ready.” In addition, the project would be required to comply
with the 2022 Title 24 standards or the most recent standards at the time of building permit issuance. The
energy-using fixtures within the project would be newer technologies, using less electrical power.
Additionally, a will serve letter dated July 19, 2022, states that SCE will provide electricals service to the
project. Therefore, impacts associated with electrical power facilities would be less than significant.
Natural Gas Facilities
Less-Than-Significant Impact. Natural gas would be provided by Southern California Gas. The project
would comply with 2022 Title 24 building energy efficiency standards, reducing energy used in the state.
Based on compliance with Title 24, the project would generate a need for natural gas that is consistent
with multifamily homes. Additionally, a will serve letter dated July 6, 2022, states that Southern California
Gas has facilities in the project area and can provide natural gas services to the project. Therefore, impacts
associated with natural gas facilities would be less than significant.
Telecommunications Facilities
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The City is served by multiple telephone service providers. Since the project
site is in an urbanized area and is nearby other residential uses, there are existing telecommunication
facilities that would be able to serve the project site. Additionally, will serve letters dated June 23, 2022, and
June 24, 2022, stated that Charter Communication and AT&T, respectively, have capacity to provide
telecommunication services to the project. Once the project is completed, the residents of the project would
be able to connect to existing telecommunication services without the need for expansion or construction of
new facilities. Therefore, impacts associated with telecommunications facilities would be less than significant.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 98
OCTOBER 2023
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project site would receive its water supply from the FWC. Based on the
2020 UWMP, FWC receives its water from groundwater, local surface water, imported surface water from
the IEUA and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD), and recycled water produced by
IEUA (FWC 2021).
In general, water demand tends to increase in dry years, primarily due to increased water activities such as
landscape irrigation. Thus, to assess the reliability of their water supply service, every urban water supplier
is required to assess its water service under normal, dry, and multiple-dry water years. Table 3.19-1
provides water demand and supplies for dry- and multiple-dry-year scenarios for the FWC.
Table 3.19-1. Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (Acre-Feet per Year)
Dry Year
Scenario Supply and Demand 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First Year Supply Totals 42,886 44,124 45,776 47,447 48,859
Demand Totals 42,886 44,124 45,776 47,447 48,859
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Second Year Supply Totals 41,415 42,610 44,206 45,820 47,183
Demand Totals 41,415 42,610 44,206 45,820 47,183
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Third Year Supply Totals 34,074 35,057 36,369 37,697 38,819
Demand Totals 34,074 35,057 36,369 37,697 38,819
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fourth Year Supply Totals 34,006 34,987 36,297 37,623 38,742
Demand Totals 34,006 34,987 36,297 37,623 38,742
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fifth Year Supply Totals 36,526 37,580 38,987 40,411 41,613
Demand Totals 36,526 37,580 38,987 40,411 41,613
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Source: FWC 2021, Table 7-6.
According to the 2020 UWMP, FWC coordinates on an ongoing basis with all relevant agencies in the region
to optimize the use of regional water supplies. In addition, FWC has its own conservation programs to
reduce demand on water sources. The UWMP also describes the water shortage contingency plan for the
FWC in the event of a drought or a catastrophic supply interruption. The details of the Water Shortage
Contingency Plan are provided in the 2020 UWMP. With the projects and programs implemented by FWC
and the City, water supplies are projected to meet full-service demands (see Table 3.19-1) (FWC 2021).
Because the City’s water demands can be met under multiple dry years, and because supply would meet
projected demand due to diversified supply and conservation measures, the project’s water demands
would be served by the City’s projected current and future supplies. According to CalEEMod results
(Appendix A-1), the project would demand approximately 119,000 gallons of water per day, or
approximately 113.5 acre-feet per year. FWC anticipates water demand to increase by 4,736 to 6,350 acre-
feet per year between 2025 and 2045. The project’s water demand would account for approximately 1.8
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 99
OCTOBER 2023
to 2.4 percent of FWC’s anticipated water demand and therefore would be accommodated by the water
supply available for the City during normal, single dry year, and multiple dry year conditions through the
year 2045. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on water supply.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the waste water 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. A significant impact would occur if the wastewater treatment provider
indicated that a project would increase wastewater generation to such a degree that the capacity of the
facilities currently serving the project site would be exceeded. As described in Section 3.19(a), wastewater
generated at the project site would be treated at the IEUA’s RP-1 or RP-4. The treatment capacity of RP-1 is
44 million gpd and currently treats 28 million gpd. The treatment capacity of RP-4 is 14 million gpd and
currently treats approximately 10 million gpd (City of Fontana 2018b). According to CalEEMod outputs
(Appendix A-1), the project is anticipated to require approximately 43.5 million gallons of water per year.
