HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 Draft IS and MNDInitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND)
Northgate Market Center Project
Master Case No. 20-016
Design Review No. 20-002
Prepared for:
CITY OF FONTANA
City of Fontana Planning Department
Brett Hamilton, Associate Planner
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335-3528
Telephone: 909.350.6656
Prepared by:
UltraSystems Environmental Inc.
16431 Scientific Way
Irvine, CA 92618-4355
Telephone: 949.788.4900
FAX: 949.788.4901
www.ultrasystems.com
August 2020
This page left intentionally blank.
PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page i
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET
1. Project Title Northgate Market Center Project
Master Case No. (MCN) 20-016
Design Review Project No. (DRP) 20-002
2. CEQA Lead Agency and Address
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335-3528
3. Contact and Phone Number Brett Hamilton, Associate Planner
(909) 350-6656
BHamilton@fontana.org
4. Project Applicant Northgate Gonzalez Markets
1201 N. Magnolia Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92801
5. Project Location 9610 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
6. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers APNs: 0193-251-43 and 0193-251-44
7. Project Site General Plan
Designation(s)
WMXU-1, Walkable Mixed-Use Corridor &
Downtown
8. Project Site Zoning Designation(s) Form Based Code: Sierra Gateway
9. Surrounding Land Uses and
Setting Land uses surrounding the project site include
residential and commercial uses.
North
Form Based Code: Sierra Gateway
WMXU-1Residential and commercial land uses are
located to the north.
South
Form Based Code: Sierra Gateway
WMXU-1Residential and commercial land uses are
located to the south.
West
Form Based Code: Sierra Gateway
WMXU-1Primarily residential (multi-family and
single-family) land uses are located to the west.
East
Form Based Code: Sierra Gateway
Walkable Mixed-Use Corridor Downtown
Commercial land uses are located to the east.
PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page ii
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
10. Description of Project The project, as planned, and consistent with the
City of Fontana General Plan designation of
Neighborhood-Serving Retail, is a proposed
neighborhood retail center with a total floor area
of 56,917 square feet within four buildings. The
project would be anchored by a
42,850-square-foot supermarket (Northgate
Market) and include a variety of local serving
retail/commercial uses and restaurant/food uses
within three building pads. Pad 1 (proposed for
future use) would consist of 6,690 square feet
multi-tenant building designed to accommodate a
2,700-square-foot fast-food restaurant with
drive-through window and up to 3,990 square feet
commercial space that may be occupied by a mix of
medical-related commercial services (i.e.
optometry, chiropractor, wellness center or
dental/orthodontist uses). Pad 2 is planned as
2,300-square-foot fast-food restaurant or fast
casual restaurant with drive-through window. Pad
3 (proposed for future use), similar to Pad 1, would
include a 5,077-square-foot multi-tenant building
that is expected to be occupied by a mix of
retail/service retail uses (i.e. beauty/nail
salon/barber shop), fast-casual restaurant uses,
and/or a fast-food restaurant or coffee shop with
drive-through window. Although not a part of the
proposed project, the 7,120-square-foot shops
building that was recently completed and shown
on the site plan, is considered a part of the
neighborhood retail center and is included as a
cumulative project for future opening year (Year
2022) and long-term (Year 2040) traffic
conditions.
The project would provide 275 parking stalls on
the property as well as 75 stalls including the
adjacent development, for a total of 350 spaces.
Primary site access would be provided by an
approximately 50-foot-wide driveway along
Sierra Avenue. A second existing entrance to
remain as a 39-foot, four-inch-wide driveway isle
would also be located on San Bernardino Avenue.
Onsite sewer, water, and storm drain utility
improvements would be provided. Offsite utility
improvements would include both wet and dry;
domestic and fire water, stormwater, sewer,
PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page iii
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
electrical, gas, cable tv, communication, and
possibly more.
Circulation and street improvements would be
provided along Sierra Avenue from the northern
edge or the Shell Station parcel to the southern
edge of the Dunkin Donuts parcel.
The site currently contains a vacant parking lot
that previously was a car dealership. Buildings
associated with the dealership have been
previously demolished. The proposed project
would involve the demolition of the remnants of
earlier development, primarily consisting of a
concrete parking lot and related lighting fixtures.
11. Selected Agencies whose Approval
is Required City of Fontana
Fontana Water Company/San Gabriel Valley Water
Company
Southern California Gas Company
Southern California Edison Company
12. Have California Native American
tribes traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant
to Public Resources Code
§ 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation
begun?
Letters were sent by the City of Fontana’s Planning
Department (the lead agency) (City) to 18 local
Native American tribes asking if they wished to
participate in AB 52 consultation concerning the
Northgate Market Center Project within the City of
Fontana. The letters were sent on April 7, 2020 by
certified mail and emails were sent on April 13,
2020.
The City received a reply from the Gabrieleño Band
of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation on April 14, 2020,
with an attached letter requesting consultation. A
consultation teleconference call between the City
and the Gabrieleño – Kizh Nation was conducted
on May 21, 2020. The City received a response on
April 14, 2020 from the Quechan Tribe of the Fort
Yuma Reservation. A response was received on
April 13, 2020 from the Santa Rosa Band of Mission
Indians. The Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians responded via email on April 21, 2020. A
response was received from the San Manuel Band
of Mission Indians on May 12, 2020. Consultation
with these tribes is complete. Refer to Section 4.18
of this IS for details.
The remaining tribes did not reply to the City
within the 30-day response period or thereafter.
PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page iv
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
13. Other Public Agencies whose
Approval is Required
None.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page v
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project Information Sheet ................................................................................................................................... i
Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... ix
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Proposed Project .................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1.1 Project Components ............................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1.2 Estimated Construction Schedule ................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Lead Agencies – Environmental Review Implementation .................................................. 1-1
1.3 CEQA Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3.1 Purpose of CEQA ................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3.2 Authority to Mitigate under CEQA ................................................................................ 1-2
1.4 Purpose of Initial Study ..................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.5 Review and Comment by Other Agencies .................................................................................. 1-3
1.6 Impact Terminology ........................................................................................................................... 1-4
1.7 Organization of Initial Study ........................................................................................................... 1-4
1.8 Findings from the Initial Study ....................................................................................................... 1-5
1.8.1 No Impact or Impacts Considered Less than Significant ..................................... 1-5
1.8.2 Impacts Considered Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures .................................................................................................................................. 1-5
2.0 Environmental Setting ....................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Project Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.1 Land Use and Zoning........................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Existing Characteristics of the Site ............................................................................................... 2-5
2.3.1 Climate and Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 2-5
2.3.2 Geology and Soils.................................................................................................................. 2-5
2.3.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................ 2-5
2.3.4 Biology ...................................................................................................................................... 2-6
2.3.5 Public Services ....................................................................................................................... 2-6
2.3.6 Utilities ..................................................................................................................................... 2-6
3.0 Project Description ............................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Project Background ............................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Project Overview .................................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2.1 New Construction ................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2.2 Project Operations ............................................................................................................... 3-4
3.2.3 Site Access, Circulation and Parking ............................................................................ 3-4
3.2.4 Landscaping ............................................................................................................................ 3-5
3.2.5 Perimeter Fencing and Exterior Walls ........................................................................ 3-6
3.2.6 Utilities ..................................................................................................................................... 3-6
3.3 Construction Activities ...................................................................................................................... 3-6
3.3.1 Onsite Construction ............................................................................................................. 3-6
3.3.2 Offsite Improvements ......................................................................................................... 3-7
3.3.3 Construction Schedule ....................................................................................................... 3-8
3.4 Standard Requirements and Conditions of Approval ........................................................... 3-8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page vi
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
3.5 Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals ................................................................................... 3-8
4.0 Environmental Checklist .................................................................................................................. 4-1
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................................................ 4-1
Determination (To Be Completed by the Lead Agency) ...................................................................... 4-1
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts......................................................................................................... 4-2
4.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................................4.1-1
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .........................................................................................4.2-1
4.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................4.3-1
4.3.1 Pollutants of Concern ......................................................................................................4.3-1
4.3.2 Climate/Meteorology ......................................................................................................4.3-2
4.3.3 Local Air Quality ................................................................................................................4.3-3
4.3.4 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) .....................................................................4.3-5
4.3.5 Sensitive Receptors ..........................................................................................................4.3-5
4.3.6 Response to Checklist Questions ................................................................................4.3-5
4.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................4.4-1
4.5 Cultural Resources ...........................................................................................................................4.5-1
4.5.1 Methods .................................................................................................................................4.5-1
4.5.2 Existing Conditions ...........................................................................................................4.5-1
4.5.3 Impacts Assessment .........................................................................................................4.5-2
4.6 Energy ....................................................................................................................................................4.6-1
4.7 Geology and Soils ..............................................................................................................................4.7-1
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...........................................................................................................4.8-1
4.18.2 GHG Constituents ..............................................................................................................4.8-1
4.18.3 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................4.8-2
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................4.9-1
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................... 4.10-1
4.11 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................ 4.11-1
4.12 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................................... 4.13-1
4.13.1 Characteristics of Sound .............................................................................................. 4.13-1
4.13.2 Noise Measurement Scales ......................................................................................... 4.13-1
4.13.3 Existing Noise .................................................................................................................. 4.13-2
4.13.4 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................................... 4.13-3
4.13.5 Significance Thresholds ............................................................................................... 4.13-4
4.13.6 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................... 4.13-5
4.14 Population and Housing .............................................................................................................. 4.14-1
4.15 Public Services ................................................................................................................................ 4.15-1
4.16 Recreation ......................................................................................................................................... 4.16-1
4.17 Transportation ................................................................................................................................ 4.17-1
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 4.18-1
4.18.4 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 4.18-1
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................... 4.19-1
4.20 Wildfire .............................................................................................................................................. 4.20-1
4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................................................... 4.21-1
5.0 References ............................................................................................................................................. 5-1
6.0 List of Preparers .................................................................................................................................. 6-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page vii
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
6.1 Lead Agency (CEQA) ........................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Project Applicant .................................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.3 UltraSystems Environmental, Inc. ................................................................................................. 6-1
6.3.1 Environmental Planning Team ....................................................................................... 6-1
6.3.2 Technical Team ..................................................................................................................... 6-1
7.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ....................................................................... 7-1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.2-1 - Summary of Land Use and Zoning ................................................................................................... 2-1
Table 3.2-1 - Project Operations Summary ............................................................................................................. 3-4
Table 3.2-2 - Landscape Plantings .............................................................................................................................. 3-5
Table 3.5-1 - Permits and Approvals ......................................................................................................................... 3-8
Table 4.1-1 - Project Compliance with City of Fontana General Plan Policies Regarding Scenic Quality
and Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................................................................4.1-4
Table 4.1-2 - Existing Visual Character and Land Uses in the Project Area............................................4.1-5
Table 4.3-1 - Federal and State Attainment Status ...........................................................................................4.3-4
Table 4.3-2 - Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data .........................................................................................4.3-4
Table 4.3-3 - SCAQMD Emissions Thresholds for Significant Regional Impacts ..................................4.3-6
Table 4.3-4 - Construction Schedule .......................................................................................................................4.3-7
Table 4.3-5 - Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions ................................................................4.3-7
Table 4.3-6 - Maximum Daily Project Operational Emissions ......................................................................4.3-8
Table 4.3-7 - Results of Localized Significance Analysis.................................................................................4.3-9
Table 4.4-1 - Plant Literature Review Results ....................................................................................................4.4-7
Table 4.4-2 - Wildlife Literature Review Results ............................................................................................ 4.4-14
Table 4.6-1 - Estimated Project Operational Energy Use ...............................................................................4.6-3
Table 4.8-1 - Unmitigated Annual GHG Emissions, 2019 And Beyond .....................................................4.8-3
Table 4.13-1 - California Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Sources ............................ 4.13-1
Table 4.13-2 - Construction Equipment Noise Characteristics ................................................................ 4.13-6
Table 4.13-3 -Estimated Construction Noise Exposures at Nearest Sensitive Receivers .............. 4.13-7
Table 4.13-4 - Estimated Maximum Increases in Noise Exposure Due to Construction ................ 4.13-7
Table 4.13-7 - Vibration Levels of Typical Construction Equipment ..................................................... 4.13-9
Table 4.19-1 - Estimated Project Wastewater Generation ......................................................................... 4.19-2
Table 4.19-2 - Detail of Water Supply and Demand ...................................................................................... 4.19-4
Table 4.19-3 - Estimated Project-Generated Solid Waste ........................................................................... 4.19-6
Table 7.0-1 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ......................................................................... 7-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1-1 - Regional Location .................................................................................................................................. 2-2
Figure 2.1-2 - Project Location ..................................................................................................................................... 2-3
Figure 2.2-2 - Project Site Photographs .................................................................................................................... 2-4
Figure 3.2-1 – Conceptual Site Plan ............................................................................................................................ 3-3
Figure 4.1-1 - Scenic Highways .................................................................................................................................4.1-3
Figure 4.1-2 - Existing Visual Character in the Vicinity of the Project Site .............................................4.1-6
Figure 4.2-1 - Williamson Act Lands .......................................................................................................................4.2-3
Figure 4.4-1 - CNDDB Special-Status Species ......................................................................................................4.4-3
Figure 4.4-2 - Land Cover Type Map .......................................................................................................................4.4-5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page viii
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Figure 4.4-3 - USFWS Critical Habitats ............................................................................................................... 4.4-21
Figure 4.4-4 - Management Land Areas ............................................................................................................. 4.4-26
Figure 4.7-1 - Regionally Active Faults ..................................................................................................................4.7-3
Figure 4.9-1 - Cortese Act Sites Near the Project Site ......................................................................................4.9-7
Figure 4,9-2 - Fire Hazard Severity Zone - State Responsibility Area .......................................................4.9-9
Figure 4.9-3 - Fire Hazard Severity Zone – Local Responsibility Area .................................................. 4.9-10
Figure 4.10-1 - FEMA Firm Map Panel ................................................................................................................ 4.10-6
Figure 4.11-1 - Proposed Project Site Current General Plan Land Use Designations ..................... 4.11-3
Figure 4.11-2 - Proposed Project Site Current Zoning Designations ..................................................... 4.11-4
Figure 4.12-1 - Mineral Resources ....................................................................................................................... 4.12-2
Figure 4.12-2 - Oil and Gas Wells and Fields .................................................................................................... 4.12-3
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page ix
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
°F degrees Fahrenheit
AB Assembly Bill
AB 32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
AB 939 California Integrated Waste Management Act (CIWMA)
AB 1327 California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991
ACM(s) asbestos-containing material(s)
AIA Airport Influence Area
amsl above mean sea level
APE area of potential effect
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ARB Air Resources Board
AST aboveground storage tank
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATP Active Transportation Plan
bgs below ground surface
BMPs Best Management Practices
BSA Biological Study Area
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAGN California gnatcatcher
Cal/OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
CAOs Cleanup and Abatement Orders
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDOs Cease and Desist Orders
CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGS California Geologic Society
CH4 methane
CHRIS California Historic Resources Inventory System
City City of Fontana
CIWMA State of California Integrated Waste Management Act
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page x
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CRC California Residential Code
CRHR California Register of Historic Resources
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel scale
DCAP Draft Climate Action Plan
DIF Development Impact Fees
DOC California Department of Conservation
DOSH California Division of Safety and Health
DRP Design Review Project
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMS Emergency Medical Services
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FAR floor area ratio
FBC Form-Based Code designation
FFPD Fontana Fire Protection District
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zones
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FPD Fontana Police Department
FRAP CalFire Fire Resource and Assessment Program
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FUSD Fontana Unified School District
FWC Fontana Water Company
GHG greenhouse gas
GIS Geographic Information System
GPCD gallons per capita per day
GWP global warming potential
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
Hz hertz
IEUA Inland Empire Utilities Agency
IFC International Fire Code
Interim Policy North Fontana MSHCP Conservation Plan Policy
IPaC Information, Planning and Conservation
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IS Initial Study
kWh killowatt hours
L90 noise level that is exceeded 90% of the time ....
Leq equivalent noise level
LAPM Los Angeles pocket mouse
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page xi
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
LBP lead-based paint
LED light-emitting diode
LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
LID Low Impact Development
Lmax root mean square maximum noise level
LOS Level of Service
LRA(s) Local Responsibility Area(s)
LSTs Localized Significance Thresholds
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MCN Master Case No.
mg/kg microgram per kilogram
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MM(s) mitigation measure(s)
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMT million metric tons
MMTCO2e million metric tons of CO2e
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MS4 municipal separate storm sewer systems
MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Program
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan
ND Negative Declaration
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NO nitric oxide
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOx Nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPPA Native Plant Protection Act
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
O3 Ozone
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Pb lead
pCi/L picocuries per liter
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PM particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
PM10 respirable particulate matter
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page xii
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
PPM parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
Program North Fontana Conservation Program
Qyf5 Young Alluvial Fan Deposits, unit 5
Qyfl Young Alluvial Fan Deposits of Lytle Creek
RAFSS Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC(s) recognized environmental condition(s)
RMS root mean square
ROG Reactive organic gases
ROW right-of-way
RP Regional Plant
RSS Riversidean sage scrub
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SARWQCB Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAWs Santa Ana Winds
SBCIWMP San Bernardino Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan
SBCTA San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
SBKR San Bernardino kangaroo rat
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCE Southern California Edison
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SLF Sacred Lands File
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SRA(s) State Responsibility Area
SRAs source receptor area(s)
SSC species of special concern
STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
SUSMP Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
SWRCB California State Water Resources Control Board
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TCRs tribal cultural resources
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TMP Traffic Management Plan
UEI UltraSystems Environmental Inc.
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USGS United States Geological Survey
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UST underground storage tank
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page xiii
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
VCP Vitrified Clay Pipe
VdB vibration decibels
VHFHSZs very high fire hazard severity zones
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
WEAP Worker Environmental Awareness Program
WMXU-1 Walkable Mixed-Use Corridor Downtown General Plan land use
designation
WMXU-2 Walkable Mixed-Use Urban Village General Plan land use
designation
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WOUS water(s) of the United States
°F degrees Fahrenheit
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 1-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Proposed Project
The City of Fontana (City) is processing a request to implement a series of discretionary actions that
would ultimately allow for the development of the Northgate Market Center Project (hereby referred
to as the “proposed project” or the “project”), located at the northwest intersection of San Bernardino
Avenue and Sierra Avenue in Fontana, California (APNs: 0193-251-43 and 0193-251-44 ).
1.1.1 Project Components
The proposed project would consist of 56,917 square feet of building area on an approximately
7.04-acre site. The project proposes construction of an approximately 42,850-square-foot major
space to house Northgate Gonzalez Market, as well as three drive-through restaurant pads. The three
pads are as follows: Pad 1 has a total of approximately 6,690 square feet [this building will be
comprised of an end cap drive-thru restaurant and other businesses customarily found in
grocery-anchored shopping centers]; Pad 2 is approximately 2,300 square feet; and Pad 3 is
5,077 square feet. Surface parking is provided for a total of approximately 275 spaces
(4.83/1,000 square foot parking ratio).