Assuming that total water demand is equivalent to approximately 120 percent of wastewater generation, the
project would generate approximately 52 million gallons of wastewater per year, or approximately
0.143 million gallons per day, which would account for approximately 0.875 percent or 3.57 percent of the
remaining capacities of RP-1 and RP-4, respectively. Therefore, wastewater generated by the project would
represent a nominal percentage of the average dry-weather flow capacity and average wastewater flow.
Therefore, impacts associated with wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant.
d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to increase solid waste
generation to such a degree that existing and projected landfill capacities would be insufficient to
accommodate the additional solid waste.
According to the City’s General Plan EIR, solid waste generated in the City is collected by Burrtec Waste
Industries. Solid waste is sent to Mid-Valley Landfill, located in Rialto (City of Fontana 2018b). The total
permitted throughput for the landfill is 7,500 tons per day, and approximately 61 million cubic yards of
capacity remain (CalRecycle 2019).
The project involves the construction of a 437-unit multifamily residential community with associated
improvements. Project construction would involve generation of waste during demolition; however, in
accordance with AB 939, the construction contractor would ensure that source reduction techniques and
recycling measures are incorporated into project construction. Once operational, the project would result
in waste typically associated with multifamily residences. According to the California Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery, multifamily residences generate approximately four pounds per
dwelling unit per day (CalRecycle 2019). Thus, it is anticipated the project would generate approximately
1,748 pounds of solid waste per day, or 319 tons per year. This number is nominal compared to the 7,500
daily disposal tonnage at the Mid-Valley Landfill, with the project contributing 0.01% of the daily disposal
capacity. In addition, this amount does not factor in any recycling or waste diversion programs. Solid waste
generated by the project would not generate waste in excess of state or local standards. Therefore, impacts
associated with landfill capacity would be less than significant.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 100
OCTOBER 2023
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. All collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste generated by the
project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. Under AB 939,
the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, local jurisdictions are required to develop source reduction,
reuse, recycling, and composting programs to reduce the amount of solid waste entering landfills. Local
jurisdictions are mandated to divert at least 50% of their solid waste generation into recycling.
In addition, the state has set an ambitious goal of 75% recycling, composting, and source reduction of solid
waste by 2020. To help reach this goal, the state has adopted AB 341 and AB 1826. AB 341 is a mandatory
commercial recycling bill, and AB 1826 is mandatory organic recycling. Waste generated by the project
would enter the City’s waste stream but would not adversely affect the City’s ability to meet AB 939, AB 341,
or AB 1826, since the project’s waste generation would represent a nominal percentage of the waste
created within the City. Therefore, impacts associated with solid waste disposal regulations would be less
than significant.
3.20 Wildfire
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 101
OCTOBER 2023
a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The project site is not located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone or a Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone according to the Local Responsibility and State Responsibility Area maps by CAL FIRE (CAL FIRE
2008; CAL FIRE 2022). In addition, the project site is located within a developed portion of the City of Fontana.
As discussed in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project would not significantly affect
emergency response or evaluation activities and the project would not conflict with or impair implementation
of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan or Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. As such, the project would not expose
people or structures to significant risk involving wildland fires, exacerbate wildfire risks, or otherwise result in
wildfire-related impacts. Therefore, no impacts associated with wildfire would occur.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact. The project site is not located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone or a Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone according to the Local Responsibility and State Responsibility Area maps by CAL FIRE (CAL
FIRE 2008; CAL FIRE 2022). In addition, the project site is located within a developed portion of the City of
Fontana. Further, the project would contain only limited amounts of ornamental vegetation associated with
the proposed landscaping and does not contain extensive amounts of vegetation or wildland fuel.
Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would
exacerbate wildfire risks or expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Thus, the project would not expose people or structures to significant risk
involving wildland fires, exacerbate wildfire risks, or otherwise result in wildfire-related impacts. Therefore,
no impacts associated with wildfire would occur.
c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact. The project site is not located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone or a Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone according to the Local Responsibility and State Responsibility Area maps by CAL FIRE (CAL
FIRE 2008; CAL FIRE 2022). In addition, the project site is located within a developed portion of the City of
Fontana. The project would construct surface parking lots, new internal circulation roadways, and
infrastructure for the proposed development. It is not anticipated that installation or maintenance of
internal driveways would exacerbate fire risk, since the driveways would be surrounded by developed land
on all sides. Further, the project site is in a developed area and would connect to existing utilities. The
project would not require installation or maintenance of other associated infrastructure such as fuel breaks,
power lines, or other utilities that would exacerbate fire risk. As such, the project would not expose people
or structures to significant risk involving wildland fires, exacerbate wildfire risks, or otherwise result in
wildfire-related impacts. Therefore, no impacts associated with wildfire would occur.
d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact. The project site is not located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone or a Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone according to the Local Responsibility and State Responsibility Area maps by CAL FIRE (CAL
FIRE 2008; CAL FIRE 2022). As discussed in Section 3.8, Geology and Soils, and Section 3.10, Hydrology
and Water Quality, the project would not result in significant risks associated with flooding, landslides,
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 102
OCTOBER 2023
runoff, or drainage changes, and the project does not propose the use of fire (such as for a controlled
vegetation burn) that would result in post-fire slope instability. Further, the project site is located within a
developed portion of the City of Fontana that is not susceptible to wildland fires, given its considerable
distance from open, natural areas. Thus, the project would not expose people or structures to significant
risk involving wildland fires, exacerbate wildfire risks, or otherwise result in wildfire-related impacts.
Therefore, no impacts associated with wildfire would occur.
3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
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.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As described throughout this IS/MND, with the
incorporation of the identified mitigation measures, the project would not degrade the quality of the
environment; would not substantially reduce the habitats of fish or wildlife species; would not cause a fish
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 103
OCTOBER 2023
or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; would not threaten to eliminate a plant or animal;
and would not eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
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 With Mitigation Incorporated. When evaluating cumulative impacts, it is
important to remain consistent with Section 15064(h) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that an EIR
must be prepared if the cumulative impact may be significant and the project’s incremental effect, though
individually limited, is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.
Alternatively, a lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect
is not cumulatively considerable through mitigation measures set forth in an MND or if the project will
comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific
requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in
which the project is located.
The proposed project would potentially result in project related impacts to biological, cultural, hazards and
hazardous material, and noise resources that could be potentially significant without the incorporation of
mitigation. Thus, when coupled with potential impacts to biological, cultural, hazards and hazardous
material, and noise resources related to the implementation of other related projects throughout the
broader project area, the project would potentially result in cumulative-level impacts if these significant
impacts are left unmitigated.
However, with the incorporation of mitigation identified herein, the project’s impacts to biological, cultural,
hazards and hazardous material, and noise resources would be reduced to less-than-significant levels and
would not considerably contribute to cumulative impacts in the greater project region. In addition, these
other related projects would presumably be bound by their applicable lead agency to (1) comply with all
applicable federal, state, and local regulatory requirements; and (2) incorporate all feasible mitigation
measures, consistent with CEQA, to further ensure that their potentially cumulative impacts would be
reduced to less-than-significant levels.
Although cumulative impacts are always possible, the proposed project, by incorporating all mitigation
measures outlined herein, would reduce its contribution to any such cumulative impacts to less than
cumulatively considerable; therefore, the project would result in individually limited, but not cumulatively
considerable, less-than-significant impacts with mitigation incorporated.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As evaluated throughout this IS/MND, with
incorporation of mitigation identified herein, all environmental impacts associated with the project would
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 104
OCTOBER 2023
be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Thus, the project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
14386.05 105
OCTOBER 2023
4 References and Preparers
4.1 References Cited
14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A through L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act, as amended.
APA (American Planning Association). 2011. Planning for Wind Energy. https://planning-org-uploaded-
media.s3.amazonaws.com/legacy_resources/research/wind/pdf/pas566.pdf.
Baltrënas, P., D. Kazlauskas, and E. Petraitis. 2004. “Testing on Noise Level Prevailing at Motor Vehicle Parking
Lots and Numeral Simulation of its Dispersion.” Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape
Management 12(2): 63-70.
CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 2022. Cortese List: Section 65962.5(a).
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962-5a/.
CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2008. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA as
Recommended by CAL FIRE: Fontana. Adopted by CAL FIRE on October 29, 2008. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/
media/5943/fontana.pdf.
CAL FIRE. 2022. FHSZ Viewer. Accessed November 2022. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.
California Public Resources Code, Section 21000–21177. California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.
CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). 2019. SWIS Facility Detail. Accessed
October 2022. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Caltrans Traffic
Noise Analysis Protocol. Division of Environmental Analysis, Environmental Engineering, Hazardous
Waste, Air, Noise, Paleontology Office. Sacramento, California. September 2013.
Caltrans. 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed October 21, 2022.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=
465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.
CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2008. CEQA & Climate Change January 2008.
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/34122/CAPCOA-2008-CEQA-and-Climate-Change-PDF
CAPCOA. 2017. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User’s Guide Version 2016.3.2. Prepared by
Trinity Consultants and the California Air Districts. November 2017. http://www.caleemod.com/.
CAPCOA. 2021. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User’s Guide Version 2020.4.0. Prepared by
Trinity Consultants and the California Air Districts. May 2021. http://www.caleemod.com/.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 106
OCTOBER 2023
CARB. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan Building on the Framework Pursuant to AB 32 –
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. May 2014. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/
scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf.