The project application is for permits for: 1) demolition of existing structures on site; and 2) grading
and construction permits for onsite development. The City would process Master Case No. (MCN)
20-016, Zoning Code Amendment No. 20-005, Tentative Parcel Map No. 20-003, Design Review
Project No. 20-002, Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) No. 20-011, and Minor Use Permit Nos.
20-006, -007 and -008 for the proposed project.1 Refer to Section 3.0, Project Description, of this
document for additional details.
1.1.2 Estimated Construction Schedule
Project construction is anticipated to begin around August 1, 2021 and would last approximately
nine months, ending around May 1, 2022. The anticipated hours of operation during construction
will be 7:00 am to 7:00 pm and the site would be secured and locked in the evening time.
1.2 Lead Agencies – Environmental Review Implementation
The City of Fontana is the Lead Agency for the proposed project. Pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its implementing regulations,2 the Lead Agency has the
principal responsibility for implementing and approving a project that may have a significant effect
on the environment.
1.3 CEQA Overview
1.3.1 Purpose of CEQA
All discretionary projects within California are required to undergo environmental review under
CEQA. A Project is defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15378 as the whole of the action having the potential
1 Zoning Code Amendment No. 20-005 only concerns setbacks; it does not affect the permitted number of dwelling units
on the project site.
2 Public Resources Code §§ 21000 - 21177 and California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3.
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 1-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
to result in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change to the environment
and is any of the following:
An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to public works
construction and related activities clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing
public structures, enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and
amendment of local General Plans or elements.
An activity undertaken by a person which is supported in whole or in part through public
agency contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more
public agencies.
An activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other
entitlement for use by one or more public agencies.
CEQA Guidelines § 15002 lists the basic purposes of CEQA as follows:
Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant
environmental effects of proposed activities.
Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.
Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects
through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds
the changes to be feasible.
Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the
manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.
1.3.2 Authority to Mitigate under CEQA
CEQA establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage where
feasible. Under CEQA Guidelines § 15041 a Lead Agency for a project has authority to require feasible
changes in any or all activities involved in the project in order to substantially lessen or avoid
significant effects on the environment, consistent with applicable constitutional requirements such
as the “nexus”3 and “rough proportionality”4 standards.
CEQA allows a Lead Agency to approve a project even though the project would cause a significant
effect on the environment if the agency makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that
there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effect. In such cases, the Lead Agency must
specifically identify expected benefits and other overriding considerations from the project that
outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project.
1.4 Purpose of Initial Study
The CEQA process begins with a public agency making a determination as to whether the project is
subject to CEQA at all. If the project is exempt, the process does not need to proceed any farther. If
the project is not exempt, the Lead Agency takes the second step and conducts an Initial Study to
determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
3 A nexus (i.e., connection) must be established between the mitigation measure and a legitimate governmental
interest.
4 The mitigation measure must be “roughly proportional” to the impacts of the Project.
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 1-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
The purposes of an Initial Study as listed in § 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines are to:
Provide the Lead Agency with information necessary to decide if an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR), Negative Declaration (ND), or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) should be
prepared.
Enable a Lead Agency to modify a project to mitigate adverse impacts before an EIR is
prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a ND or MND.
Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if required, by focusing the EIR on adverse effects
determined to be significant, identifying the adverse effects determined not to be significant,
explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant adverse effects would not
be significant, and identifying whether a program EIR, or other process, can be used to
analyze adverse environmental effects of the project.
Facilitate an environmental assessment early during project design.
Provide documentation in the ND or MND that a project would not have a significant effect
on the environment.
Eliminate unnecessary EIRs.
Determine if a previously prepared EIR could be used for the Project.
In cases where no potentially significant impacts are identified, the Lead Agency may issue a ND, and
no mitigation measures would be needed. Where potentially significant impacts are identified, the
Lead Agency may determine that mitigation measures would adequately reduce these impacts to less
than significant levels. The Lead Agency would then prepare an MND for the proposed project. If the
Lead Agency determines that individual or cumulative effects of the proposed project would cause a
significant adverse environmental effect that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels, then
the Lead Agency would require an EIR to further analyze these impacts.
1.5 Review and Comment by Other Agencies
Other public agencies are provided the opportunity to review and comment on the IS. Each of these
agencies is described briefly below.
A Responsible Agency (14 CCR § 15381) is a public agency, other than the Lead Agency, that
has discretionary approval power over the Project, such as permit issuance or plan approval
authority.
A Trustee Agency5 (14 CCR § 15386) is a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural
resources affected by a project that are held in trust for the people of the State of California.
Agencies with Jurisdiction by Law (14 CCR § 15366) are any public agencies who have
authority (1) to grant a permit or other entitlement for use; (2) to provide funding for the
project in question; or (3) to exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the
project. Furthermore, a city or county will have jurisdiction by law with respect to a project
when the city or county having primary jurisdiction over the area involved is: (1) the site of
the project; (2) the area in which the major environmental effects will occur; and/or (3) the
area in which reside those citizens most directly concerned by any such environmental
effects.
5 The four Trustee Agencies in California listed in CEQA Guidelines § 15386 are California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, State Lands Commission, State Department of Parks and Recreation, and University of California.
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 1-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
1.6 Impact Terminology
The following terminology is used to describe the level of significance of potential impacts:
A finding of no impact is appropriate if the analysis concludes that the project would not
affect the particular environmental threshold in any way.
An impact is considered less than significant if the analysis concludes that the project
would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment and requires no
mitigation.
An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated if the
analysis concludes that the project would cause no substantial adverse change to the
environment with the inclusion of environmental commitments, or other enforceable
measures, that would be adopted by the lead agency.
An impact is considered potentially significant if the analysis concludes that the project
could have a substantial adverse effect on the environment.
An EIR is required if an impact is identified as potentially significant.
1.7 Organization of Initial Study
This Initial Study (IS) is organized to satisfy CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d), and includes the following
sections:
Section 1.0 - Introduction, which identifies the purpose and scope of the IS.
Section 2.0 - Environmental Setting, which describes location, existing site conditions, land
uses, zoning designations, topography, and vegetation associated with the project site and
surrounding area.
Section 3.0 - Project Description, which provides an overview of the project, a description
of the proposed development, project phasing during construction, and discretionary actions
for the approval of the project.
Section 4.0 - Environmental Checklist, which presents checklist responses for each
resource topic to identify and assess impacts associated with the proposed project, and
proposes mitigation measures, where needed, to render potential environmental impacts
less than significant, where feasible.
Section 5.0 - References, which includes a list of documents cited in the IS.
Section 6.0 - List of Preparers, which identifies the primary authors and technical experts
that prepared the IS.
Section 7.0 – Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, which identifies the
mitigation measures for the proposed project, the responsible/monitoring party, the
monitoring action, enforcement agency, monitoring agency, and monitoring phase.
Technical studies and other documents, which include supporting information or analyses used to
prepare this IS, are included in the following appendices:
Appendix A Project Plans and Drawings
Appendix B Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and Preliminary Drainage Report
Appendix C Geotechnical Study
Appendix D Phase I ESA and Limited Phase II Report
Appendix E Cultural Resources Report
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 1-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Appendix F Traffic Impact Analysis Report
Appendix G Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Data and Calculations
Appendix H Arborist Study
1.8 Findings from the Initial Study
1.8.1 No Impact or Impacts Considered Less than Significant
The project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the following environmental
categories listed from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Energy
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation and Traffic
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire
1.8.2 Impacts Considered Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Based on IS findings, the project would have a less than significant impact on the following
environmental categories listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines when proposed mitigation
measures are implemented.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Mandatory Findings of Significance
SECTION 2.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 2-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 Project Location
The proposed project, Northgate Market Center Project, is located at the northwest intersection of
San Bernardino Avenue and Sierra Avenue. Refer to Figure 2.1-1, which shows the project’s regional
location. The property is adjacent to single-family residences; multi-family residences and an
automotive shop are located to the north; Sierra Avenue and a commercial shopping center are
located to the east; San Bernardino Avenue, open disturbed land, multi-family residences and a
commercial center are located to the south; and condominiums are located to the west. See
Figure 2.1-2, which shows the project’s location.
2.2 Project Setting
The project is comprised of two parcels: APN 0193-251-43 and 0193-251-44. The project site is
approximately 7.7 gross acres and is located adjacent to parcels that are residential and commercial
in nature. The project site is located in an urban and developed area within the City of Fontana and
is located along a major street – Sierra Avenue, which is surrounded by commercial land uses. A mix
of residential types is located in the project vicinity including single-family homes, apartments and
condominiums. Photographs depicting the project site are provided in Figure 2.2-2.
2.2.1 Land Use and Zoning
The land use designation and zoning of the project site and surrounding areas are listed in
Table 2.2-1. The General Plan designation for the project site is Walkable Mixed-Use Corridor
Downtown (WMXU-1) and the site’s zoning designation is Sierra Gateway of the Form-Based Code
designation (FBC).
Table 2.2-1
SUMMARY OF LAND USE AND ZONING
Location General Plan Zoning Existing Use
Project Site Walkable Mixed-Use Corridor
Downtown (WMXU-1) Sierra Gateway of FBC Abandoned parking lot
Surrounding Areas
North Walkable Mixed-Use Corridor
Downtown (WMXU-1) Sierra Gateway of FBC Single-family residence,
apartments and automotive shop
East Walkable Mixed-Use Corridor
Downtown (WMXU-1) Sierra Gateway of FBC
Sierra Avenue and commercial
land uses
West Walkable Mixed-Use Corridor
Downtown (WMXU-1) Sierra Gateway of FBC Sunset Village Condominiums
South Walkable Mixed-Use Corridor
Downtown (WMXU-1) Sierra Gateway of FBC
San Bernardino Avenue, vacant
disturbed land, apartments, and
commercial shopping center.
Source: UltraSystems, 2020; City of Fontana Zoning Map, 2019.
SECTION 2.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 2-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Figure 2.1-1
REGIONAL LOCATION
SECTION 2.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 2-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Figure 2.1-2
PROJECT LOCATION
SECTION 2.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 2-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Figure 2.2-2
PROJECT SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
SECTION 2.0 - INTRODUCTION
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 2-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
2.3 Existing Characteristics of the Site
2.3.1 Climate and Air Quality
The City of Fontana is characterized by a semi-arid Mediterranean climate that is the result of its
location in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) (Stantec, et al., 2018b, p. 5.2-1). The SCAB is a
6,600-square-mile area basin that is usually quite moist near the land surface due to the influence of
the marine layer it brings in. Other factors that influence the area’s climate and meteorology are the
terrain and altitude. Fontana is positioned approximately 1,700 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in
its northern half and 1,000 feet amsl in its southern half. Due to the City being in a valley, heavy early
morning fog and low stratus clouds are persistent often. Yearly climate patterns are characterized by
warm summers, mild winters, low levels of precipitation, and moderate humidity.
Air quality in Fontana generally fluctuates without a consistent seasonal pattern. Neighboring,
high-polluting coastal cities largely influence the air quality in the City, and that, coupled along with
the climate, trap air pollution in the valley. The SCAB is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino,
and San Jacinto Mountains that trap air pollution at their bases. The SCAB fails to meet national
ambient air quality standards for ozone and fine particulate matter, and is classified as a
“nonattainment area” for those pollutants.
2.3.2 Geology and Soils
The City of Fontana generally lies within the northern and northwestern portion of the Peninsular
Ranges Geomorphic Province of Southern California, which is characterized by northwest-southeast
trending faults, folds, and mountain ranges. Much of the region is underlain by terrace deposits,
which are unconsolidated sediments (consisting of loose soil materials, such as sand and silt) left by
streams on shore benches cut by the ocean faults (Stantec, et al., 2018a, p. 5.5-1).
Although there are no major active faults within the City boundaries, there are a number of faults
that border the Lytle Creek alluvial basin, including the Chino, Cucamonga, San Andreas, and
San Jacinto faults (Stantec, et al., 2018a, p. 5.5-3).
Soils in the area are characteristic of the Southern California interior alluvial basins and consist of
alluvial deposits and floodplain soils. The City is underlain by Holocene and late Pleistocene alluvial
deposits of the Lytle Creek alluvial fan. These deposits primarily consist of unconsolidated, gray,
cobbly and bouldery alluvium (Stantec, et al., 2018a, p. 5.5-4).
2.3.3 Hydrology
The project site is currently fully developed with hardscape surfaces (i.e. asphalt and concrete) and
therefore, water sheet flows across the site to the adjacent streets. As detailed in the City of Fontana
General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report, the City is located within the
lower Lytle Creek watershed, which forms the northwest portion of the Santa Ana River Watershed.
This watershed drains the eastern portion of the San Gabriel Mountains. Daytime temperatures often
exceed 100 degrees during the summer in the lower watershed, while temperatures are
approximately 10-15 degrees cooler in the upper watershed. The lower portion of Lytle Creek flows
through the cities of Fontana, Rialto, San Bernardino, and Colton, as well as a portion of the
unincorporated area of San Bernardino County. The upper reaches of Lytle Creek are generally
perennial; the lower section of Lytle Creek changes into an intermittent stream with a dry wash
below Interstate 15 (Stantec, et al., 2018a, p. 5.8-1).
SECTION 2.0 - INTRODUCTION
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 2-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
2.3.4 Biology
The portion of the City of Fontana in which the project is located is urbanized and the existing
vegetation is largely ornamental. The project site is located in a highly urbanized area, which
provides low habitat value for special status plant and wildlife species. Paved asphalt, concrete, and
weeds are located on the project site.
2.3.5 Public Services
The City is served by a full range of public services and utilities. Fire prevention, fire protection and
emergency medical service (EMS) for the city of Fontana are provided by the Fontana Fire Protection
Department (FFPD) through a contract with the San Bernardino County Fire Department.
The City of Fontana Police Department (FPD) provides police and law enforcement services in the
project area. The FPD has 306 full-time employees (204 sworn and 102 non-sworn) and is comprised
of four separate divisions: Office of the Chief of Police; Administrative Services; Field Services; and
Special Operations (City of Fontana, 2020c).
Recreational services within the city of Fontana are provided by the City’s Department of Facilities
and Parks, which maintains over 40 parks, sports facilities, and community centers (City of Fontana,
2020g).
Library services within the city are provided by the San Bernardino County Library System, which
has a total of 32 branch libraries. Within the city of Fontana, there are two libraries, including Fontana
Lewis Library and Technology Center, and the Summit Branch Library (City of Fontana Departments,
2020).
2.3.6 Utilities
Fontana Water Company manages the water supply for much of the city of Fontana, including the
project area (Fontana Water Company, 2020). Fontana Water Company provides water utility service
to a population of more than 209,000 persons. Regional domestic wastewater treatment services are
provided under the Regional Sewer Service Contract in which seven agencies currently contract with
the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). These agencies include Fontana, Cucamonga Valley Water
District, Montclair, Upland, Chino, Chino Hills and Ontario. Wastewater generated by the project
would be treated at the Regional Water Recycling Plant #1 (IEUA, 2020).
Solid waste disposal services for Fontana are provided by Burrtec Waste Industries, a private
company under franchise agreement with the City. Burrtec also operates the City’s curbside recycling
(including greenwaste recycling) program. Electrical service to the site is provided by
Southern California Edison Company (SCE) through a grid of transmission lines and related facilities.
Natural gas is provided by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), which maintains a local
system of transmission lines, distribution lines and supply regulation stations (City of Fontana
Utilities, 2020).
Sewer service for the project site is provided by the City of Fontana (City of Fontana Utilities, 2020).
Water service to the project site is provided by the Fontana Water Company (Fontana Water
Company, 2020). Both the City and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District provide flood
control facilities for Fontana. The Flood Control District agency is responsible for the construction of
dams, containment basins, channels and storm drains to intercept and convey flood flows through
SECTION 2.0 - INTRODUCTION
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 2-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
and away from developed areas. The City implements construction and maintenance of local storm
drains that feed into the County’s area-wide system. (Stantec, et al., 2018. p. 10-1).
SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 3-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Project Background
The City of Fontana (City) is processing a request to implement a series of discretionary actions that
would ultimately allow for the construction of a new multi-tenant commercial center anchored by
Northgate Gonzalez Market. The site, which was occupied by three commercial buildings before
2018, is located north of San Bernardino Avenue and west of Sierra Avenue, immediately to the north
and west of an existing gas station located at the northwest corner of the intersection of the two
major streets.
The project application includes Master Case No. (MCN) 20-016, Zoning Code Amendment
No. 20-005, Tentative Parcel Map No. 20-003, Design Review Project No. 20-002, Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) No. 20-011, and Minor Use Permit Nos. 20-006, -007 and -008. The
project would also need demolition, grading and construction permits for onsite development. The
City is the Lead Agency for the purposes of CEQA.
The approximately seven-acre project site currently is largely vacant but fully developed, with only
the remnants of earlier development (a parking lot with light standards) still standing. Sierra Avenue
is a major north/south retail corridor for the City, and land uses to the immediate east (across Sierra
Avenue) and south (across San Bernardino Avenue) are primarily retail in nature.
The City’s General Plan land use designation for the site is WMXU-1 (Walkable Mixed-Use Corridor &
Downtown), allowing commercial uses having a floor area ratio (FAR) of up to 2.0 (City of Fontana,
2019). According to the City’s Form-Based Zoning Code, the project is located within the
Sierra Gateway District, which “is intended to encourage pedestrian-oriented development and land
uses. Uses are to include a mix of medium- to high-density residential, retail and services, office,
entertainment, education, and open space” (City of Fontana Form-Based Code, p. 51).
3.2 Project Overview
The proposed project would include the construction of approximately 64,037 square feet of building
area on an approximately 7.04-acre site (APN 0193-251-43 and 0193-251-44). It consists of the
development of a Northgate Gonzalez Market store and three quick service pads, plus surface
parking. The proposed Pad 2 would be developed with a fast-food restaurant with drive through
window. Pad 1 and Pad 3 are planned for future use and would be occupied by a mix of retail/service
retail uses, fast-casual restaurant uses, and/or a fast-food restaurant uses with drive-through
windows. The specifics of future uses planned for Pad 1 and Pad 3 are currently not known, therefore,
for the purpose of CEQA environmental analysis, this IS/MND considers a worst case scenario and
assumes that Pad 1 and Pad 3 would both include a mix of local serving retail uses along with fast-
food restaurants with drive through windows.