CARB. 2017a. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November 2017. Accessed December 2019.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.
CARB. 2017b. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update—The Proposed Strategy for Achieving California’s
2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. January 20, 2017. Accessed February 27, 2021. https://www.arb.ca.gov/
cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf.
CARB. 2019. “Area Designation Maps/State and National.” Last reviewed October 24, 2019.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm.
CARB. 2021. EMFAC 2021 Web Database (v1.0.0). Accessed June 2021. https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/
emissions-inventory.
CDE (California Department of Education). 2022. “2021-2022 Enrollment by Grade.” Accessed October 2022.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/SchoolDirectory/.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-
Status Native Populations and Natural Communities. March 20, 2018. Accessed December 2022.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline.
CDFW. 2020. “California Natural Communities List.” Sacramento, California: CDFW, Vegetation Classification and
Mapping Program. September 9, 2020. Accessed December 2022. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/
FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153398&inline.
CDFW. 2022. California Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento, California: CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch.
April 2021. Accessed November 2022. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=
109406&inline=1.
CDOC (California Department of Conservation). 2016. California Important Farmland Finder.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.
City of Fontana. 2003. “Chapter 3: Land Use Element.” In City of Fontana General Plan. Adopted October 21, 2003.
City of Fontana. 2016. City of Fontana, California. Municipal Code. Policies and Ordinances. Chapter 38, Article III:
Tree Preservation and Protection. https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances
City of Fontana. 2018a. Fontana Forward: General Plan Update 2015-2035. Adopted November 13, 2018.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28271/Complete-Document---Approved-General-Plan-
Documents-11-13-2018.
City of Fontana. 2018b. Fontana Forward: General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report.
June 8, 2018. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-
Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 107
OCTOBER 2023
City of Fontana. 2020. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level Of
Service Assessment. Traffic Engineering Division. October 21, 2020. https://www.fontana.org/
DocumentCenter/View/35928/TIA-Guidelines---VMT-Assessment.
City of Fontana. 2022. Zoning and Development Code, City of Fontana, California. Updated May 2, 2022.
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/zoning_and_development_code?nodeId=ZODECOFOCA.
City of Fontana. 2023. Facilities and Parks. Accessed January 19, 2023. https://www.fontana.org/156/Facilities-Parks.
CNPS. 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v9-01 1.0). Sacramento, California: CNPS,
Rare Plant Program. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/.
CNRA (California Natural Resources Agency). 2009. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action:
Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Pursuant to SB 97. http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/Final_Statement_of_Reasons.pdf.
DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2022. EnviroStor. Accessed October 2022.
https://envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
EIA. 2022. Wind Explained – Where Wind Power is Harnessed. Accessed January 2023. https://www.eia.gov/
energyexplained/wind/where-wind-power-is-harnessed.php
EPA. 2018. AERMOD Implementation Guide. April 2018. https://gaftp.epa.gov/Air/aqmg/SCRAM/models/
preferred/aermod/aermod_implementation_guide.pdf
EPA. 2020. “AirData: Access to Air Pollution Data.” Last updated May 28, 2020. https://www.epa.gov/
outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report.
EPA. 2022. “Household Hazardous Waste (HHW).” Updated May 14, 2022. Accessed October 2022.
https://www.epa.gov/hw/household-hazardous-waste-hhw.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2008. FEMA Flood Map Service Center, FIRM panel
06071C8654H. Dated August 28, 2008. Accessed November 2022. https://msc.fema.gov/arcgis/rest/
directories/arcgisjobs/nfhl_print/mscprintb_gpserver/jf3b6a3307d17435592652fe3b6c636e5/
scratch/FIRMETTE_e6bcf74c-ac46-4fde-af1b-063f1704b39e.pdf.
FUSD (Fontana Unified School District). 2015. Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan: Fontana Unified School
District. January 1, 2015. https://www.fusd.net/cms/lib/CA50000190/Centricity/Shared/
master_plans/Facilities.pdf.
FUSD. 2019. Fontana Unified School District 2018-2019 Interactive School Locator. Accessed October 2022.
https://fusd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Viewer/index.html?appid=078dcb92aa5c4e1a89a1a628f0f6e5ff.
FUSD. 2022. Fontana Unified School District Developer Fee Justification Study. June 2022. Accessed
October 2022. https://www.fusd.net/cms/lib/CA50000190/Centricity/Domain/4/
Fontana%20Unified%20Developer%20Fee%20Justification%20Study%202022.pdf.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 108
OCTOBER 2023
FWC (Fontana Water Company). 2021. San Gabriel Valley Water Company, Fontana Water Company Division
2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Adopted June 2021. https://www.fontanawater.com/
wp-content/uploads/2021/10/FWC-2020-UWMP-June-2021-Final.pdf.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of
Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
New York, New York: Cambridge University Press. Accessed October 2016. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/syr/.
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2015. Small Wind Site Assessment Guidelines. https://www.nrel.gov/
docs/fy15osti/63696.pdf.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. Risk
Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February 2015.
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf.
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). 2012. “Hazard Communication Standard: Safety Data
Sheets.” Accessed October 2022. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3514.pdf.
RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region). 2010. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for the San Bernardino County Flood Control District,
the County of San Bernardino, and the Incorporated Cities of San Bernardino County within the Santa Ana
Region. January 29, 2010.
Sawyer, J., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. Evens. 2009. The Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition. Sacramento,
California: California Native Plant Society.
SBCOG 2021. San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Final. Accessed January 2023.
https://www.gosbcta.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/San_Bernardino_Regional_GHG_Reduction_
Plan_Main_Text_Mar_2021.pdf.
SCAG. 2019. “Profile for the City of Fontana.” https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/
fontana_localprofile.pdf?1606014851.
SCAG. 2020a. Connect SoCal: The 2040-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy
of the Southern California Association of Governments. May 7, 2020. Accessed July 2020.
https://www.connectsocal.org/Documents/Adopted/fConnectSoCal-Plan.pdf.
SCAG. 2020b. “Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast.” Adopted September 3, 2020. https://scag.ca.gov/
sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579.
SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
SCAQMD. 2003a. White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution.
August 2003. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Environmental-Justice/
cumulative-impacts-working-group/cumulative-impacts-white-paper.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 109
OCTOBER 2023
SCAQMD. 2003b. Final 2003 AQMP Appendix V Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations. August 2003.
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/
2003-air-quality-management-plan/2003-aqmp-appendix-v.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
SCAQMD. 2003c. Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling
Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis. August 2003. Accessed October 2018. http://www.aqmd.gov/
home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mobile-source-toxics-analysis.
SCAQMD. 2008. A Resolution of the Governing Board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD)
approving the Interim Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold to Be Used by the AQMD for
Industrial Source Projects, Rules and Plans When It Is the Lead Agency for Projects Subject to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).” Resolution No. 08-35. Adopted December 5, 2008.
SCAQMD. 2009. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Revised July 2009.
SCAQMD. 2010. “Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #15.”
September 28, 2010. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-
(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-main-
presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
SCAQMD. 2014. Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. Accessed January 2023.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/
caleemod-guidance.pdf.
SCAQMD. 2016. Rule 1113. Architectural Coatings. Accessed January 2023. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/rule-book/reg-xi/r1113.pdf?sfvrsn=24SCAQMD. 2018. “SCAQMD Modeling Guidance for
AERMOD.” Accessed April 2018. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-data-studies/
meteorological-data/modeling-guidance.
SCAQMD. 2019. “SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” Originally published in CEQA Air Quality
Handbook, Table A9-11-A. Revised April 2019. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/
handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
SCAQMD. 2021a. “SCAQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD.” Accessed March 2021. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/
air-quality/meteorological-data/modeling-guidance.
SCAQMD. 2021b. “Meteorological Data for Dispersion Modeling.” Accessed March 2021. http://www.aqmd.gov/
home/air-quality/meteorological-data.
SCAQMD. 2022. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. Accessed January 2023. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/
default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2022-air-quality-management-plan/
final-2022-aqmp/final-2022-aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=10.
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2022a. “Construction Stormwater Program.” Updated
September 7, 2022. Accessed October 2022. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/
programs/stormwater/construction.html.
SWRCB. 2022b. GeoTracker. Accessed October 2022. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 110
OCTOBER 2023
The Climate Registry. 2021. “Default Emission Factors.” April. https://www.theclimateregistry.org/
wp-content/uploads/2021/04/The-Climate-Registry-2021-Default-Emission-Factor-Document.pdf.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. QuickFacts: Fontana, California. Updated July 1, 2021. Accessed October 21, 2022.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/fontanacitycalifornia/PST045221.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2022. “Web Soil Survey.” USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil
Survey Staff. Accessed October 2022. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2022. National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed October 2022.
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html
Weatherspark. 2022. “Climate and Average Weather Year Round at San Bernardino Airport.” https://weatherspark.com/
y/1969/Average-Weather-in-San-Bernardino-California-United-States-Year-Round.