3.2.1 New Construction
The project, as planned, and consistent with the City of Fontana General Plan designation of
Neighborhood-Serving Retail, is a proposed neighborhood retail center with a total floor area of
56,917 square feet within four buildings. The project will be anchored by a 42,850-square-foot
supermarket (Northgate Market) and includes a variety of local serving retail/commercial uses and
restaurant/food uses within three building pads. It is assumed that Pad 1 (planned for future use)
would consist of a 6,690-square-foot multitenant building designed to accommodate a 2,700-square-
SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 3-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
foot fast-food restaurant with drive-through window and up to 3,990 square feet of commercial space
that may be occupied by a mix of medical-related commercial services (i.e. optometry, chiropractor,
wellness center or dental/orthodontist uses). Pad 2 is planned as a 2,300-square-foot fast-food
restaurant or fast casual restaurant with drive-through window. It is assumed that Pad 3 (planned
for future use), similar to Pad 1, would be developed with a 5,077-square-foot multitenant building
that is expected to be occupied by a mix of retail/service retail uses (i.e. beauty/nail salon/barber
shop), fast-casual restaurant uses, and/or a fast-food restaurant or coffee shop with drive-through
window. Although not a part of the proposed project, the 7,120-square foot shops building that was
recently completed and shown on the site plan, is considered a part of the neighborhood retail center
and is included as a cumulative project for future opening year (Year 2022) and long-term (Year
2040) traffic conditions. Surface parking would be provided for approximately 275 spaces
(4.83/1,000 square feet parking ratio).
Figure 3.2-1 depicts the conceptual site plan for the proposed project. A complete set of project
drawings including site plan, floor plans, elevations, and landscaping plans is included in Appendix
A to this Initial Study.
SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 3-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Figure 3.2-1
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
SECTION 3.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 3-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Energy-efficient features, including insulated and glazed windows and low E coating on windows,
would be incorporated into building design to comply with the provisions of the California Green
Building Code, Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations. Title 24, Part 11 requires new
structures to incorporate a variety of mandatory features to promote green buildings as means to
improve energy efficiency, reduce water demand, promote recycling, and other measures. The
project would be designed and constructed in compliance with applicable City codes, including, but
not limited to, the 2019 California Building Code, 2019 California Plumbing Code, 2019 California
Mechanical Code, 2019 California Electrical Code, 2019 California Energy Code, 2019 California Fire
Code, 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, and 2019 California Residential Code.
3.2.2 Project Operations
The anticipated hours of operation and employees for the project are provided in Table 3.2-1.
Table 3.2-1
PROJECT OPERATIONS SUMMARY
Proposed
Use/Facility
Anticipated Hours
of Operation Anticipated Delivery Times Approximate Number of
Employees
Northgate Gonzalez
Market 6 am - 11 pm 7 am - 5 pm 180 (spaced between 3
shifts)
Quick Serve 1, 2 and
3 (Drive-thru
Facilities)
6 am – midnight
(drive-throughs
could be 24 hour)
Undetermined until leases are
signed 20 each
Other proposed
businesses (such as a
dental office)
8 am – 6:30 pm Not Applicable 20
Source: Information provided by the Project Applicant in response to a Data Needs List prepared by UltraSystems,
requesting information regarding proposed project operations.
3.2.3 Site Access, Circulation and Parking
Primary site ingress and egress would be provided by an approximately 50-foot-wide driveway off
Sierra Avenue, directly south of the recently-built 7,120-square-foot multi-tenant commercial
building housing a drive-through Dunkin Donuts and space for three additional tenants, which is
adjacent to (but not a part of) the project site’s northeast corner. A second existing entrance to remain
as a 39-foot, four-inch-wide driveway would also be located on San Bernardino Avenue at the project
site’s southwest corner. The project includes a total of approximately 275 parking spaces, with the
majority located in a single-surface lot directly to the south of the proposed market building.
Additional parking areas (included in the 275-space total) are located adjacent to each of the three
drive-through restaurant pads.
3.2.4 Exterior Lighting
Lighting for the project would comply with the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code.
Specifically, the project would be required to comply with City of Fontana Municipal Code § 30-260,
Lighting and Glare, which states, “all lights shall be directed and/or shielded to prevent the light from
adversely affecting adjacent residential or commercial properties. No structure or feature shall be
permitted which creates adverse glare effects.” The proposed project would include installation of
exterior lighting fixtures, as necessary, for safety and security.
SECTION 3.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 3-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
3.2.4 Landscaping
As shown on the conceptual landscape plan included in Appendix A, existing street trees (magnolia
trees) located on San Bernardino Avenue and Sierra Avenue would not be removed. Proposed new
landscaping would be comprised of drought-resistant species including trees, palms, one- and
five-gallon shrubs, vines and groundcovers. The majority of landscaping would be located in or near
parking areas and around each of the restaurant pads, as well as along the western edge of the project
site, adjacent to existing residential development to the west of the site. The quantity, type, and
purpose of trees, shrubs, and ground cover are summarized in Table 3.2-2. The conceptual
landscaping plan for the project is provided in Appendix A to this IS.
Table 3.2-2
LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS
Common Name Scientific Name Size
Trees
Southern Magnolia Magnolia Grandiflora 24-inch box + street trees
Palo Verde Cercidium ‘Desert Museum’ 24-inch box
NCN X Chitalpa Tashkentensis ‘Pink Dawn’ 24-inch box
Australian Willow Geijera Parviflora 24-inch box
Grape Myrtle Lagerstroemia Hybrids ‘Muskogee’ 24-inch box
Olive Olea Europaea 24-inch box
California Pepper Schinus Molle 24-inch box
Palms
Date Palm Phoenix Dactylifera ‘Medjool’
Shrubs
Century Plant Agave Americana 5-gallon
Variegated Century Plant Agave Ame. ‘Mediopicta’ 5-gallon
Artichoke Agave Agave Parryi 1-gallon
NCN Agave ‘Blue Glow’ 5-gallon
Coral Aloe Aloe Striata 1-gallon
Kangaroo Paw Anigozanthos Hybrids ‘Bush Lantern’ 1-gallon
Strawberry Tree Arbutus unedo “Elfin King” 5-gallon
Bougainvillea Bougainvillea Spectabilis ‘La Jolla’ 5-gallon
Desert Spoon Dasylirion Wheeleri 5-gallon
Blue Flax Lily Dianella Caerulea 5-gallon
Variegated Flax Lily Dianella Caerulea ‘Variegata’ 5-gallon
Firecracker Bush Hamelia Patens ‘Sierra Red’ 5-gallon
Blue Oat Grass Helictotrichon Sempervirens 1-gallon
Red Yucca Hesperaloe Parviflora ‘Brakelight’ 5-gallon
Texas Ranger Leucophyllum Frutescens 5-gallon
Wax-Leaf Privet Ligustrum Japonicum ‘Texanum’ 5-gallon
Pink Muhly Muhlenbergia Capillaris 5-gallon
No Common Name Grevillea ‘Noelii’ 5-gallon
Pink Indian Hawthorn Rhaphiolepis Indica ‘Pink Lady’ 5-gallon
Vines
Boston Ivy Parthenocissus Tricuspidata 1-gallon
Ground Cover
Cedar Bark Mulch NA
Bearberry Cotoneaster Cotoneaster Dammeri
SECTION 3.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 3-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Common Name Scientific Name Size
Lantana Lantana Hybrids ‘Gold Rush’
Trailing Lantana Lantana Montevidensis ‘Purple’
Source: Studio Five Preliminary Planting Plan dated June 11, 2020.
3.2.5 Perimeter Fencing and Exterior Walls
Existing walls on the west and north project property lines would remain. The existing walls would
be aesthetically improved and increased in height, as feasible, based on existing footings.
3.2.6 Utilities
Sanitary Sewer: The project proposes offsite sewer improvements to connect the sewer lines from
the project site to the existing sewer network in San Bernardino Avenue. It proposes to construct a
six-inch Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP) sewer line along the western edge of the site, including two sewer
manholes with a connection to San Bernardino Avenue, a proposed six-inch VCP sewer line southeast
of the project with a second connection on San Bernardino Avenue, and a proposed six-inch VCP
sewer lateral east with a new connection into Sierra Avenue. All sewer line sizes and connections are
subject to review by the City. The project applicant will work with the City’s Public Works
Department for necessary approvals and ensure compliance with applicable requirements.
Domestic Water: New water meters would be installed as required to meet the demands calculated
by the civil engineers for the project and in compliance with the requirements of the City’s Public
Works Department. The proposed domestic water lines would be serviced from Sierra Avenue.
Dry Utilities: It is anticipated that a new natural gas connection would be needed to serve the project.
Natural gas service would be provided to the project site by the SoCalGas. Southern California Edison
Company would provide electricity to the project site.
Stormwater: Stormwater drainage would be handled through use of the 2,573-cubic-foot
underground retention system located at the southwest corner of the Property and three Maxwell
Drywells that are located downstream of the retention tank to promote infiltration. A second
underground retention system of 12,300 CF is located east of Pad 1. Also, 6 drywells are located
downstream to promote infiltration. High-flow would be discharged out through parkway culverts
on San Bernardino Ave.
Detailed civil engineering drawings, including Preliminary Grading Plan, Preliminary Water Quality
Management Plan, and Preliminary Wet Utility Plan, are provided in Appendix B of this Initial Study.
3.3 Construction Activities
3.3.1 Onsite Construction
The proposed project would involve the demolition of the remnants of earlier development,
primarily consisting of a concrete parking lot and related lighting fixtures. Project grading would
result in approximately 10,800 cubic yards of raw cut and 11,800 cubic yards of raw fill. Any removal
and over-excavated soils would be recycled for the site.
SECTION 3.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 3-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Construction phasing would include the following: demolition; rough grading including deeper
excavation and shoring; undergrounding and utility improvements; vertical construction; concrete
and paving improvements; final grading; and landscaping. For safety reasons, temporary barricades
would be used to limit access to the site during project construction. Safe access for construction
workers would be maintained throughout construction.
The type of construction equipment utilized during construction is anticipated to include:
Demolition: Backhoe with hydraulic hammer, bulldozer, and dump trucks to dispose of
concrete, asphalt, organics, debris, etc. All equipment to be used for a total of approximately
two weeks.
Grading: Motor graders, scrapers, and dump trucks (dump trucks only needed if the site is an
export site). Backhoe to excavate for building pads and trash enclosure and a sheepsfoot
roller for building pad compaction. All equipment to be used for a total of approximately three
months.
Placement of concrete: Concrete trucks would be used to deliver concrete. Concrete would be
placed at the buildings for the slab, foundations (trash enclosure, site lighting, etc.), and for
flatwork/curb and gutter. All equipment to be used for a total of approximately two months.
Framing: Gradall® to be used for setting wood-framed walls and setting wood and steel beams
and columns in place (approximately three weeks in total).
Placement of asphaltic concrete: Milling machine on runway, dump truck, asphalt paver, and
asphalt paver and roller will be used in conjunction with the asphalt placement. All
equipment to be used for a total of approximately two days.
Excavation for wet and dry utility lines: Backhoe with loader and Ditch Witch. All equipment
to be used for a total of approximately four months.
Placement of HVAC/RTUs on roof: Crane for a total of approximately one week.
A total of 500 to 800 workers are anticipated to work on the construction site for the entire project.
Construction staging areas would be provided within the boundaries of the project site. Construction
workers would park vehicles onsite and construction trucks and equipment would also be parked
and stored onsite.
3.3.2 Offsite Improvements
The project would include the following offsite improvements:
Closing of a driveway on Sierra Avenue and the relocation and widening of the main drive
entrance on Sierra Avenue.
Utility improvements would include both wet and dry; domestic and fire water, stormwater,
sewer, electrical, gas, cable tv, communication, and possibly more.
The stormwater overflow from the planned underground infiltration basin and drywells
would discharge via multiple parkway drains to San Bernardino Avenue.
SECTION 3.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 3-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
3.3.3 Construction Schedule
Construction is anticipated to begin around August 1, 2021 and would last approximately
nine months, ending around May 1, 2022. The anticipated hours of operation during construction
will be 7:00 am to 7:00 pm and the site will be secured and locked in the evening time.
3.4 Standard Requirements and Conditions of Approval
The proposed project would be reviewed in detail by applicable City of Fontana departments and
divisions that have the responsibility to review land use application compliance with City codes and
regulations. City staff is also responsible for reviewing this IS to ensure that it is technically accurate
and is in full compliance with CEQA. The departments and divisions at the City of Fontana responsible
for technical review include:
City of Fontana Building and Safety Division;
City of Fontana Community Development Department;
City of Fontana Public Works Department;
City of Fontana Fire Protection District;
City of Fontana Water Department;
City of Fontana Engineering Department.
3.5 Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals
In order for the proposed project to be implemented, the Applicant would require Fontana Planning
Commission approval of Design Review No. 20-002. The project would also require approval of
Zoning Code Amendment No. 20-005, approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 20-003 for subdividing
the property into three parcels, and approval of four Minor Use Permit Nos. 20-006, -007 and -008
(one for each of the three drive-through pads and one for the Northgate Market’s ABC license). Prior
to arriving at a decision on whether to approve these applications, the Fontana Planning Commission
must first approve the CEQA documents prepared for the proposed project.
Table 3.5-1, Ministerial Permits and Approvals, identifies the permits and approvals required from
either the City, other public agencies and/or quasi-public agencies (utilities) subsequent to the
approval of the aforementioned Design Review.
Table 3.5-1
MINISTERIAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Agency Permit or Approval
City of Fontana Building & Safety Division Site Plan review and approval, and Building Permits.
Fontana Fire Protection District
Building plan check and approval. Review for compliance with
the 2019 California Fire Code, 2019 California Building Code,
California Health & Safety Code and Fontana Municipal Code.
Plans for fire detection and alarm systems, and automatic
sprinklers.
Fontana Public Works Department Approval for proposed offsite utility improvements.
SECTION 3.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 3-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Agency Permit or Approval
Fontana Water Company/San Gabriel
Valley Water Company
Letter of authorization/consent for proposed improvements to
provide water supply connection to new development.
Southern California Gas Company Letter of authorization/consent for proposed improvements to
provide natural gas connection to new development.
Southern California Edison Company Letter of authorization/consent for proposed improvements to
provide electrical connection to new development.
SECTION 4.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The checked topics below indicate that a “Potentially Significant Impact” or a “Less than Significant
Impact with Mitigation Required” are likely with project implementation. In the following pages,
these impacts will be identified.
Aesthetics Agricultural and Forest Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population / Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination (To Be Completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to
be addressed.
☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
Date
Printed Name
City of Fontana
SECTION 4.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
(1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should
be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g.,
the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
(2) All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including offsite as well as
onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as
well as operational impacts.
(3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one
or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
(4) “Negative Declaration: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant
Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to less than significant level.
(5) Earlier analyses may be use where, pursuant to the tiering, Program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an affect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
(See Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines. In this case, a brief discussion should
identify the following:
(a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where the earlier analysis available for
review.
(b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
(c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated
or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address
site-specific conditions for the project.
(6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference
to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached
and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
SECTION 4.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
(7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used
or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
(8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,
lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant
to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
(9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
(a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
(b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significant.
SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.1-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
4.1 Aesthetics
Except as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 21099, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light
or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
X
A “visual environment” includes the built environment (development patterns, buildings, parking
areas, and circulation elements) and natural environment (such as hills, vegetation, rock
outcroppings, drainage pathways, and soils) features. Visual quality, viewer groups and sensitivity,
duration, and visual resources characterize views. Visual quality refers to the general aesthetic
quality of a view, such as vividness, intactness, and unity. Viewer groups identify who is most likely
to experience the view. High-sensitivity land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, religious
institutions, and passive outdoor spaces such as parks, playgrounds, and recreation areas. Duration
of a view is the amount of time that a particular view can be seen by a specific viewer group. Visual
resources refer to unique views, and views identified in local plans, from scenic highways, or of
specific unique structures or landscape features.
a) Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099 would the project have a
substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than Significant Impact
Scenic vistas generally include extensive panoramic views of natural features, unusual terrain, or
unique urban or historic features, for which the field of view can be wide and extend into the distance,
and focal views that focus on a particular object, scene or feature of interest.
The project site is located in an area of Fontana that is characterized by flat topography and urban
development. The City of Fontana is located on a desert valley floor between the San Gabriel
Mountains to the north and the Jurupa Hills to the south (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.1-1). Dominant natural
visual resources in the project area comprise scenic vistas from public thoroughfares and open
SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.1-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
spaces in the vicinity of the project site to distant San Gabriel Mountains (to the north) and foothills
of the Jurupa Mountains (to the south).
In general, existing views in the project vicinity include views of the distant Jurupa Mountains to the
south and distant views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north. The San Gabriel Mountains are
located approximately seven miles north of the project site, and the Jurupa Mountains are
approximately two miles south of the project site (Google Earth Pro, 2020). From the project site,
views of the Jurupa Mountains and the San Gabriel Mountains are partially blocked by adjacent
buildings and trees surrounding the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a
significant impact on views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains because those features
are so distant from the project site and views thereof are already blocked by intervening
development.
The project proposes the construction of a shopping center comprised of three parcels. The first
parcel would be developed with an approximately 42,850-square-foot single-story building
dedicated to the Northgate Gonzalez Market and associated parking lot and driveways. The second
parcel would consist of a 5,077-square-foot single-story building (PAD 3) and associated parking and
drive-thru lanes. The third parcel would contain an approximately 9,390-square-foot single-story
building comprised of an end cap drive-thru restaurant and other businesses customarily found in
grocery anchored shopping centers (PAD 1). Additionally, this parcel would contain a
2,300-square-foot, single-story building (PAD 2) with associated parking and drive-thru lanes. The
proposed project would be designed and constructed to be compatible with the commercial uses to
the east, south, and southeast, in terms of architectural style, density, height, bulk, and setback. As
mentioned above, there are intervening buildings and trees that block the distant views of the
mountains to the north and the south of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would result
in less than significant impacts on scenic vistas.
b) Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project
substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provides information regarding officially
designated or eligible state scenic highways, designated as part of the California Scenic Highway
Program. According to Caltrans, there are no officially designated scenic highways within or
adjacent to the project area, and no roadways near the project site are currently eligible for scenic
highway designation (Caltrans, 2015), as shown in Figure 4.1-1. The closest official state scenic
highway, State Route 2 (SR-2), is approximately 23.5 miles northwest of the project site. The closest
eligible state scenic route, State Route 138 (SR-138), is approximately 13.5 miles northwest of the
project site. Therefore, due to the distance between the project site and nearest state scenic highway,
the project would have no impacts on trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway.
SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.1-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Figure 4.1-1
SCENIC HIGHWAYS
SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.1-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
c) Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project in
non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
As discussed in the city’s General Plan EIR, the city is an urbanized, largely built-out area that includes
residential, commercial, industrial, and open space uses. Future development within the City would
largely consist of infill development and redevelopment of previously built sites to accommodate
new growth. Infill development in central Fontana is a prominent strategy in the General Plan Update,
and several policies encourage the revitalization and redevelopment of downtown and older
neighborhoods in the central core. To that end, the General Plan Update proposes two new land use
categories that could potentially impact the visual character of the central core and surrounding
areas. The Walkable Mixed-Use Corridor Downtown (WMXU-1) and Walkable Mixed-Use Urban
Village (WMXU-2) would allow development to occur in the City’s downtown area and on vacant
underutilized lots in adjacent areas (Stantec 2018b, p. 5.1-10).
The proposed project would support the City’s General Plan Land Use, Zoning and Urban Design
Section Goal 3, for infill development on previously developed and underutilized sites. Table 4.1-1
below lists applicable city goals and policies regarding visual character and how the proposed project
would comply.
Table 4.1-1
PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF FONTANA GENERAL PLAN POLICIES REGARDING
SCENIC QUALITY AND AESTHETICS
General Plan Element Project Compliance
Community and Neighborhoods:
Goal 6 The safe, attractive, and lively central part of the city has new infill development and infrastructure
and public realm improvements.
Policy: Support revitalization of the central area of the
city with an integrated approach including mixed-use
development, infill housing, infrastructure
improvements, interconnections, and placemaking
programs.
The proposed project would revitalize vacant land with
infill development. Therefore, the proposed project
would not conflict with this policy.
Downtown Area Plan Element: Goal 4 Reinvigorate the Foothill and Sierra corridors with a mix of retail,
employment, mixed-use and housing development as an economic engine for the downtown area, and as
gateways to downtown.
Goal 4 Reinvigorate the Foothill and Sierra corridors
with a mix of retail, employment, mixed-use and
housing development as an economic engine for the
downtown area, and as gateways to downtown.
The proposed project would develop a new
commercial shopping center along Sierra Avenue
which would reinvigorate a vacant piece of land along
Sierra Avenue. Therefore, the project would not
conflict with this policy.
Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design: Goal 7: Public and private development meets high design standards.
Policy: Support high-quality development in design
standards and in land use decisions.
The proposed project would be designed with similar
architectural style as the surrounding area and would
provide a high-quality development that meets the
SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.1-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
General Plan Element Project Compliance
city’s design criteria. Therefore, the project would not
conflict with this policy.
Source: (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.1-12 and 5.1-13)
As detailed above, the project would not conflict with applicable policies or regulations regarding
visual resources. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact regarding conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The project site is located in an
urban setting characterized by a mix of commercial and residential land uses. Views of the existing
streetscape are characterized by low height (one- or two-story) buildings that house residential land
uses (including apartment and condominiums), commercial/retail land uses in the immediate project
vicinity are limited to one- and two-story buildings. Refer to Table 4.1-2 below, which describes the
existing visual character in the vicinity of the project site. Figure 4.1-2 includes photographs of
development in the vicinity of the project site.
Table 4.1-2
EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER AND LAND USES IN THE PROJECT AREA
Location General
Characteristics Existing Lighting Building Height and Design Landscaping
Project Site
Vacant parking lot with
ornamental landscaping
that previously was a
car dealership.
Not applicable;
abandoned parking
lot.
Not applicable: No buildings on
the project site.
Ornamental
landscaping,
weeds
Surrounding Areas
North Single-family and multi-
family homes.
Exterior lighting
associated with the
exterior building,
parking lot, and street
lights along Holly
Drive.
Single-family homes are one
story and made from stucco,
wood, and tiling. Multi-family
homes are two-stories. and made
from stucco, wood, and tiling.
Ornamental
grass, trees, and
shrubs.
East ROW (Sierra Avenue)
Street lighting and
lighting from road
vehicles.
No height. Designed as a ROW.
Ornamental
grass, trees, and
shrubs.
West Multi-family homes.
Exterior lighting
associated with the
exterior building and
parking lot.
Multi-family homes are two-
stories. and made from stucco,
wood, and tiling.
Ornamental
grass, trees, and
shrubs.
South
Multi-family homes and
commercial shopping
center.
Exterior lighting
associated with the
exterior building,
parking lot, and street
lights along San
Bernardino Avenue.
Multi-family homes are two
stories. and made from stucco,
wood, and tiling. Commercial
shopping center is one-story
with concrete and stucco.
Ornamental
grass, trees, and
shrubs.
Source: UltraSystems 2020 and Google Earth Pro 2020.
SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.1-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Figure 4.1-2
EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE
Source: Google Earth Pro, 2020
SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.1-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Construction
Construction of the proposed project would include views associated with construction activities,
construction staging areas, grading, excavation, construction equipment, material storage areas,
construction debris, exposed trenches, etc. Therefore, project construction could temporarily
degrade the existing visual character of the project area and its immediate surroundings. While these
elements would be removed following construction, they would nonetheless result in a temporary
impact. However, with implementation of mitigation measure AES-1 during project construction,
short-term visual impacts during the construction phase would be less than significant.
Operation
Implementation of the project would not degrade the existing visual character of the site. As
discussed in response to Checklist Question 4.1 a) above, with the proposed project, development
onsite would be consistent with the general character of existing buildings in the surrounding
neighborhood in terms of architectural style, density, height, bulk, and setback.
The proposed shopping center would be designed with a contemporary architectural style. Proposed
new landscaping would include drought-resistant species that consists of trees, shrubs, vines, and
groundcover. The majority of landscaping would occur along the perimeter of the project site and
throughout the parking lot, with a small number of trees, shrubs, groundcover, and vines located near
the building entrance and around the building perimeter.
The project would be developed on a site that is currently is largely vacant, with only the remnants
of earlier development (a parking lot with light standards) still standing. The proposed project would
increase the density, scale, and height of development. However, the project would not be out of
character with the surrounding area, which contains a mix of land uses, with commercial/retail land
uses located east, south, and southeast of the project site. Refer to Appendix A, which includes some
of the elevations of the proposed buildings, and more detail regarding colors/materials as well as
outdoor patio elements.
The project would improve an existing vacant piece of land with a new well-designed shopping
center, thereby resulting in a beneficial change to existing site conditions and not representing an
adverse impact or degradation in the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings. The
proposed project land use and design would be in line with the existing retail/commercial land uses
located to the south, east, and southeast of the project site, as described in Table 4.1-1.
SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.1-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Mitigation Measure
MM AES-1 The project applicant shall ensure that construction documents shall include
language that requires all construction contractors to strictly control the staging of
construction equipment and the cleanliness of construction equipment stored or
driven beyond the limits of the construction work area. Construction equipment shall
be parked and staged within the project site to the extent practical. Staging areas shall
be screened from view from residential properties with solid wood fencing or green
fence. Construction worker parking may be located offsite with approval of the city;
and on-street parking of construction worker vehicles on residential streets shall be
prohibited. Vehicles shall be kept clean and free of mud and dust before leaving the
project site. Surrounding streets shall be swept daily and maintained free of dirt and
debris.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Based on the above analysis, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated on the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
d) Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, 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
The project site is located in an urban area, which is characterized by low to medium nighttime
ambient light levels. Street lights, traffic on local streets and exterior lighting in surrounding
developments are the primary sources of light that contribute to the ambient light levels in the
project area.
The project proposes new exterior lighting throughout the site, including parking lot lighting, which
would be necessary for safety and nighttime visibility throughout the project site. The new project
lighting would be visible from the surrounding area. There are adjacent residential land uses to the
north, south and west of the proposed project that are considered light-sensitive land uses. However,
the project would comply with California Building Code standards for outdoor lighting that are
intended to reduce light pollution and glare by regulating light power and brightness, and shielding.
Lighting for the project would also comply with the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code.
Specifically, the project would be required to comply with City of Fontana Municipal Code § 30-260,
Lighting and Glare, which states, “all lights shall be directed and/or shielded to prevent the light from
adversely affecting adjacent residential or commercial properties. No structure or feature shall be
permitted which creates adverse glare effects” (City of Fontana Municipal Code, 2020). None of the
materials proposed would have a mirror finish or would be highly reflective. Refer to Appendix A of
this document, which contains project plans. Outdoor lighting fixtures would be installed in
accordance with applicable Fontana Municipal Code standards to ensure that the light does not
illuminate nearby and adjacent properties and residences. Adherence to applicable City Municipal
Codes would ensure that new sources of light or glare would not adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area. Therefore, impacts from a new source of substantial light or glare would be less
than significant.
SECTION 4.2 - AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.2-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
§ 12220(g)), timberland (as defined
by Public Resources Codes § 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code § 51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
X
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
No Impact
The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency (FMMP) was
established in 1982 by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) to identify critical
agricultural farmlands and track if and how the lands are converted and used for other things.
According to FMMP, the proposed project is located in an area that FMMP deems as “Urban and
Built-up Land,” which means it is land that has a building density of at least one building to 1.5 acres
of land and is primarily used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, or other
non-agricultural business (DOC, 2016). Since the project meets these criteria, it will not convert
farmland for non-agricultural use. No impacts would occur.
SECTION 4.2 - AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.2-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
No Impact
The Williamson Act, also known as the California Conservation Act of 1956, allows local governments
to work with private landowners by negotiating an agreement to tax these landowners at lower rates
if they restrict specific pieces of land to agricultural or open space use. According to San Bernardino
County’s Williamson Act Contract Map, the proposed project is shown as being on land identified as
“Urban and Built-Up Land” and does not contain any land under the specific jurisdiction of the
Williamson Act (DOC, 2020a) (Refer to Figure 4.2-1, Williamson Act Lands). The City of Fontana’s
General Plan for 2015-2030 identifies the proposed project area as “WMXU-1,” a walkable mixed-use
corridor downtown (City of Fontana, 2019). Currently, no agricultural operations are in the vicinity
of the site (Google Earth Pro, 2020). Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for
agriculture uses or any Williamson Act contracts. No impacts would occur.
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources Code § 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Codes § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code § 51104(g))?
No Impact
The proposed project is located in a highly-urbanized setting and is zoned as “WMXU-1,” indicating
that it is mixed use (City of Fontana, 2019). The definitions given by PRC § 42526 regarding
timberland, by PRC § 12220(g) for forest land, or by California Government Code § 51104(g) for
timberland zoned for production do not apply to this type of zoning because forest and timberland
do not exist there. Being in a highly-urbanized area, the project would have no impact on existing
forestry or timberland zoning, or cause their rezoning.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
No Impact
The project is not within a forest area and is located on land specified as “WMXU-1,” mixed use (City
of Fontana, 2019). The project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land because
construction and other related activities would happen specifically on the project site. Therefore, the
proposed project would not have any effect regarding the loss and/or conversion of forest land.
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural
use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact
The proposed project is located on land zoned as “WXMU-1,” which means it is highly-urbanized in
nature. It is also surrounded by land with the same zoning, and so it would not affect land identified
as farmland or forest space.
SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.2-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Figure 4.2-1
WILLIAMSON ACT LANDS
SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.3-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
4.3 Air Quality
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
X
4.3.1 Pollutants of Concern
Criteria pollutants are air pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and
ambient air quality standards have been established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) and/or the California Air Resources Board (ARB). The criteria air pollutants of concern are
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon dioxide (CO2), partiate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2),
lead (Pb), and ozone (O3), and their precursors, such as reactive organic gases (ROG), which are ozone
precursors. Since the proposed project would not generate appreciable SO2 or Pb emissions,6 it is not
necessary for the analysis to include those two pollutants. Presented below is a description of the air
pollutants of concern and their known health effects.
Nitrogen oxides (NOX) serve as integral participants in the process of photochemical smog
production and are precursors for certain particulate compounds that are formed in the atmosphere.
The two major forms of NOx are nitric oxide (NO) and NO2. NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from
atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high
pressure. NO2 is a reddish-brown pungent gas formed by the combination of NO and oxygen. NO2 is
an acute respiratory irritant and eye irritant and increases susceptibility to respiratory pathogens. A
third form of NOX, nitrous oxide (N2O), is a greenhouse gas (GHG) (USEPA, 2020a).
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless non-reactive pollutant produced by incomplete
combustion of carbon substances (e.g., gasoline or diesel fuel). The primary adverse health effect
associated with CO is its binding with hemoglobin in red blood cells, which decreases the ability of
these cells to transport oxygen throughout the body. Prolonged exposure can cause headaches,
drowsiness, or loss of equilibrium; high concentrations are lethal (USEPA, 200b).
6 Sulfur dioxide emissions will be below 0.5 pound per day during construction and operations.
SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.3-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Particulate matter (PM) consists of finely divided solids or liquids, such as soot, dust, aerosols,
fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulate matter are now regulated. Respirable particles, or
PM10, include that portion of the particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers
(i.e., 10 one-millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch) or less. Fine particles, or PM2.5, have an aerodynamic
diameter of 2.5 micrometers (i.e., 2.5 one-millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch) or less. Particulate
discharge into the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and
transportation activities. However, wind action on the arid landscape also contributes substantially
to the local particulate loading. Fossil fuel combustion accounts for a sizable portion of PM2.5. In
addition, particulate matter forms in the atmosphere through reactions of NOX and other compounds
(such as ammonia) to form inorganic nitrates and sulfates. Both PM10 and PM2.5 may adversely affect
the human respiratory system, especially in those people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible
to breathing problems (USEPA, 2020a; 2020b).
Reactive organic gases (ROG) are compounds comprised primarily of atoms of hydrogen and carbon
that have high photochemical reactivity. The major source of ROG is the incomplete combustion of
fossil fuels in internal combustion engines. Other sources of ROG include the evaporative emissions
associated with the use of paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving and the use of
household consumer products. Some ROG species are listed toxic air contaminants, which have been
shown to cause adverse health effects; however, most adverse effects on human health are not caused
directly by ROG, but rather by reactions of ROG to form other criteria pollutants such as ozone. ROG
are also transformed into organic aerosols in the atmosphere, contributing to higher levels of fine
particulate matter and lower visibility. The term “ROG” is used by the ARB for air quality analysis and
is defined essentially the same as the federal term “volatile organic compound” (VOC).7
Ozone (O3) is a secondary pollutant produced through a series of photochemical reactions involving
ROG and NOX. Ozone creation requires ROG and NOx to be available for approximately three hours in
a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. Because of the long reaction time, peak ozone
concentrations frequently occur downwind of the sites where the precursor pollutants are emitted.
Thus, O3 is considered a regional, rather than a local, pollutant. The health effects of O3 include eye
and respiratory irritation, reduction of resistance to lung infection and possible aggravation of
pulmonary conditions in persons with lung disease. Ozone is also damaging to vegetation and
untreated rubber (USEPA, 2020).
4.3.2 Climate/Meteorology
The project site will be located wholly within the South Coast Air Basin SCAB, which includes all of
Orange County, as well as the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino
Counties. The distinctive climate of the SCAB is determined by its terrain and geographical location.
The SCAB is in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific
Ocean in the southwest quadrant with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The
general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. Thus, the climate
is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted
infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds (SCAQMD,
1993).
7 Emissions of organic gases are typically reported only as aggregate organics, either as VOC or as ROG. These terms are
meant to reflect what specific compounds have been included or excluded from the aggregate estimate. Although EPA
defines VOC to exclude both methane and ethane, and CARB defines ROG to exclude only methane, in practice it is
assumed that VOC and ROG are essentially synonymous.
SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.3-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
The annual average temperature varies little throughout the 6,600-square-mile SCAB, ranging from
the low 60s to the high 80s. However, with a less pronounced oceanic influence, the inland portion
shows greater variability in the annual minimum and maximum temperatures (SCAQMD, 1993). The
mean annual high and low temperatures in the project area—as determined from the nearest
weather station in the City of San Bernardino,8 (Western Regional Climate Center, 2020) which has a
period of record from 1893 to 2004—are 79.9 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and 48.2°F, respectively. The
overall climate is a mild Mediterranean, with average monthly maximum temperatures exceeding
96°F in the summer and dipping to 38.5°F in the winter.
In contrast to a steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. The
total average annual precipitation is 16.12 inches, of which 81 percent occurs between November
and March.
4.3.3 Local Air Quality
Table 4.3-1 shows the area designation status of the SCAB for each criteria pollutant for both the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards
(CAAQS).
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has divided the SCAB into source
receptor areas (SRAs), based on similar meteorological and topographical features. The proposed
project site is in SCAQMD’s Central San Bernardino Valley (SRA 34), which is served by the
Fontana-Arrow Monitoring Station, located about 3.4 miles northwest of the proposed project site,
at 14360 Arrow Route, in Fontana (SCAQMD, 2020). Criteria pollutants monitored at the
Fontana-Arrow Monitoring Station include ozone, PM10, PM2.5, and NO2. This station ceased
monitoring CO in 2012 and CO has not been monitored in the SCAB since 2012. The ambient air
quality data in the proposed project vicinity as recorded at the Fontana-Arrow Monitoring Station
from 2016 to 2018 and the applicable state standards are shown in Table 4.3-2.
8 Data for San Bernardino Fire Station #226. Accessed June 2020. A closer weather station was available up until 1984.
The San Bernardino station represents more current data.
SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.3-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Table 4.3-1
FEDERAL AND STATE ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutants Federal Classification State Classification
Ozone (O3) Nonattainment (Extreme) Nonattainment
Particulate Matter (PM10) Maintenance (Serious) Nonattainment
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment (Moderate) Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maintenance (Serious) Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Maintenance Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment
Sulfates
No Federal Standards
Attainment
Lead (Pb) Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particles Unclassified
Sources: ARB, 2020a; USEPA, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c, 2019d, 2019e.
Table 4.3-2
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA
Air
Pollutant Standard/Exceedance 2016 2017 2018
Ozone (O3)
Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm)
Max. 8-hour Concentration (ppm)
# Days > Federal 8-hour Std. of 0.070 ppm
# Days > California 1-hour Std. of 0.09 ppm
# Days > California 8-hour Std. of 0.070 ppm
0.139
0.105
49
34
52
0.137
0.118
49
33
51
0.141
0.111
69
38
72
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
Max. 1-hour Concentration (ppm)
Annual Average (ppm)
# Days > California 1-hour Std. of 0.070 ppm
0.071
0.018
0
0.069
0.018
0
0.063
0.018
0
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Max. 24-hour Concentration micrograms per cubic meter
(µg/m3)
Est. # Days > Fed. 24-hour Std. of 150 µg/m3
Annual Average (µg/m3)
94.0
0
39.2
75.3
ND
39.8
64.1
0
34.6
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
Max. 24-hour Concentration (µg/m3)
#Days > Fed. 24-hour Std. of 35 µg/m3 State Annual Average
(µg/m3)
58.8
3.2
12.3
39.2
3.0
12.0
29.2
0
11.1
Source: ARB, 2020b.
ND - There was insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value.
SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.3-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
4.3.4 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
The SCAQMD is required to produce plans to show how air quality will be improved in the region.