4.2 List of Preparers
City of Fontana
George Velarde – Assistant Planner
Cecily Session-Goins – Associate Planner
Dudek
Sean Kilkenny – Project Director
Kristen Stoner – Project Manager
Hayley Ward – Deputy Project Manager
Nicholas Lorenzen – Air Quality Specialist
Tommy Molioo – Senior Biologist
Kimberly Narel - Biologist
Heather McDevitt – Cultural Resources Specialist
Linda Kry - Cultural Resources Specialist
Mark Storm – Senior Noise Specialist
Dennis Pascua – Senior Transportation Planner
Curtis Battle – GIS Specialist
Summer Forsman – Publications Specialist
Project Location
JPI Fontana Apartments
SOURCE: Bing 2022
Da
t
e
:
1
2
/
1
/
2
0
2
2
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
c
b
a
t
t
l
e
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
4
7
9
8
0
0
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
I
S
M
N
D
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
1
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
m
x
d
n
Project Boundary
FIGURE 2-1
!^
Project Site
Adelanto
AppleValley
Barstow
Blythe
CaliforniaCity
Canyon Lake Coachella
Colton DesertHot Springs
Hesperia
IndianWells
LaVerne
Menifee
Needles
Palm SpringsRanchoMirage
Ridgecrest
SanJacinto
TwentyninePalms
Victorville
Wildomar
I n y o C o u nt y
Ri v er s i d eCo u n t y
£¤395
£¤66
£¤95
ÄÆ243
ÄÆ18
ÄÆ71
ÄÆ57
ÄÆ74ÄÆ73ÄÆ241
ÄÆ178
ÄÆ173
ÄÆ79
ÄÆ86 ÄÆ78
ÄÆ60
ÄÆ2
ÄÆ177
ÄÆ58
ÄÆ111
ÄÆ247ÄÆ38
ÄÆ138
ÄÆ127
§¨¦5
§¨¦15 §¨¦215
§¨¦10
§¨¦15
§¨¦40
§¨¦210
S A N
B E R N A R D I N O
C O U N T Y
0 300150Feet
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 112
OCTOBER 2023
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Da
t
e
:
1
1
/
2
/
2
0
2
2
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
c
b
a
t
t
l
e
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
4
7
9
8
0
0
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
I
S
M
N
D
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
2
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
.
m
x
d
General Plan Land Use Designation
JPI Fontana Apartments
SOURCE: ESRI 2022, City of Fontana 2022
0 670335Feetn
Project BoundaryGeneral Plan Land UseC-C Community CommercialC-G General CommercialI-G General IndustrialI-L Light IndustrialP-PF Public FacilitiesR-MF Multi Family ResidentialR-PC Residential PlannedCommunity
R-SF Single Family ResidentialWMXU-1 Walkable Mixed UseCorridor & Downtown
FIGURE 2-2
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 114
OCTOBER 2023
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Da
t
e
:
1
/
1
9
/
2
0
2
3
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
c
b
a
t
t
l
e
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
4
7
9
8
0
0
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
I
S
M
N
D
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
3
Z
o
n
i
n
g
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
.
m
x
d
Zoning Designation
JPI Fontana Apartments
SOURCE: ESRI 2022, City of Fontana 2022
0 670335Feetn
Project BoundaryValley Gateway District
Zoning DesignationC-1 Community CommercialC-2 General Commercial
FBC Form-Based CodeM-1 Light IndustrialM-2 General Industrial
P-PF Public FacilitiesR-1 Single Family
R-3 Multiple Family
R-PC Residential PlannedCommunity
FIGURE 2-3
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 116
OCTOBER 2023
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
C
C
CC
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
CC
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
CC
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
2
BLDG. 2
(TYPE A)
BLDG. 4(TYPE E)
BLDG. 5(TYPE D)
30
'
-
0
"
DR
I
V
E
AIS
L
E
30'-0"DRIVEAISLE
30
'
-
0
"
DR
I
V
E
AIS
L
E
30
'
-
0
"
DR
I
V
E
AIS
L
E
30
'
-
0
"
DR
I
V
E
AIS
L
E
30
'
-
0
"
DR
I
V
E
AIS
L
E
30
'
-
0
"
DR
I
V
E
AIS
L
E
30
'
-
0
"
DR
I
V
E
AIS
L
E
30'-0"DRIVEAISLE
30'-0"DRIVEAISLE
26'-0"DRIVEAISLE
30'-0"DRIVEAISLE
30'-0"DRIVEAISLE
30'-0"DRIVEAISLE
BLDG. 7(TYPE G)
BLDG. 8(TYPE H)
25'-2"5'-7
"
10'-5"
6'-1"34'-1"
PROPERTY LINETYP.
PROPERTY LINETYP.
TRASHENCLOSURE
PROPOSED
PARCEL - 1
PROPOSEDPARCEL - 2
39'
-
1
1
"
5'-
7
"
28'-1"
JU
N
I
P
E
R
A
V
E
.
VALLEY BLVD.
T.T.
T.T.
T.
POTENTIAL TRANSFORMERLOCATION, TYP.
3
BLDG. 3(TYPE C)
BLDG. 6(TYPE F)
BLDG. 1(TYPE B)
EXIT ONLY, EVAENTRANCE
ONLY
48'-11"
EXISTING
STREET LIGHTS
PROPOSED STREET
LIGHTS, REFER TOCIVIL PLANS
PROPOSED ROWDEDICATION
PROPOSED ROWDEDICATION
33'-0"32'-0"
37'-6"
37'-6"
66'
-
0
"
51'
-
0
"
15
'
-
0
"
30
'
-
0
"
21'
-
0
"
R35'-0"
PROPOSED ROWDEDICATION
20
'
-
0
"
32
'
-
0
"
SLIDINGVEHICLEGATE28
'
-
0
"
DR
I
V
E
A
I
S
L
E
12'
-
0
"
9'-0"
18'
-
0
"
STANDARDPARKING STALL,TYP.
34
'
-
4
"
R1
2
'
-
0
"
30'-0"DRIVEAISLE
SLIDINGVEHICLEGATE
SLIDINGVEHICLEGATE
16
'
-
0
"
2'-
0
"
OV
E
R
H
A
N
G
9'-0"
31'
-
0
"
15'
-
0
"
STANDARD PARKINGSTALL, TYP.
JU
N
I
P
E
R
A
V
E
.
39
'
-
6
"
R15
'
-
0
"
R1
5
'
-
0
"
37'-6"
A1.0
SITE PLAN
2MAIN ENTRY ENLARGEMENT (PARCEL-1)
3MAIN ENTRY ENLARGEMENT (PARCEL-2)
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
8' 16'0'32'
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
8' 16'0'32'
COPYRIGHTC
JEFFERSON FONTANA
FONTANA, CA
23231 SOUTH POINTE DR.LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653949.267.1660CHRIS WEIMHOLT # 2
2
0
1
8
2ND SUBMITTAL 01/11/20233RD SUBMITTAL 03/30/20234TH SUBMITTAL 05/23/20235TH SUBMITTAL 07/13/20236TH SUBMITTAL 08/24/2023
1SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 50-0"
25' 50'0 100'
Site Plan
JPI Fontana Apartments
FIGURE 2-4
Z:\P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
4
7
9
8
0
0
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
I
S
M
N
D
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 118
OCTOBER 2023
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
9'-1
"
9'-
1
"
9'-
1
"
±4
9
'
-
0
"
2ND FLOOR
1ST FLOOR
TOP OF ROOF
3RD FLOOR
9'-
1
"
4TH FLOOR
9'-1
"
9'-1
"
9'-
1
"
±5
5
'
-
6
"
2ND FLOOR
1ST FLOOR
TOP OF ROOF
3RD FLOOR
9'-
1
"
4TH FLOOR
9'-
1
"
9'-
1
"
9'-
1
"
±4
7
'
-
6
"
2ND FLOOR
1ST FLOOR
TOP OF ROOF
3RD FLOOR
9'-
1
"
4TH FLOOR
9'-
1
"
9'-1
"
9'-1
"
±49
'
-
0
"
2ND FLOOR
1ST FLOOR
TOP OF ROOF
3RD FLOOR
9'-1
"
4TH FLOOR
A2.1BUILDING A ELEVATIONS
1FRONT ELEVATION
COPYRIGHT C
JEFFERSON FONTANAFONTANA, CA
23231 SOUTH POINTE DR.LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653949.267.1660CHRIS WEIMHOLT # 2
2
0
1
8
2ND SUBMITTAL 01/11/20233RD SUBMITTAL 03/30/20234TH SUBMITTAL 05/23/20235TH SUBMITTAL 07/13/20236TH SUBMITTAL 08/24/2023
KEY PLAN
EXTERIOR PLASTER
PLASTER SCREEDS
VINYL WINDOW - DARK BRONZE
HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING
FAUX WOOD LAP SIDING
BRICK VENEER
FOAM TRIM
PAINTED METAL AWNING
PAINTED METAL GUARDRAIL
SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR
FAUX WOOD GUARDRAIL
STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM
WALL MOUNT LIGHTING
MATERIAL LEGEND:
3
3REAR ELEVATION
2RIGHT ELEVATION
1
4LEFT ELEVATION
24
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
8' 16'0'32'
Conceptual Elevations
JPI Fontana Apartments
FIGURE 2-5
Z:\P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
4
7
9
8
0
0
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
I
S
M
N
D
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 120
OCTOBER 2023
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
TREES BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY
CERCIS CANADENSISEASTERN REDBUD MULTI-TRUNK 24"BOX MODERATE 8
GEIJERA PARVIFLORAAUSTRALIAN WILLOW 24"BOX MODERATE 45
MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA 'ST. MARY'ST. MARY SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA 24"BOX MODERATE 28
OLEA EUROPAEA `SWAN HILL'FRUITLESS OLIVE 48"BOX LOW 19
PHOENIX DACTYLIFERADATE PALM 24"BOX LOW 17
PLATANUS RACEMOSACALIFORNIA SYCAMORE MULTI-TRUNK 24"BOX MODERATE 30
PYRUS CALLERYANA 'CHANTICLEER'CHANTICLEER CALLERY PEAR 24"BOX MODERATE 35
QUERCUS AGRIFOLIACOAST LIVE OAK 48"BOX LOW 3
TREE AND PALM LEGEND