The CCAA requires that these plans be updated triennially to incorporate the most recent available
technical information. A multi-level partnership of governmental agencies at the federal, state,
regional, and local levels implements the programs contained in these plans. Agencies involved
include the USEPA, ARB, local governments, SCAG, and SCAQMD. The SCAQMD and the SCAG are
responsible for formulating and implementing the AQMP for the SCAB. The SCAQMD updates its Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP) every three years.
The 2016 AQMP (SCAQMD, 2017b) was adopted by the SCAQMD Board on March 3, 2017, and on
March 10, 2017 was submitted to the ARB (SCAQMD, 2017a) to become part of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP)9 (SCAQMD, 2017a). It focuses largely on reducing NOx emissions as a
means of attaining the 1979 1-hour ozone standard by 2022, the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by
2023, and the 2008 8-hour standard by 2031 (SCAQMD, 2017b). The AQMP prescribes a variety of
current and proposed new control measures, including a request to the USEPA for increased
regulation of mobile source emissions. The NOx control measures will also help the SCAB attain the
24-hour standard for PM2.5.
4.3.5 Sensitive Receptors
Some people, such as individuals with respiratory illnesses or impaired lung function because of
other illnesses, persons over 65 years of age, and children under 14, are particularly sensitive to
certain pollutants. Facilities and structures where these sensitive people live or spend considerable
amounts of time are known as sensitive receptors. For the purposes of a CEQA analysis, the SCAQMD
considers a sensitive receptor to be a receptor such as a residence, hospital, or convalescent facility
where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours (Chico and Koizumi, 2008, p. 3-2).
Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition of sensitive receptor, because
employees typically are present for shorter periods of time, such as eight hours. Therefore, applying
a 24-hour standard for PM10 is appropriate not only because the averaging period for the state
standard is 24 hours, but because the sensitive receptor would be present at the location for the full
24 hours.
4.3.6 Response to Checklist Questions
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
Less than Significant Impact
The SCAQMD (2019) has developed criteria in the form of emissions thresholds for determining
whether emissions from a project are regionally significant. They are useful for estimating whether
a project is likely to result in a violation of the NAAQS and/or whether the project is in conformity
with plans to achieve attainment. SCAQMD’s significance thresholds for criteria pollutant emissions
during construction activities and project operation are summarized in Table 4.3-3. A project is
9 The State Implementation Plan (SIP) is a collection of local and regional plans, regulations, and rules for attaining
ambient air quality standards. It is periodically submitted to the USEPA for approval.
SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.3-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
considered to have a regional air quality impact if emissions from its construction and/or operational
activities exceed any of the corresponding SCAQMD significance thresholds.
Table 4.3-3
SCAQMD EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS FOR SIGNIFICANT REGIONAL IMPACTS
Pollutant
Mass Daily Thresholds (Pounds/Day)
Construction Operation
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 55
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 75 55
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 150
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55 55
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 150
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Lead 3 3
Source: SCAQMD (2019).
Air Quality Methodology
Estimated criteria pollutant emissions from the project’s onsite and offsite project activities were
calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2016.3.2. CalEEMod
(CAPCOA, 2017) is a planning tool for estimating emissions related to land use projects.
Model-predicted project emissions are compared with applicable thresholds to assess regional air
quality impacts. As some construction plans have not been finalized, CalEEMod defaults were used
for construction offroad equipment and onroad construction trips and vehicle miles traveled. The
only modifications to CalEEMod defaults were the construction schedule and equipment list provided
by the client and operational trip rates, which are from a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIA)
prepared for this project (LL&G, 2020). It was also assumed that the construction contractor would
comply with all SCAQMD rules that apply to construction activity. For example, SCAQMD Rule 403
requires various control measures to reduce the generation and transmission offsite of dust from
operation of construction equipment.10
For this analysis, construction activities for the Northgate Market Center Project are anticipated to
last nine months and would begin around August 1, 2021 and end in May 2022. There would be five
construction phases:
Site Preparation; including removal of trees and existing asphalt.
Grading; includes excavations for buildings.
Building Construction; concrete placement, building framing, and placement of HVAC.
Architectural Coating; painting of buildings’ interior and exterior.
Paving; placement of asphaltic concrete.
Trenching; includes excavation for wet and dry utility lines.
10 Rule 403 applies to fugitive dust emissions. All construction projects in the SCAQMD are required to implement dust
control measures such as regularly wetting disturbed soils.
SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.3-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Table 4.3-4 shows the project schedule used for the air quality, GHG emissions (Section 4.8) and
noise (Section 4.13) analyses.
Table 4.3-4
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Construction Phase Start End
Site Preparation August 1, 2021 August 15, 2021
Grading August 16, 2021 November 15, 2021
Building Construction November 16, 2021 February 15, 2022
Architectural Coating February 16, 2022 May 15, 2022
Paving February 16, 2022 February 17, 2022
Trenching February 18, 2022 May 31, 2022
These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dusts, fumes, equipment
exhaust, and other air contaminants. Mobile sources (such as diesel-fueled equipment onsite and
traveling to and from the project site) would primarily generate NOX emissions. The amount of
emissions generated daily would vary, depending on the amount and types of construction activities
occurring at the same time.
Regional Short-Term Air Quality Effects
Project construction activities would result in short-term air quality impacts. Construction emissions
can be distinguished as either onsite or offsite. Onsite air pollutant emissions consist principally of
exhaust emissions from offroad heavy-duty construction equipment, as well as fugitive particulate
matter from earth working and material handling operations. Offsite emissions result from workers
commuting to and from the job site, as well as from trucks hauling materials to the site and
construction debris for disposal.
As shown in Table 4.3-5, construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds.
Therefore, the project’s short-term regional air quality impacts would be less than significant.
Table 4.3-5
MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction Activity
Maximum Emissions (pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Emissions, 2021 2.1 36.8 13.8 8.0 4.1
Maximum Emissions, 2022 9.3 13.4 13.6 0.9 0.6
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 55
Significant? (Yes or No) No No No No No
Source: Calculated by OB-1 Air Analyses with CalEEMod (Version 2016.3.2) (CAPCOA, 2017).
SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.3-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Regional Long-Term Air Quality Effects
The primary source of operational emissions would be vehicle exhaust emissions generated from
project-induced vehicle trips, known as “mobile source emissions.” Other emissions, identified as
“energy source emissions,” would be generated from energy consumption for water, space heating,
and cooking equipment, while “area source emissions,” would be generated from structural
maintenance and landscaping activities, and use of consumer products.
As seen in Table 4.3-6, for each criteria pollutant, operational emissions would be below the
pollutant’s SCAQMD significance threshold. Therefore, operational NOX emissions would be less than
significant.
Table 4.3-6
MAXIMUM DAILY PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Emission Source
Pollutant (pounds/day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Source Emissions 1.27 0.00005 0.006 0.00002 0.00002
Energy Source Emissions 0.004 0.03 0.03 0.003 0.003
Mobile Source Emissions 5.76 31.13 33.75 7.37 2.02
Total Operational Emissions 7.0 31.2 33.8 7.4 2.0
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 55 55 550 150 55
Significant? (Yes or No) No No No No No
Source: Calculated by OB-1 Air Analyses with CalEEMod (Version 2016.3.2) (CAPCOA, 2017).
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
Since the SCAB is currently in nonattainment for ozone and PM2.5, related projects may exceed an air
quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance. The SCAQMD
neither recommends quantified analyses of construction and/or operational emissions from multiple
development projects nor provides methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess
the cumulative emissions generated by multiple cumulative projects. Instead, the District
recommends that a project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts be assessed utilizing the
same significance criteria as those for project-specific impacts. Furthermore, the SCAQMD states that
if an individual development project generates less-than-significant construction or operational
emissions impacts, then the development project would not contribute to a cumulatively
considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment.
As discussed above, the mass daily construction emissions generated by the project would not exceed
any of the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds and, as discussed below, the localized emissions
generated by the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs).
In addition, operational emissions of all criteria pollutants would be less than significant. Therefore,
cumulative air quality impacts associated with the project would be less than significant.
SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.3-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Less than Significant Impact
Localized Short-Term Air Quality Effects from Construction Activity
Construction of the proposed project would generate short-term and intermittent emissions.
Following SCAQMD guidance (Chico and Koizumi, 2008), only onsite construction emissions were
considered in the localized significance analysis. The residences to the west of the project site, across
Sierra Avenue, are the nearest sensitive receptors, about 80 feet (24 meters) away. Localized
significance thresholds for projects in SRA 34 were obtained from tables in Appendix C of the
SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (Chico and Koizumi, 2008).
Table 4.3-7 shows the results of the localized significance analysis for the proposed project.
The localized significance analysis determined that the project would not expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Table 4.3-7
RESULTS OF LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS
Nearest Sensitive Receptor
Maximum Onsite Emissions
(pounds/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum daily emissions 17.4 12.9 2.9 1.8
SCAQMD LST for 5 acres @ 25 meters 270 1,746 14 8
Significant (Yes or No) No No No No
Source of thresholds: Chico and Koizumi, 2008, Appendix C.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact
Odors can cause a variety of responses. The impact of an odor results from interacting factors such
as frequency (how often), intensity (strength), duration (in time), offensiveness (unpleasantness),
location, and sensory perception.
The SCAQMD’s criterion for significance of an odor impact is that a project creates an odor nuisance
pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance)(SCAQMD, 2019). A nuisance is defined by Rule 402 as:
“ … such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment,
nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which
endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which
cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.”
SECTION 4.3 – AIR QUALITY
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.3-10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Land uses typically considered associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste
disposal facilities, or agricultural operations. The proposed project is not a land use typically
associated with emitting objectionable odors. It would involve the use of diesel construction
equipment and diesel trucks during construction and diesel trucks during operation. However, the
project area has a predominance of industrial land uses and therefore emissions from trucks are
common throughout the project vicinity. In addition, project-generated emissions would rapidly
disperse in the atmosphere and would not be noticeable to the nearby public. Therefore, the project
would not generate a significant odor impact during construction or operation.
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
4.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
X
Methodology
Manju Venkat, an UltraSystems biologist, researched readily available information, including
relevant literature, databases, agency websites, various previously completed reports and
management plans, GIS data, maps, aerial imagery from public domain sources, and in-house records
to identify the following: 1) habitats, special-status plant and wildlife species, jurisdictional waters,
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
critical habitats, and wildlife corridors that may occur in and near the project site; and 2) local or
regional plans, policies, and regulations that may apply to the project (Figure 4.4-1).
The following data sources were accessed by UltraSystems for synthesis of data within this report.
United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Topographic Map Devore Quadrangle
(USGS, 2020a) and current aerial imagery (Google Earth, 2020).
The Web Soil Survey, provided by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (USDA Web Soil Survey, 2020).
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), provided by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (CDFW, 2020).
Information, Planning and Conservation (IPaC), provided by the USFWS (USFWS, 2020a).
Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, 8th Edition, provided by the California
Native Plant Society (CNPS, 2020).
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), provided by the USFWS (USFWS, 2020b).
National Hydrography Dataset, provided by the USGS (USGS, 2020b).
Critical Habitat Portal, provided by the USFWS (USFWS, 2020c).
eBird online database of bird distribution and abundance, provided by Cornell Lab of
Ornithology (eBird, 2020).
Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, J.M. Evens, 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second
Edition, provided by California Native Plant Society Press
EPA Waters GeoViewer, provided by USEPA (EPA, 2020a).
Plant and wildlife species protected by federal agencies, state agencies, and nonprofit resource
organizations, such as the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), are collectively referred to as
“special-status species”.11 When plant and animal species that are federally or state listed
endangered, threatened, or candidate species are discussed as a subcategory of special-status species
they are referred to as “listed species”. When plant and animal species are protected by an agency
but not a “listed species” and are discussed as a subcategory of special-status species they are
referred to as “sensitive species”. Some of these plant and wildlife species are afforded special legal
or management protection because they are limited in population size, and typically have a limited
geographic range and/or habitat.
11 Avian species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) are not considered “special-status species.”
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Figure 4.4-1
CNDDB SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Aerial imagery from the above-mentioned sources was overlaid with geospatial data by utilizing
Geographic Information System (GIS) software (ArcGIS 10.1) to identify documented observations of
the following biological or environmental components within the project vicinity:
(1) Previously recorded observations within the project vicinity and geographic range of
special-status species and potentially suitable habitats;
(2) Special-status vegetation communities;
(3) Protected management lands;
(4) Proposed and final critical habitats;
(5) Wetlands, waters of the State (WOS), and waters of the United States (WOUS); and
(6) Wildlife corridors.
An analysis was then made to plan either the avoidance of, or to minimize, project impacts to any of
those biological resources. A Biological Study Area (BSA) was defined for the project and includes a
500-foot buffer zone around the perimeter of the property (refer to Figure 4.4-2).
Existing Setting
The project is located in a highly-urbanized area that is surrounded by industrial/commercial and
residential properties, and roads. The project site itself consists of a formerly developed lot with a
majority of the surface consisting of developed, concrete impervious surface with little to no
vegetation. The land cover type on the project site is best characterized as Developed/Ornamental
(Figure 4.4-2). A handful of ornamental (urban) trees occur on the site. These conditions render the
site low in habitat value for special-status plant and wildlife species (including species listed by state
or federal agencies as “candidate” or “sensitive” species).
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Figure 4.4-2
LAND COVER TYPE MAP
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse impact, 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 with Mitigation Incorporated
Special-Status Plant Species
Thirty-three (33) special-status plant species within a 10-mile radius of the project site were
identified in the literature review and query from publicly available databases12 for reported
occurrences. The 33 special-status plant species are presented in Table 4.4-1 (refer to Figure 4.4-1)
with both the taxonomic (scientific) name, common name, status, general habitat, and occurrence
potential determination for each plant species.
Further, a query of the USFWS’s iPaC database indicated that the project site does not occur within
any designated critical habitat for plant species (Figure 4.4-3).
As indicated earlier, due to the developed nature of the project site, none of these 33 plant species
are expected to occur onsite; therefore, mitigation is not necessary.
12 Databases include California Natural Diversity Database, USFWS’ Information, Planning, and Conservation, CNPS’
Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, 8th Edition, Previous studies and reports within the project
site and project vicinity were reviewed to gain a sense of the existing conditions at the time the studies were
conducted.
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Table 4.4-1
PLANT LITERATURE REVIEW RESULTS
Scientific Name Common Name Status* General Habitat Potential for Occurrence on Project Site
Listed Endangered, Threatened, Candidate and State Rare Plants:
Plants with official status under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and/or the Native
Plant Protection Act (NPPA). A species may have other sensitive designations in addition to their federal or state listing.
Ambrosia pumila San Diego
ambrosia FE, 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland.
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Berberis nevinii Nevin's barberry FE, SE, 1B.1 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, riparian scrub.
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Astragalus
brauntonii
Braunton's milk-
vetch FE, 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland.
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Dodecahema
leptoceras
slender-horned
spineflower FE, SE, 1B.1
Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub (alluvial fan sage
scrub).
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Eriastrum
densifolium ssp.
sanctorum
Santa Ana River
woollystar FE, SE, 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Sensitive Plants:
These plants have no official status under the ESA, the CESA, and/or the NPPA. However, they are designated as sensitive or locally important by
federal agencies, state agencies, and/or local conservation agencies and organizations.
Allium munzii Munz’s onion 1B.1
Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, pinyon juniper
woodland, valley & foothill
grassland.
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Scientific Name Common Name Status* General Habitat Potential for Occurrence on Project Site
Ambrosia
monogyra
Singlewhorl
burrobrush 2B.2 Chaparral, Sonoran Desert scrub
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Arenaria paludicola Marsh sandwort 1B.1 Marshes & swamps (freshwater
brackish)
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Astragalus hornii
var. hornii Horn’s milk-vetch 1B.1 Lake margins, meadows & seeps,
playas.
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Broadiaea filifolia Thread-leaved
broadiaea 1B.1
Chaparral (openings), cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, playas,
valley & foothill grassland, vernal
pools.
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Centromadia
pungens ssp. laevis
Smooth tarplant 1B.1
Chenopod scrub, meadows and
seeps, playas, riparian woodland,
valley and foothills grasslands.
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Chloropyron
maritimum ssp.
maritimum
Salt marsh bird’s-
beak 1B.2 Coastal dunes, marshes and
swamps (coastal salt).
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Cuscuta obtusiflora
var. glandulosa Peruvian dodder 2B.2 Marshes & swamps
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Eryngium
aristulatum var.
parishii
San Diego button-
celery 1B.1 Coastal scrub, valley & foothill
grassland, vernal pools.
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Scientific Name Common Name Status* General Habitat Potential for Occurrence on Project Site
Helianthus nuttallii
ssp. parishii
Los Angeles
sunflower 1A Marshes & swamps (coastal salt
and freshwater).
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Malacothamnus
parishii
Parish’s bush
mallow 1A Chaparral, Coastal Scrub
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Orcuttia californica California Orcutt
grass 1B.1 Vernal pools.
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum
white rabbit-
tobacco 2B.2 Riparian woodland, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, chaparral.
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Ribes divaricatum
var. parishii
Parish’s
gooseberry 1A Riparian woodland, Coastal Sage
Scrub, wetlands.
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Sagittaria sanfordii Sanford’s
arrowhead 1B.2 Marshes and swamps (assorted
shallow freshwater).
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Senecio aphanactis chaparral ragwort 2B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub.
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Sidalcea
neomexicana
Salt spring
checkerbloom 2B.2
Chaparral, coastal scrub, Mojavean
desert scrub, playas. Prefers
alkaline, mesic soils.
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Scientific Name Common Name Status* General Habitat Potential for Occurrence on Project Site
Streptanthus
bernardinus
Laguna Mountains
jewelflower 4.3 Chaparral, lower montane
coniferous forests
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Symphyotrichum
defoliatum
San Bernardino
aster 1B.2
Meadows and seeps, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, lower
montane coniferous forest,
marshes and swamps, valley and
foothill grassland.
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Lepidium
virginicum var.
robinsonii
Robinson's pepper-
grass 4.3 Chaparral, coastal scrub.
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Phacelia stellaris Brand's star
phacelia 1B.1 Coastal scrub, coastal dunes.
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Monardella pringlei Pringle's
monardella 1A Coastal scrub.
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Nasturtium
gambelii
Gambel’s water
cress 1B.1 Marshes and swamps (freshwater
or brackish)
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Chorizanthe parryi
var. parryi Parry's spineflower 1B.1
Coastal scrub, chaparral,
cismontane woodland, valley and
foothill grassland.
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Horkelia cuneata
var. puberula mesa horkelia 1B.1 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub.
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-11
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Scientific Name Common Name Status* General Habitat Potential for Occurrence on Project Site
Calochortus
plummerae
Plummer's
mariposa-lily 4.2
Coastal scrub, chaparral, valley and
foothill grassland, cismontane
woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest.
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Dodecahema
leptoceras
Slender-horned
spineflower 1B.1
Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub (alluvial fan). Prefers
sandy soils.
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
Galium
californicum ssp.
primum
Alvin Meadow
bedstraw 1B.2
Chaparral, lower montane
coniferous forest. Prefers granitic,
sandy soils
No Potential to occur: The project site is located outside
the plant species’ known distribution, elevation range,
and/or the BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils to
support the plant species.
*Notes:
Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listing Codes: The ESA is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS). The USFWS has primary responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater organisms, while the responsibilities of NMFS are mainly marine wildlife such as whales and
anadromous fish such as salmon. For the purposes of the ESA, Congress defined species to include subspecies, varieties, and, for vertebrates, distinct population segments.
The official federal listing of Endangered and Threatened plants is published in 50 CFR §17.12.
• FE = federally listed as endangered: any species of plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range.
California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) Listing Codes: The CESA and NPPA are administered by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The official listing of Plants of California Declared to Be Endangered, Threatened or Rare is contained in the California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, §670.2. Species, subspecies and varieties of California native plants are declared to be endangered, threatened as defined by §2062 and §2067 of the
Fish and Game Code or rare as defined by §1901 of the Fish and Game Code.
• SE = state-listed as endangered: "endangered species" means a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in
serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat,
overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease (Fish and Game Code §2062).
California Rare Plant Ranks (Formerly known as CNPS Lists): The CNPS is a statewide, nonprofit organization that maintains, with CDFW, an Inventory of Rare and
Endangered Plants of California. In the spring of 2011, CNPS and CDFW officially changed the name “CNPS List” or “CNPS Ranks” to “California Rare Plant Rank” (or CRPR).
This was done to reduce confusion over the fact that CNPS and CDFW jointly manage the Rare Plant Status Review Groups and the rank assignments are the product of a
collaborative effort and not solely a CNPS assignment.
• CRPR 1B = California Rare Plant Rank 1B - plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere: plants with a CRPR of 1B are rare
throughout their range with the majority of them endemic to California. Most of the plants that are ranked 1B have declined significantly over the last century. All
of the plants constituting CRPR 1B meet the definitions of §2062 and §2067 (CESA) of the Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing. It is mandatory
that they be fully considered during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA.
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-12
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Scientific Name Common Name Status* General Habitat Potential for Occurrence on Project Site
• CRPR 2B = California Rare Plant Rank 2B - plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere: except for being common
beyond the boundaries of California, plants with a CRPR of 2B would have been ranked 1B. From the federal perspective, plants common in other states or
countries are not eligible for consideration under the provisions of the ESA. All of the plants constituting CRPR 2B meet the definitions of §2062 and §2067
(CESA) of the Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing. It is mandatory that they be fully considered during preparation of environmental documents
relating to CEQA.
CRPR 4 = California Rare Plant Rank 4 - plants of limited distribution - a watch list: the plants in this category are of limited distribution or infrequent
throughout a broader area in California. While CNPS and CDFW cannot call these plants "rare" from a statewide perspective, they are uncommon enough that their
status should be monitored regularly. Should the degree of endangerment or rarity of a CRPR 4 plant change, CNPS and CDFW will transfer it to a more
appropriate rank. Some of the plants constituting CRPR 4 meet the definitions of § 2062 and § 2067 (CESA) of the Fish and Game Code, and few, if any, are eligible
for state listing. Nevertheless, many of them are significant locally, and CNPS strongly recommends that CRPR 4 plants be evaluated for consideration during
preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Threat Ranks: The CNPS Threat Rank is an extension added onto the California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) (as a decimal code) and
designates the level of threats by a 1 to 3 ranking with 1 being the most threatened and 3 being the least threatened. A Threat Rank is present for all CRPR 1B's, 2B's, 4's, and
the majority of CRPR 3's. CRPR 4 plants are seldom assigned a Threat Rank of .1, as they generally have large enough populations to not have significant threats to their
continued existence in California. However, certain conditions exist to make the plant a species of concern and hence be assigned a CRPR. In addition, all CRPR 1A and 2A
(presumed extirpated in California), and some CRPR 3 (need more information) plants, which lack threat information, do not have a Threat Rank extension.
.1 = seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)
.2 = moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat)
.3 = not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known)
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-13
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Wildlife
Thirty nine special-status wildlife species within a five-mile radius of the project site were identified
in the literature review and query from publicly available databases13 for reported occurrences, The
39 special-status wildlife species are presented in Table 4.4-2 (Refer to Figure 4.4-1) with the
taxonomic (scientific) name, common name, status, and description of each species’ preferred
habitat.
The project site and surrounding lands are highly developed and are located in a heavily urbanized
setting. As indicated earlier, the land cover type on the project site is entirely Developed/Ornamental.
Further, a query of the USFWS’s iPaC database indicated that the project site does not occur within
any designated critical habitat for any of the wildlife species with a potential to occur in the project
area (Figure 4.4-3). Due to these reasons, none of these special-status bird species are expected to
occur onsite, due to lack of suitable habitat, and/or the site is outside of the known elevation, and/or
general distribution of the target species.
However, the project site supports a few ornamental (likely non-native) trees. These trees could
provide suitable future or current nesting sites, including nesting sites for common passerine bird
species such as House Sparrow (Passer domesticus), House Finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), Lesser
Goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), and Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura). Birds that nest on the ground,
such as killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) may also utilize the unpaved areas within the project site for
nesting.
Migratory birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and
Game Code, which render it unlawful to take migratory birds, and their nests, eggs, and young.
California defines “take” as “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch,
capture, or kill.” California courts have held that take includes incidental take and is not limited to
hunting and fishing and other activities that are specifically intended to kill protected fish and
wildlife. Over 600 species of migratory birds live in or migrate through California (CDFW and DOJ,
2018).
13 Databases include California Natural Diversity Database, USFWS’ Information, Planning, and Conservation, Previous
studies and reports within the project site and project vicinity were reviewed to gain a sense of the existing
conditions at the time the studies were conducted.
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-14
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Table 4.4-2
WILDLIFE LITERATURE REVIEW RESULTS
Scientific
Name
Common
Name Status* General Habitat Potential for Occurrence on the
Project Site
Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Wildlife:
Wildlife with official status under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and/or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). A species may have
other sensitive designations in addition to their federal or state listing.
Anaxyrus
californicus arroyo toad FE, SSC Semi-arid regions near washes or intermittent streams, including
valley-foothill and desert riparian, desert wash, etc.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
Yellow-billed
Cuckoo FT, ST, S1
Inhabits extensive deciduous riparian thickets or forests with dense,
low-level or understory foliage, and which abut on slow-moving
watercourses, backwaters, or seeps. Willow almost always a
dominant component of the vegetation
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Euphydryas
editha quino
Quino
checkerspot
butterfly
FE
This butterfly prefers patchy shrub or small tree landscapes with
openings of several meters between large plants, or a landscape of
open swales alternating with dense patches of shrubs. Adult
butterflies will only deposit eggs on species they recognize as host
plants. Egg deposition has been documented on Plantago erecta
(erect or dwarf plantain), Plantago patagonica (Patagonian plantain),
and Anterrhinum coulterianum (white snapdragon)
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Laterallus
jamaicensis
coturniculus
California
black rail ST
The majority of California Black Rails (>90 percent) are found in the
tidal salt marshes of the northern San Francisco Bay region,
primarily in San Pablo and Suisun Bays. Formerly a local resident in
coastal wetlands from Santa Barbara County to San Diego County;
still winters in these areas.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Rana muscosa
southern
mountain
yellow-legged
frog
FE, SE,
WL
Federal listing refers to populations in the San Gabriel, San Jacinto
and San Bernardino mountains (southern DPS). Northern DPS was
determined to warrant listing as endangered, Apr 2014, effective
June 30, 2014.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-15
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Scientific
Name
Common
Name Status* General Habitat Potential for Occurrence on the
Project Site
Gymnogyps
californianus
California
condor FE, SE, FP Aerial, Cliff, Grassland/herbaceous, Savanna, Shrubland/chaparral,
Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Empidonax
traillii extimus
Southwestern
Willow
Flycatcher
FE Riparian woodlands in Southern California.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Polioptila
californica
californica
coastal
California
gnatcatcher
FT, SSC Obligate, permanent resident of coastal sage scrub below 2500 ft in
Southern California.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Vireo bellii
pusillus
least Bell's
vireo FE, SE Summer resident of Southern California in low riparian in vicinity of
water or in dry river bottoms; below 2000 ft.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Agelaius tricolor tricolored
blackbird FT, SSC Highly colonial species, most numerous in Central Valley & vicinity.
Largely endemic to California.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Catostomus
santaanae
Santa Ana
sucker FT
Endemic to Los Angeles Basin south coastal streams. Habitat
generalists, but prefer sand-rubble-boulder bottoms, cool, clear
water, and algae.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Dipodomys
stephensi
Stephens'
kangaroo rat FE, ST Primarily annual & perennial grasslands, but also occurs in coastal
scrub & sagebrush with sparse canopy cover.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-16
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Scientific
Name
Common
Name Status* General Habitat Potential for Occurrence on the
Project Site
Dipodomys
merriami parvus
San
Bernardino
kangaroo rat
FE, SSC Alluvial scrub vegetation on sandy loam substrates characteristic of
alluvial fans and flood plains.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Rhaphiomidas
terminatus
abdominalis
Delhi Sands
flower-loving
fly
FE Found only in areas of the Delhi Sands formation in southwestern
San Bernardino & northwestern Riverside counties.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Sensitive Wildlife:
These animals have no official status under the ESA and/or the CESA. However, they are designated as sensitive or locally important by federal
agencies, state agencies, and/or local conservation agencies and organizations.
Accipiter
cooperii Cooper's hawk
WL,
Season of
Concern:
nesting
The Cooper’s hawk is a robust, medium sized, agile woodland
accipiter. They hunt in broken woodland and habitat edges. The
Cooper's hawk seems much more tolerant of human activities near
the nest and is seen more often nesting in urban/residential areas.
In winter and during migration, they may be observed briefly at any
location throughout the state in a wide variety of habitats.
Low Potential to occur. The project site
may be used for foraging of passerine
birds by this species.
Aimophila
ruficeps
Rufous-
crowned
sparrow
SSC
Common resident of sparse, mixed chaparral and coastal scrub
habitats. Frequents relatively steep, often rocky hillsides with grass
and forb patches.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Aspidoscelis
tigris stejnegeri
Coastal (=San
Diegan Tiger
Whiptail)
SSC Variety of ecosystems, primarily hot and dry open areas with sparse
foliage- chaparral, woodland and riparian areas.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Aspidoscelis
hyperythra
Orange-
throated
whiptail
SSC Inhabits low-elevation coastal scrub, chamise-redshank chaparral,
mixed chaparral and valley-foothill hardwood habitats.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-17
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Scientific
Name
Common
Name Status* General Habitat Potential for Occurrence on the
Project Site
Athene
cunicularia Burrowing owl SSC Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and scrublands
characterized by low-growing vegetation.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s
hawk SSC Roosts in large trees. Nests in open riparian habitat, in scattered
trees or small groves in sparsely vegetated flatlands.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Coleonyx
variegatus
abbotti
San Diego
Banded Gecko SSC Prefers rocky areas in coastal sage and chaparral.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Crotalus ruber
Red diamond-
backed
rattlesnake
SSC
Inhabits arid scrub, coastal chaparral, oak and pine woodlands, rocky
grassland, cultivated areas. On the desert slopes of the mountains, it
ranges into rocky desert flats.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Dendroica
petechia Yellow warbler SSC Inhabits riparian vegetation in close proximity to water along
streams and in wet meadows.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Gila orcutti Arroyo chub SSC
The arroyo chub is adapted to surviving in the warm fluctuating
streams of the Los Angeles Plain. They prefer slow moving or
backwater sections of warm to cool streams with substrates of sand
or mud
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Lasiurus
xanthinus
western yellow
bat SSC Found in valley foothill riparian, desert riparian, desert wash, and
palm oasis habitats.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-18
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Scientific
Name
Common
Name Status* General Habitat Potential for Occurrence on the
Project Site
Lepus
californicus
bennettii
San Diego
black-tailed
jackrabbit
SSC Intermediate canopy stages of shrub habitats & open shrub /
herbaceous & tree / herbaceous edges.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Nyctinomops
femorosaccus
Pocketed free-
tailed bat SSC
Associated primarily with creosote bush and chaparral habitats. It is
found primarily in association with prominent rock features -- very
large boulder jumbles or rocky canyons.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Perognathus
longimembris
brevinasus
Los Angeles
pocket mouse SSC Lower elevation grasslands and coastal sage communities in and
around the Los Angeles Basin.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Spea
Hammondii
Western
Spadefoot SSC
Prefers open areas with sandy or gravelly soils, in a variety of
habitats including mixed woodlands, grasslands, coastal sage scrub,
chaparral, sandy washes, lowlands, river floodplains, alluvial fans,
playas, alkali flats, foothills, and mountains. Rainpools which do not
contain bullfrogs, fish, or crayfish are necessary for breeding.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Taxidea taxus American
badger SSC Suitable habitat for badgers is characterized by herbaceous, shrub,
and open stages of most habitats with dry, friable soils.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Eumops perotis
californicus
Western
mastiff bat SSC
Primarily roost in crevices in vertical cliffs, usually granite or
consolidated sandstone, and in broken terrain with exposed rock
faces; they may also be found occasionally in high buildings, trees
and tunnels.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Cicindela
tranquebarica
viridissima
Greenest tiger
beetle S1 Riparian habitats and sand dunes along streams.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-19
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Scientific
Name
Common
Name Status* General Habitat Potential for Occurrence on the
Project Site
Chaetodipus
fallax fallax
northwestern
San Diego
pocket mouse
SSC Coastal scrub, chaparral, grasslands, sagebrush, etc. in western
San Diego County.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Neotoma lepida
intermedia
San Diego
desert woodrat SSC Coastal scrub of Southern California from San Diego County to
San Luis Obispo County.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Anniella
stebbinsi
southern
California
legless lizard
SSC
Generally south of the Transverse Range, extending to northwestern
Baja California. Occurs in sandy or loose loamy soils under sparse
vegetation. Disjunct populations in the Tehachapi and Piute
Mountains in Kern County.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Phrynosoma
blainvillii
coast horned
lizard SSC Frequents a wide variety of habitats, most common in lowlands
along sandy washes with scattered low bushes.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Rhinichthys
osculus ssp.
Santa Ana
speckled dace SSC
Santa Ana speckled dace are found mainly in perennial streams fed
by cool springs that maintain summer water temperatures below
20C
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Arizona elegans
occidentalis
California
glossy snake SSC
Patchily distributed from the eastern portion of San Francisco Bay,
southern San Joaquin Valley, and the Coast, Transverse, and
Peninsular ranges, south to Baja California.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble
bee
G3G4
S1S2
Coastal California east to the Sierra-Cascade crest and south into
Mexico.
No Potential to occur: The project site is
located outside the plant species’ known
distribution, elevation range, and/or the
BSA lacks suitable habitats and/or soils
to support the plant species.
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-20
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Scientific
Name
Common
Name Status* General Habitat Potential for Occurrence on the
Project Site
*Notes
Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listing Codes:
The ESA is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The USFWS has primary responsibility for terrestrial and
freshwater organisms, while the responsibilities of NMFS are mainly marine wildlife such as whales and anadromous fish such as salmon. For the purposes of the ESA, Congress
defined species to include subspecies, varieties, and, for vertebrates, distinct population segments. The official federal listing of Endangered and Threatened plants is published in
50 CFR §17.12.
• FE = federally listed as endangered: any species of plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Designations:
For some wildlife species, the CNDDB is only concerned with specific portions of the life history, such as roosts, rookeries, or nesting colonies. For many species of birds, the primary
emphasis is on the breeding population in California. For some species which do not breed in California but winter here, emphasis is on wintering range. The species of special concern
(SSC) designation thus may include a comment regarding the specific protection provided such as nesting or wintering
SSC = species of special concern: a species of special concern is a species, subspecies, or distinct population of an animal (fish, amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal) native
to California that currently satisfies one or more of the following (not necessarily mutually exclusive) criteria: is extirpated from the state or, in the case of birds, in its
primary seasonal or breeding role; is listed as federally-, but not state-, threatened or endangered; meets the state definition of threatened or endangered, but has not
formally been listed; is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed,
could qualify it for state threatened or endangered status; has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s), that if realized, could lead
to declines that would qualify it for state threatened or endangered status.
ST = state listed threatened
Global Conservation Status Definitions:
G3 = Vulnerable: At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors.
G4 = Apparently Secure: Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.
State Conservation Status Definitions:
S1 = Critically Imperiled: Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations) or because of factor(s) such as very steep declines making
it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state.
S2 = Imperiled: Imperiled in the state because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it
very vulnerable to extirpation from the state.
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-21
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Figure 4.4-3
USFWS CRITICAL HABITATS
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-22
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
If construction occurs during the nesting season, indirect impacts on migratory birds could occur
from increased noise, vibration, and dust during construction. This could adversely affect the
breeding behavior of some birds, and lead to the loss (take) of eggs and chicks, or nest abandonment.
Without the following mitigation measures, the project would have a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1: Pre-Construction Breeding Bird Survey
If construction is anticipated to commence during the nesting season (between
January 1 and August 31 of any given year, or as determined by a local CDFW office),
a qualified avian biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey no
earlier than one week prior to construction.
If an active bird nest is located during the pre-construction survey and potentially
will be affected, a no-activity buffer zone shall be delineated on maps and marked in
the field by fencing, stakes, flagging, or other means, up to 500 feet for raptors, or
100 feet for non-raptors. Materials used to demarcate the nests will be removed as
soon as work is complete or the fledglings have left the nest. The qualified avian
biologist will determine the appropriate size of the buffer zone based on the type of
activities planned near the nest and bird species.
Buffer zones will not be disturbed until the qualified avian biologist determines that
the nest is inactive, the young have fledged, the young are no longer being fed by the
parents, the young have left the area, or the young will no longer be affected by project
activities. Periodic monitoring by the qualified avian biologist will be performed to
determine when nesting is complete. After the nesting cycle is complete, project
activities may begin within the buffer zone.
MM BIO-2: Biological Monitor
If special-status wildlife species or nesting bird species are observed and determined
present within the project site during the pre-construction breeding bird surveys,
then a biological monitor shall be onsite to monitor throughout activities that result
in tree or vegetation removal to minimize the likelihood of inadvertent impacts on
nesting birds and other wildlife species. Monitoring shall also be conducted
periodically during construction activities to ensure no new nests occur during any
vegetation removal or building demolition activities between January 1 and
August 31. The biological monitor shall ensure that all biological mitigation measures,
best management practices, avoidance, and protection measures and mitigation
measures described in the relevant project permits and reports are in place and are
adhered to.
The biological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt all construction
activities and all non-emergency actions if sensitive species and/or nesting birds are
identified and would be directly affected. The monitor shall notify the appropriate
resource agency and consult if needed. If necessary, the biological monitor shall
relocate the individual outside of the work area where it will not be harmed. Work
can continue at the location if the applicant and the consulted resource agency
determine that the activity will not result in effects on the species.
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-23
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 above, the project would result in less
than significant impacts on nesting bird species.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
No Impact
The project site is situated on relatively level ground, and consists of upland areas only; no
ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial streams or rivers were observed during the biological survey.
The project site and surrounding areas are highly urbanized and do not support riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural communities. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts on any
riparian habitat, or sensitive natural communities identified in local, regional state, or federal plans,
policies, or regulations. No impact would occur and no mitigation is proposed.
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?
No Impact
As previously discussed, the project site is situated on relatively level ground in a developed
suburban area. Wetlands, including marshes, vernal pools, or other waters of the U.S. or State, were
not observed during the biological survey. The project would not directly remove, fill, or interrupt
the hydrology of state or federal protected wetlands. No impact would occur and no mitigation is
proposed.
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact
The project site and surrounding areas do not support resident or migratory fish species or wildlife
nursery sites. The proposed project area is densely developed. The nearest natural area, as well as
resident or migratory wildlife corridor, is the Jurupa Mountains, approximately 2.2 miles to the south
of the proposed project site. Taking into account the factors of distance and development, the project
would not interfere with or impede: (1) the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species; (2) established resident or migratory wildlife corridors; or (3) the use of wildlife nursery
sites. No impact would occur and no mitigation is proposed.
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-24
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact
Development of the proposed project would include removal of existing trees on the site for new
building construction. The City has retained a certified arborist to perform a tree inventory within
the project boundary to determine the existing species of trees present, determine location, health,
diameter at breast height, canopy dripline area, approximate height, and applicable protections in
accordance with the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 28 Article III., Preservation of Heritage,
Significant, and Specimen Trees, which establishes regulations for the protection and preservation of
heritage trees, significant trees, and specimen trees on public and private property. The Arborist
Study prepared for the project is provided in Appendix H.
Any development involving tree removal is subject to the provisions of Chapter 28 Article III. In
particular, Code Section 28-64, Permit Required for Removal of Heritage, Significant and Specimen
Trees, specifies that no person shall remove or cause the removal of any heritage, significant, or
specimen tree unless a Tree Removal Permit is first obtained.
The Fontana City Ordinance No. 1126 § 1, 8-16-94, Sections 28-63, classifies a “Heritage Tree” as
meeting one or more of the following criteria:
1. Is of historical value because of its association with a place, building, natural feature or event
of local, regional or national historical significance as identified by city council resolution; or
2. Is representative of a significant period of the city's growth or development (windrow tree,
European Olive tree); or
3. Is a protected or endangered species as specified by federal or state statute; or
4. Is deemed historically or culturally significant by the city manager or his or her designee
because of size, condition, location or aesthetic qualities.
“Significant tree” means any tree that is one of the following species: Southern California black walnut
(Juglans californica), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Deodora cedar (Cedrus deodara), California
sycamore (Platanus racemosa), or London plane (Platanus acerifolia).
Furthermore, the Fontana City Ordinance No. 1126 § 1, 8-16-94, Section 28-63, provides the
following clarification of what represents a windrow tree:
Windrow means a series of trees (minimum of four), usually a variety of eucalyptus, planted
in a closely spaced line no more than ten feet apart to provide a windbreak for the protection
of property and/or agricultural crops.
According to the Arborist Study (refer to Appendix H) prepared for the project site, 49 trees are
currently located on the project site. Details regarding species and common name, size and rating (i.e.
excellent, very good, good, poor or very poor condition) for all existing trees located on the project
site is included in the Arborist Study. No Heritage, Specimen, or Windrow Significant or Protected
trees are located on the project site (refer to Appendix H, page 13). Therefore, the proposed project
would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance. No impact would occur and no mitigation is proposed.
SECTION 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-25
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact
The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of, nor is it located within, any HCP,
NCCP, or other approved HCP area. For this reason, the proposed project would not conflict with the
provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state HCP and therefore,
no impacts on any habitat conservation plan, natural communities conservation plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan would occur as a result of this project.
Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation is proposed.
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.4-26
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Figure 4.4-4
MANAGEMENT LAND AREAS
SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.5-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
4.5 Cultural Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
X
g) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
X
h) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
X
4.5.1 Methods
A cultural resources analysis was conducted for the Northgate Market Center project site. This
included a California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) records and literature search at
the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located at California State University, Fullerton
for cultural resources in the project boundary and a 0.5-mile radius, on April 8, 2020. Additionally, a
request was made to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to conduct a search of its
Sacred Lands File (SLF) for potential traditional cultural properties as well as to provide a list of local
Native American tribes and tribal representatives to contact. Finally, a pedestrian survey of the
project boundary was completed on May 20, 2020. The SCCIC records search was conducted prior to
conducting the pedestrian survey. The NAHC request was made on April 1, 2020, and a reply was
received on April 2, 2020; letters were sent to the listed tribes on April 3, 2019 (see Attachment C
in Appendix E).
4.5.2 Existing Conditions
Based on the cultural resources records search, it was determined that no historic cultural resources
or prehistoric archeological sites have been previously recorded within the project site boundary.
Within the 0.5-mile buffer zone, there were two previously recorded historic-era cultural resources
but no prehistoric archaeological sites have been recorded. No historic or prehistoric resources were
observed during the field survey.
SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.5-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
4.5.3 Impacts Assessment
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
A historical resource is defined in § 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines as any object, building,
structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript determined to be historically significant or
significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social,
political, military, or cultural annals of California. Historical resources are further defined as being
associated with significant events, important persons, or distinctive characteristics of a type, period
or method of construction; representing the work of an important creative individual; or possessing
high artistic values. Resources listed in, or determined eligible for, the California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHR), included in a local register, or identified as significant in a historic resource
survey are also considered as historical resources under CEQA.
Similarly, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria (contained in 36 CFR 60.4) are used
to evaluate resources when complying with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA). Specifically, the NRHP criteria state that eligible resources comprise districts, sites,
buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association, and that: (a) are associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) that are associated with the lives
of persons significant in our past; or (c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period,
or method of construction, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (d) that have yielded or
may be likely to yield, information important to history or prehistory.
A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as a result of a project or
development is considered a significant impact on the environment. Substantial adverse change is
defined as physical demolition, relocation, or alteration of a resource or its immediate surroundings
such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired. Direct impacts are
those that cause substantial adverse physical change to a historic property. Indirect impacts are those
that cause substantial adverse change to the immediate surroundings of a historic property, such that
the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.
The cultural resources records search conducted at the SCCIC determined that two historic-era
resources have been recorded within a 0.5-mile radius of the area of potential effect (APE) of the
project boundary (Table 1.3-1 in Appendix E), but neither of them were recorded within the APE.
Both of the sites are historic-era residential sites, one of which has been demolished.
According to the SCCIC records, there have been five previous cultural resource studies within
portions of the 0.5-mile buffer around the project site. The SCCIC was only able to provide one of the
survey reports, SB-06787. This project area is located 650 feet to the west of the project site along
Juniper Avenue. It is unknown if the remaining four cultural studies cover the project boundary as
the SCCIC was not able to provide them at this time due to their being available only in hard copy and
that the SCCIC staff are currently working remotely due to Coronavirus isolation restrictions (see
Appendix E).
SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.5-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
As a result of the field survey, no historic buildings were identified within the project site. No other
cultural resources were observed during the survey.
The result of the pedestrian survey was negative for historic resources on the project site. Based on
the results of the records search and the onsite field survey, it is unlikely that significant cultural
resources would be adversely affected by construction of the project. However, grading activities
associated with development of the project could cause new subsurface disturbance and may result
in the unanticipated discovery of unique historic archeological resources.
The City requires all development projects, in the City, to comply with the City’s standard conditions
of approval regarding historic and archaeological resources. The City’s standard conditions of
approval regarding historic and archaeological resources are provided below.
City of Fontana Standard Conditions of Approval for Historic and Archaeological Resources
a. Upon discovery of any cultural, tribal cultural or archaeological resources, cease construction
activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All cultural, tribal
cultural and archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be
evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources are
Native American in origin, interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area Tribes)
shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these
resources. Typically, the Tribe will request preservation in place or recovery for educational
purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation takes place.
b. Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is
not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery
excavation to remove the resource along the subsequent laboratory processing and analysis.
All tribal cultural resources shall be returned to the Tribe. Any historic archaeological
material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit
institution with a research interest in the materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the
material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to the
Tribe or a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
c. Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects
shall be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any
unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and
associated funerary objects shall be taken. Principal personnel shall meet the Secretary of
the Interior standards for archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years’ experience as a
principal investigator working with Native American archaeological sites in southern
California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are appropriately
trained and qualified.
The proposed project would be required to comply with the City's standard conditions of approval
described above. Compliance with the City’s standard conditions of approval regarding historic and
archaeological resources would ensure that project impacts on historic resources would be less than
significant.
SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.5-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
An archaeological resource is defined in § 15064.5(c) of the CEQA Guidelines as a site, area or place
determined to be historically significant as defined in § 15064(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, or as a
unique archaeological resource defined in § 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code as an artifact,
object, or site that contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions of
public interest or that has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best example of
its type, or that is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic
event or person. The surface elevation of the project site relative to adjacent roads suggests that the
ground on the project site may have been minimally disturbed by grading and trenching for several
feet to accommodate leveling, simple foundations and utility lines without use of fill, with the native
surface soil remaining below that level. It is unlikely that undisturbed unique archeological resources
exist on the project site as determined by the cultural resources investigation conducted by
UltraSystems, which included a CHRIS records search of the project site and 0.5-mile radius, a search
of the SLF by the NAHC, and pedestrian field survey.
The cultural resources records search conducted at the SCCIC determined that there are no known
prehistoric cultural resource sites or isolates recorded within a 0.5-mile radius of the project
boundary (Table 4.2-1 in Appendix E). The records search revealed that two historic resources have
been recorded within 0.5-mile of the project site, but none of them are located within the project
boundary.
A NAHC SLF search was conducted on and within a 0.5-mile radius around the project site. The NAHC
provided a response letter dated April 2, 2019, which stated that there are no recorded traditional
cultural properties within this area.
The NAHC also provided UltraSystems with a list of local Native American tribes and specific tribal
representatives to contact regarding this project. Subsequently, fifteen representatives of the eleven
Native American tribes were contacted with a letter requesting a reply if they have knowledge of
cultural resources in the area that they could provide, and asking if they had any questions or
concerns regarding the project. The contacted tribes include:
Agua Caliente
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians –
Kizh Nation
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band
of Mission Indians
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Gabrielino/Tongva Nation
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
San Fernando band of Mission Indians
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
Serrano Nation of Mission Indians
Letters were sent to fifteen representatives of eleven Native American tribes. Four responses were
received from four different tribes. These emails are presented in Section 4.2, Appendix E of this IS.
Brandy Salas, the Administrative Specialist for the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation
responded by email on May 13, 2020, stating that they would like to consult on the project and
requested the contact information for the lead agency. Archaeological Technician Megan B. Doukakis
replied by email on May 14, 2020 with the lead agency’s contact information. Patricia Garcia-Plotkin,
SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.5-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Director of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians’ Cultural Resources Department, replied on
April 6, 2020 stating that the Band would defer any comments to tribes closer to the project site.
Jessica Mauck, Director of Cultural Resources of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians emailed on
May 1, 2020 indicating that they typically do not have great concerns with this portion of Serrano
ancestral territory, and as the project area is disturbed (and currently covered with asphalt), it is
highly unlikely that the tribe will consult on this project with the Lead Agency. Jill McCormick,
Historic Preservation Officer of the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation, replied on April 3,
2020 indicating that UltraSystems should call her. A telephone call was made to Ms. McCormick on
May 20, 2020; Ms. McCormick indicated that she had emailed a response and that she would resend
that email now. An email was received the same day indicating that Ms. McCormick was
corresponding with the City of Fontana and that they did not wish to comment on the project (refer
to Appendix E of this IS).
Telephone calls were conducted by Ms. Doukakis on May 20, 2020, to complete the outreach process
following the 30-day period when replies could be made. These calls were to the tribal contacts who
had not already responded. Five telephone calls were placed with no answer and messages were left
describing the project and requesting a response. These were to Charles Alvarez, Councilmember of
the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe; Donna Yocum, Chairperson of the San Fernando Band of Mission
Indians; Mark Cochrane, Co-Chairperson of the Serrano Nation of Mission Indians; Wayne Walker,
Co-Chairperson of the Serrano Nation of Mission Indians; and Sandonne Goad, Chairperson of the
Gabrielino/Tongva Nation. Messages were unable to be left for two tribal contacts. The available
phone numbers for both Cultural Resources Manager Denisa Torres and Chairperson Robert Martin
of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians were disconnected.
Chairperson Anthony Morales of the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
responded over telephone on May 20, 2020 stating that there might be a satellite of the San Gabriel
Mission (an estancia) in the area. He also indicated that there would have been travel routes along
the I-10 Freeway. The Chairperson requested archaeological and Native American monitoring.
Chairperson Morales recommended his tribal group for monitoring services. Chairperson
Robert Dorame, of the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, indicated by telephone
on May 20, 2020 that UltraSystems should call him after conducting the survey to provide the
pedestrian survey results. Following up on this request, a call was made on May 22, 2020 to
Chairperson Dorame, but there was no answer and the mailbox was full so no message could be left.
Chairperson Dorame returned UltraSystems’ call the same day. UltraSystems provided the survey
results and he proceeded to ask about any close water ways. Chairperson Dorame concluded that in
the event that cultural artifacts, burial goods and patrimonial material are unearthed during
construction, the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council should be notified. If human
remains are unearthed the tribe would also like to be notified despite the Most Likely Descendent
(MLD) that the NAHC may assign (See Attachment C in Appendix E).
The result of the pedestrian survey was negative for both prehistoric and historic sites and isolates
on the project site. Based on the results of the records search and the onsite field survey, it is unlikely
that cultural resources or tribal resources would be adversely affected by construction of the project.
However, grading activities associated with development of the project could cause new subsurface
disturbance and may result in the unanticipated discovery of unique historic and/or prehistoric
archeological resources.
The City requires all development projects, in the City, to comply with the City’s standard conditions
of approval regarding historic and archaeological resources provided above in Section 4.5.3 a).
SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.5-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Compliance with the City’s standard conditions of approval regarding historic and archaeological
resources would ensure that project impacts on archaeological resources would be less than
significant.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
The project would be built on a heavily disturbed site. No human remains have been previously
identified or recorded onsite. It is unlikely that undisturbed unique archaeological resources exist on
the project site. In the unlikely event of an unanticipated discovery, implementation of mitigation
measure CUL-1 and adherence to applicable codes and regulations would ensure that impacts
related to the accidental discovery of human remains would be less than significant.
California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 identifies procedures for the discovery of human remains.
CEQA § 15064.5 indicates the process for determining the significance of impacts on archaeological
and historical resources. California Public Resources Code § 5097.98 stipulates the notification
process during the discovery of Native American human remains, descendants, disposition of human
remains, and associated artifacts.
Mitigation Measure
MM CUL-1: If human remains are encountered during excavations associated with this project,
all work shall stop within a 30-foot radius of the discovery and the San Bernardino
County Coroner shall be notified (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The
Coroner shall determine whether the remains are recent human origin or older
Native American ancestry. If the coroner, with the aid of the supervising
archaeologist, determines that the remains are prehistoric, they shall contact the
NAHC. The NAHC shall be responsible for designating the MLD. The MLD (either an
individual or sometimes a committee) shall be responsible for the ultimate
disposition of the remains, as required by § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety
Code. The MLD shall make recommendations within 24 hours of their notification by
the NAHC. These recommendations may include scientific removal and
nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native
American burials (§ 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code).
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1 above, potential impacts related to human
remains would be less than significant.
SECTION 4.6 - ENERGY
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.6-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
4.6 Energy
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
X
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during
project construction or operation?
Less than Significant Impact
Existing Conditions
Electricity
Electricity is supplied to the project site by Southern California Edison Company (SCE), which
provides electricity to the City of Fontana (Stantec, et al., 2018a, p. 10.9). SCE provides electricity to
the project site from existing electrical service lines.
Natural Gas
Natural gas is supplied to the project site by Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas), which
provides natural gas to the City of Fontana (City of Fontana Utilities, 2020).
Impact Analysis
CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(d)) states that “uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and
continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources
makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts
(such as highway improvement that provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally
commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental
accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated
to assure that such current consumption is justified.” Therefore, the purpose of this analysis is to
identify significant irreversible environmental effects of project implementation that cannot be
avoided.
Construction
The following forms of energy are anticipated to be expended during project construction:
SECTION 4.6 - ENERGY
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.6-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Diesel fuel for off-road equipment (gallons).
Electricity to deliver water for use in dust control (kilowatt-hours [kWh]).
Motor vehicle fuel for worker commuting, materials delivery and waste disposal (gallons).
Electricity
During project construction, energy would be consumed in the form of electricity associated with the
conveyance and treatment of water used for dust control and, on a limited basis, powering lights,
electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power.
Due to the fact that electricity usage associated with lighting and construction equipment that utilizes
electricity is not easily quantifiable or readily available, the estimated electricity usage during project
construction is speculative.
Lighting used during project construction would comply with California Code of Regulations (CCR)
Title 24 standards/requirements (such as wattage limitations). This compliance would ensure that
electricity use during project construction would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary use of energy. Lighting would be used in compliance with applicable City of Fontana
Municipal Code requirements to create enough light for safety.
Natural Gas
Construction activities, including the construction of new buildings and facilities, typically do not
involve the consumption of natural gas. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to have a
demand for natural gas during project construction.
Transportation Energy
Project construction would consume energy in the form of petroleum-based fuels associated with the
use of offroad construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction workers’ travel
to and from the project site, and delivery and haul truck trips hauling solid waste from and delivering
building materials to the project site.
During project construction, trucks and construction equipment would be required to comply with
the ARB’s anti-idling regulations. ARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets regulation would also
apply (ARB, 2016). Vehicles driven to or from the project site (delivery trucks, construction employee
vehicles, etc.) are subject to fuel efficiency standards established by the federal government.
Therefore, project construction activities regarding fuel use would not result in wasteful, inefficient,
or unnecessary use of energy.
Operation
Energy would be consumed during project operations related to space and water heating, water
conveyance, solid waste disposal, and vehicle trips of employees and customers. Project operation
energy usage, which was estimated by the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) as part
of the greenhouse gas emissions analysis (refer to Section 4.3, Air Quality) is shown in Table 4.6-1.
SECTION 4.6 - ENERGY
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.6-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Table 4.6-1
ESTIMATED PROJECT OPERATIONAL ENERGY USE
Energy Type Units Annual Daily
Onroad Motor
Vehicle Travel
Vehicle Miles
Traveled 2,773,166 7,598
Natural Gas Use 1,000 BTU 126,356 346
Electricity Use Kilowatt-hours 718,862 1,969
Source: CalEEMod estimates.
The proposed project would adhere to applicable federal, state, and local requirements for energy
efficiency, including CCR Title 24 standards. The proposed project would not result in the inefficient,
wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy. Additionally, there would not be any
inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy usage in comparison to similar development projects of
this nature regarding construction-related fuel consumption. Therefore, the implementation of the
proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on energy resources.
Further, the roadway network in the vicinity of the project site is served by Omnitrans, the public
transit agency serving the San Bernardino Valley. Omnitrans has 10 bus routes in the city (Stantec,
et al., 2018a, p. 10.9). Employees and visitors would be able to access the project site via the public
transit system, thereby reducing transportation-related fuel demand.
Continued use of energy resources is consistent with the anticipated growth within the city and the
general vicinity and would not result in energy consumption requiring a significant increase in
energy production for the energy provider. Therefore, the impact on energy demand associated with
the project would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency?
Less Than Significant Impact
Title 24
The proposed project would be in compliance with the California Green Building Standards
(CAL Green) Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), which includes mandatory
measures for nonresidential site development, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation,
material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality.
City of Fontana General Plan
Chapter 12, Sustainability and Resilience, of the City of Fontana General Plan focuses on sustainability
and resilience on resource efficiency and planning for climate change. It includes policies for new
development promoting energy-efficient development in Fontana, meeting state energy efficiency
goals for new construction, promoting green building through guidelines, awards and nonfinancial
incentives, and continuing to promote and implement best practices to conserve water (Stantec,
2018b, pp. 10.9, 12.5).
SECTION 4.6 - ENERGY
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.6-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
The proposed project would adhere to applicable federal, state, and local requirements for energy
efficiency, including Title 24 standards and General Plan Chapter 12, Sustainability and Resilience.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.7-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
4.7 Geology and Soils
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
X
The analysis in this section is based in part upon the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
prepared by Salem Engineering Group, Inc., dated January 17, 2020 (Refer to Appendix C). The
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation presents information based on possible geological hazards
SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.7-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
on the project site and creates recommendations to ensure that construction and operation of the
proposed project would create less than significant impacts.
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Less than Significant Impact.
The Alquist-Priolo Zones Special Studies Act defines active faults as those that have experienced
surface displacement or movement during the last 11,650 years (i.e., during the Holocene Period).
The project site is located in the seismically active region of Southern California. The Geotechnical
Engineering Investigation details that the project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
(refer to Figure 4.7-1 below). The closest faults to the project site are associated with the San Jacinto
fault system located approximately 6.3 miles from the site (Salem Engineering Group, Inc., 2020, p. 3).
Therefore, due to the distance of the project site from the nearest fault, the potential for surface
rupture of a known earthquake fault is considered to be less than significant.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact
The project site is located in the northern portion of the Inland Valley, within the Peninsular Ranges
Geomorphic Province of California. The Inland Valley is situated between the San Bernardino
Mountains to the northeast, the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, the Chino Hills to the southwest,
and to the southeast by the hilly uplands that separate it from the San Jacinto Basin. These mountains
ranges are part of the Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province of California (Salem Engineering
Group, Inc., 2020, p. 3).
The closest faults to the project site are associated with the San Jacinto fault system located
approximately 6.3 miles from the site and are capable of producing a magnitude 7.9 earthquake
(Salem Engineering Group, Inc., 2020, p. 3). Ground shaking originating from earthquakes along other
active faults in the region is expected to induce lower horizontal accelerations due to smaller
anticipated earthquakes and/or greater distances to other faults.
Other known active faults within 10 miles of the project site are the Cucamonga Fault, approximately
6.5 miles away from the project site, and the San Andreas Fault, approximately 10.5 miles from the
project site; these faults are capable of generating probable earthquake magnitudes of 6.7 and 8.2,
respectively (Salem Engineering Group, Inc., 2020, p. 4).
Given the proximity of the site to the numerous active and potentially active faults, the site would
likely be subject to earthquake ground motions in the future. The possibility of moderate-to-high
ground acceleration or shaking in the city may be considered similar to that of the Southern California
region as a whole. A maximum magnitude earthquake on any major fault could result in significant
structural damage or collapse, buckling of walls, damage to foundations and potentially even human
casualties, as a result of strong seismic ground shaking.
SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.7-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Figure 4.7-1
REGIONALLY ACTIVE FAULTS
SECTION 4.7 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.7-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
The project would be constructed in accordance with standard engineering practices, and design
criteria prescribed by the current California Building Code (CBC; Title 24 CCR) would reduce the
significance of potential impacts of seismic and geologic hazards. The CBC also contains detailed
design requirements, structural design and soils and foundations considerations, among other
specifications. The CBC regulates the design and construction of excavations, foundations, building
frames, retaining walls, and other building elements to mitigate the effects of seismic shaking and
adverse soil conditions, to ensure that public safety risks are minimized due to any potential seismic
shaking event, and impacts would be less than significant.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact
General types of ground failures that might occur as a consequence of severe ground shaking typically
include landslides, ground subsidence, ground lurching and shallow ground rupture. The probability
of occurrence of each type of ground failure depends on the severity of the earthquake, distance from
the faults, topography, subsoils and groundwater conditions, in addition to other factors.
Liquefaction typically occurs when saturated or partially saturated soils behave like a liquid, as a
result of losses in strength and stiffness in response to an applied stress caused by earthquake
shaking or other sudden change in stress conditions.
The soils encountered onsite within a depth of 36.5 feet consist predominately of loose to very dense
silty sand, sand, gravelly sand and sandy gravel. The historically highest groundwater level is
estimated to be at a depth of more than 50 feet below ground surface according to the regional
groundwater data. The liquefication potential of the site is considered to be low due to the dense soil
and absence of shallow groundwater conditions (Salem Engineering Group, Inc., 2020, p. 5).
Additionally, the proposed project would comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations,
including current California Building Standards Code (Title 24, CCR) and implement the
recommendations listed in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, which would minimize the
potential risks associated with liquefaction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
iv) Landslides?
No Impact
Landslides occur when the stability of the slope changes from a stable to an unstable condition. A
change in the stability of a slope can be caused by a number of factors, acting together or alone.
Natural causes of landslides include groundwater (pore water) pressure acting to destabilize the
slope, loss of vegetative structure, erosion of the toe of a slope by rivers or ocean waves, weakening
of a slope through saturation by snow melt or heavy rains, earthquakes adding loads to barely stable
slopes, earthquake-caused liquefaction destabilizing slopes, and volcanic eruptions. There are no
known landslides at the site, nor is the project site in the path of any known or potential landslides
(Salem Engineering Group, Inc., 2020, p. 5). Therefore, the project would have no impact in this
regard.
SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.7-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact
Construction
Construction of the project would require grading and excavation, including temporary excavations
for demolition, earthwork, footings, and utility trenches during construction of the project, which
could potentially result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil. Surface drainage and stormwater runoff
during construction could also potentially result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil.
The proposed project would be required to adhere to a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program
(SWPPP). As part of the SWPPP, the proposed project would implement construction best
management practices (BMPs) to avoid or minimize soil erosion through both wind and water during
construction activities. Project- and site-specific wind and water erosion prevention BMPs (e.g.,
application of water to control dust, covering soil stockpiles, restriction of ground-disturbing
activities during Santa Ana Winds [SAWs]) would be mandated by the required SWPPP and
incorporated into project designs, which must be reviewed and approved by building officials prior
to issuance of permits. With implementation of wind and water erosion-control BMPs, potential
project-related impacts resulting from soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant
and no mitigation is required.
Operation
The proposed project would result in a similar amount of groundwater recharge compared to
existing conditions because the existing conditions and the proposed project would be fully
developed with limited ornamental landscaping. Runoff from impervious areas would sheet flow to
inlets and flow into the proposed infiltration BMPs (Blue Peak Engineering, 2020, p. 4-8). Therefore,
there would be less than significant impacts during operation and no mitigation is required.
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than Significant Impact
The potential impact of landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction and collapse is
discussed below.
Landslide
There are no known landslides at the project site, nor is the site in the path of known or potential
landslides (Salem Engineering Group, Inc., 2020, p. 5). Therefore, there would be no impacts in this
regard.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which soils move laterally during seismic shaking and is often
associated with liquification. The amount of movement depends on the soil strength, duration and
intensity of seismic shaking, topography, and free face geometry. Due to the relatively flat site
SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.7-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
topography, the likelihood of lateral spreading would be low (Salem Engineering Group, Inc., 2020,
p. 5). Therefore, impacts in regard to lateral spreading would be less than significant.
Subsidence
Soil shrinkage and/or bulking as a result of remedial grading depends on several factors including
the depth of over-excavation, the grading method and equipment utilized, and average relative
compaction. The Geotechnical Engineering Investigation details that there may be the possibility of
soil movement and includes recommendations in regard to over-excavation and recompaction (refer
to Appendix C). Implementation of recommendations provided in the Geotechnical study prepared
for the project would ensure less than significant impacts in regard to subsidence (Salem Engineering
Group, Inc., 2020, p. 13) and no further mitigation would be required.
Liquefaction
The site was evaluated for liquefaction potential. The liquefaction potential of the site is considered
to be low due to the dense soil and absence of shallow groundwater conditions. Therefore, no
mitigation measures are warranted (Salem Engineering Group, Inc., 2020, p. 5). Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.
Collapse
Collapsible soils consist of loose, dry, low-density materials that collapse and compact with the
addition of water or excessive loading. These soils are distributed throughout the southwestern
United States, specifically in areas of young alluvial fans, debris flow sediments, and loess
(wind-blown sediment) deposits. Soil collapse occurs when the land surface is saturated at depths
greater than those reached by typical rain events. This saturation eliminates the clay bonds holding
the soil grains together. Similar to expansive soils, collapsible soils result in structural damage such
as cracking of the foundation, floors, and walls in response to settlement.
Soil testing results showed that the soil at the project site has different depths of fill and natural soil.
In general, the soils within the depth of exploration consisted of up to four feet of fill underlain by
alluvium deposits of medium dense to very dense silty sand, sand and gravelly sand. The fill consisted
of loose to medium silty sand, and sandy gravel (Salem Engineering Group, Inc., 2020, p. 6). The
primary geotechnical constraint identified in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared
for the project site, is the presence of potentially compressible (collapsible) soils at the site.
Recommendations to mitigate the effects of these soils are provided in the Geotechnical report
(Salem Engineering Group, Inc., 2020, p. 9). The proposed project would comply with applicable
federal, state, and local regulations, including current California Building Standards Code (Title 24,
CCR) and implement the recommendations listed in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation,
which would minimize the potential risks associated with soil collapse. Therefore, impacts would be
less than significant and no mitigation would be required.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less than Significant Impact
Expansive soils shrink and swell with changes in soil moisture. Soil moisture may change from
landscape irrigation, rainfall, and utility leakage. Repeated changes in soil volume due to water
SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.7-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
content fluctuations may compromise structure foundations. Expansive soils are commonly very
fine-grained with high to very high percentages of clay. Design provisions such as adequate
reinforcements, deeper foundations or other measures may help alleviate the effects of soil
expansion but may not completely eliminate the problem.
The Geotechnical Engineering Investigation concluded that the project site may have the potential
for structural damage due to expansive soils (Salem Engineering Group, Inc., 2020, p. 18). However,
the proposed project would comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including
current California Building Standards Code (Title 24, CCR) and implement the recommendations
listed in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, which would minimize the potential risks
associated with expansive soils. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation
would be required.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
No Impact
The proposed project would not include septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems.
Therefore, no impacts associated with septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
would occur.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
The project site boundary is located in a single geological deposit of the Young Alluvial Fan Deposits,
unit 5 (Qyf5). This deposit consists of unconsolidated to slightly consolidated sand and
pebble-boulder gravel and dates to the Holocene (11,650 years before present [ybp] to present)
(Morton and Miller, 2003).
The soil at the project site is described as “young alluvial fan deposits from Lytle Creek” that dates
from the Holocene and late Pleistocene periods. Although no paleontological sites have been
documented within the project area, Pleistocene vertebrate fossils have been found in this alluvium
in the vicinity. Therefore, excavations that extend into the Pleistocene Alluvium have a potential to
encounter fossil vertebrate remains that date to this time period. Project implementation could
directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
Grading and trenching activities associated with development of the project would cause new
subsurface disturbance and could result in the unanticipated discovery of unique paleontological
resources. In the event of an unexpected discovery, implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1
would ensure paleontological resources or unique geologic features are not significantly affected.
Mitigation Measure
MM GEO-1 If paleontological resources are uncovered during project construction, the
contractor shall halt construction activities in the immediate area and notify the City
of Fontana. The on-call paleontologist shall be notified and afforded the necessary
time and funds to recover, analyze, and curate the find(s). Subsequently, the monitor
SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.7-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
shall remain onsite for the duration of the ground disturbance to ensure the
protection of any other resources that are found during construction on the project
site.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1 above, potential impacts related to
paleontological resources would be less than significant.
SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.8-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
X
4.18.2 GHG Constituents
4.18.2.1 Introduction
Constituent gases that trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere are called greenhouse gases, analogous to
the way a greenhouse retains heat. GHGs play a critical role in the Earth’s radiation budget by
trapping infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface, which would otherwise escape into
space. Without the natural heat-trapping effect of GHG, the Earth’s surface would be about 34°F
cooler. This natural phenomenon, known as the “Greenhouse Effect,” is responsible for maintaining
a habitable climate. However, anthropogenic emissions of these GHGs, more than natural ambient
concentrations, are responsible for the enhancement of the greenhouse effect, and have led to a trend
of unnatural warming of the Earth’s natural climate known as global warming or climate change
(CalEPA, 2006).
4.18.2.2 Greenhouse Gases
GHGs are defined under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) as carbon
dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons
(PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).14 Associated with each GHG species is a “global warming
potential” (GWP), which is a value used to compare the abilities of different GHGs to trap heat in the
atmosphere. GWPs are based on the heat-absorbing ability of each gas relative to that of CO2, as well
as the decay rate of each gas (the amount removed from the atmosphere over a given number of
years). The GWPs of CH4 and N2O are 25 and 298, respectively (GMI, 2019). “Carbon dioxide
equivalent” (CO2e) emissions, calculated by weighting each GHG compound’s emissions by its GWP
and then summing the products.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a clear, colorless, and odorless gas consisting of molecules made up of two
oxygen atoms and one carbon atom. Fossil fuel combustion is the main human-related source of CO2
emissions; electricity generation and transportation are first and second in the amount of CO2
emissions, respectively. Carbon dioxide is the basis of GWP, and thus has a GWP of 1.
14 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_32_bill_20060927_chaptered.pdf.
SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.8-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Methane (CH4) is a clear, colorless gas, and is the main component of natural gas. Anthropogenic
sources of CH4 are fossil fuel production, biomass burning, waste management, and mobile and
stationary combustion of fossil fuel. Wetlands are responsible for most of the natural CH4 emissions
(USEPA, 2019). As mentioned above, within a 100-year period CH4 is 25 times more effective in
trapping heat than is CO2.
Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a colorless, clear gas, with a slightly sweet odor. N2O has both natural and
human-related sources and is removed from the atmosphere mainly by photolysis or breakdown by
sunlight, in the stratosphere. The main human-related sources of N2O in the United States are
agricultural soil management (synthetic nitrogen fertilization), mobile and stationary combustion of
fossil fuel, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. Nitrous oxide is also produced from a
wide range of biological sources in soil and water (USEPA, 2019). According to the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), within a 100-year span, N2O is 298 times more effective in trapping
heat than is CO2 (IPCC, 2007).
4.18.3 Thresholds of Significance
Neither the City, the SCAQMD nor the State CEQA Guidelines Amendments has adopted specific
quantitative thresholds of significance for addressing a project’s GHG emissions. Nonetheless,
§ 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines serves to assist lead agencies in determining the significance of the
impacts of GHGs. As required in § 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, this analysis includes an impact
determination based on the following: (1) an estimate of the amount of GHG emissions resulting from
the project; (2) a qualitative analysis or performance based standards; (3) a quantification of the
extent to which the project increases GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental
setting; and (4) the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted
to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.
The City of Fontana does not have an adopted threshold of significance for GHG emissions, but for
CEQA purposes, it has discretion to select an appropriate significance criterion, based on substantial
evidence. To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions
in their CEQA documents, the SCAQMD Board adopted an Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold
for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans (SCAQMD, 2008a). The SCAQMD estimated that a threshold
of 3,000 metric tons (MT) of CO2e per year for all non-industrial projects would help subject 90% of
all GHG emissions to CEQA analysis (SCAQMD, 2010). The City has selected this value as a significance
criterion which has been supported by substantial evidence.
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
Methodology
GHG emissions would come from both construction and operation of the proposed project.
Construction of the project would result in temporary emissions of GHGs from fuel combustion by
onsite construction equipment and by onroad vehicle traffic (i.e., worker commute and delivery truck
trips). Operational direct GHG emissions would come from onroad mobile sources and onsite area
sources, such as landscaping. Indirect GHG emissions would come from energy use, water supply,
SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.8-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
wastewater, and solid waste.15 A detailed summary of the assumptions and the model data used to
estimate the project’s potential GHG emissions is provided in Appendix G.
Short-term GHG emissions are those construction emissions that do not recur over the life of the
project. The major construction phases included in this analysis are grading, building construction,
paving, and architectural coating. Emissions are from offroad construction equipment and onroad
travel, such as worker commuting; vendor deliveries; and truck hauling of soil, building materials and
construction and demolition waste.
Other GHG emissions would occur continually after buildout. GHGs are emitted from buildings
because of activities for which electricity and natural gas are typically used as energy sources.
Combustion of carbon-based fuel emits CO2 and other GHGs directly into the atmosphere; these
emissions are considered direct emissions. The project’s primary direct source of annual GHG
emissions will be onroad mobile sources. GHGs are also emitted during the generation of electricity
from fossil fuels; when produced offsite, these emissions are indirectly associated with the project.
Indirect GHG emissions also result from the production of electricity used to convey, treat, and
distribute water and wastewater. A final indirect GHG emission source is decomposition of organic
waste that is generated by the project and transported to landfills.
Temporary construction and long-term operational GHG emissions from the project’s onsite and
offsite