TREES BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY
CERCIS CANADENSISEASTERN REDBUD MULTI-TRUNK 24"BOX MODERATE 8
GEIJERA PARVIFLORAAUSTRALIAN WILLOW 24"BOX MODERATE 45
MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA 'ST. MARY'ST. MARY SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA 24"BOX MODERATE 28
OLEA EUROPAEA `SWAN HILL'FRUITLESS OLIVE 48"BOX LOW 19
PHOENIX DACTYLIFERADATE PALM 24"BOX LOW 17
PLATANUS RACEMOSACALIFORNIA SYCAMORE MULTI-TRUNK 24"BOX MODERATE 30
PYRUS CALLERYANA 'CHANTICLEER'CHANTICLEER CALLERY PEAR 24"BOX MODERATE 35
QUERCUS AGRIFOLIACOAST LIVE OAK 48"BOX LOW 3
TREE AND PALM LEGEND
TREES BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY
CERCIS CANADENSISEASTERN REDBUD MULTI-TRUNK 24"BOX MODERATE 8
GEIJERA PARVIFLORAAUSTRALIAN WILLOW 24"BOX MODERATE 45
MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA 'ST. MARY'ST. MARY SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA 24"BOX MODERATE 28
OLEA EUROPAEA `SWAN HILL'FRUITLESS OLIVE 48"BOX LOW 19
PHOENIX DACTYLIFERADATE PALM 24"BOX LOW 17
PLATANUS RACEMOSACALIFORNIA SYCAMORE MULTI-TRUNK 24"BOX MODERATE 30
PYRUS CALLERYANA 'CHANTICLEER'CHANTICLEER CALLERY PEAR 24"BOX MODERATE 35
QUERCUS AGRIFOLIACOAST LIVE OAK 48"BOX LOW 3
TREE AND PALM LEGEND
0’
COPYRIGHTC
JEFFERSON FONTANA
FONTANA, CA
23231 SOUTH POINTE DR.LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653949.267.1660CHRIS WEIMHOLT # 2
2
0
1
8
2ND SUBMITTAL 01/11/2023
3RD SUBMITTAL 03/30/2023
4TH SUBMITTAL 05/23/2023 L.5TREE PLAN
20’ 40’80’
JU
N
I
P
E
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
VALLEY BOULEVARD
MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVE LEFT
MATCHLINE - SEE BELOW RIGHT
PARKWAY TREES COMPLY WITH CITY OF FONTANA
PLANTING AREA WIDTH STANDARDS. PYRUS CALLERYANA ‘CHANTICLEER’ REQUIRES 5’ MIN.
PLANTING AREA AND IS PROPOSED IN 5’ PARKWAY.
COMPLIES WITH CITY OF FONTANA APPROVED TREE PALETTE
Tree Plan
JPI Fontana Apartments
FIGURE 2-6
Z:\P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
4
7
9
8
0
0
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
I
S
M
N
D
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 122
OCTOBER 2023
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Da
t
e
:
1
1
/
2
/
2
0
2
2
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
c
b
a
t
t
l
e
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
4
7
9
8
0
0
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
I
S
M
N
D
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
3
.
2
-
1
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
m
x
d
Agricultural Resources
JPI Fontana Apartments
SOURCE: ESRI 2022, City of Fontana 2022
0 2,5001,250 Feetn
Project Boundary
FMMP Designation
Grazing Land
Other Land
Urban and Built Up Land
FIGURE 3.2-1
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 124
OCTOBER 2023
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Biological Resources
JPI Fontana Project
SOURCE: USFWS; Open Street Map; Bing Maps
Da
t
e
:
1
1
/
9
/
2
0
2
2
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
c
b
a
t
t
l
e
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
4
3
8
6
0
3
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
I
S
M
N
D
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
3
.
4
-
1
B
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
.
m
x
d
0 300150Feetn
Project BoundaryStudy Area (100-Foot)Vegetation Communities and Land Cover TypesNNG - Non-Native GrasslandDH - Disturbed HabitatDEV - Urban/DevelopedSoilsTuB - Tujunga Loamy Sand, 0-5% slopesUSFWS National Wetland InventoryWetlands
FIGURE 3.4-1
DH
DEV
JEFFERSON FONTANA APARTMENT PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
14386.05 126
OCTOBER 2023
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK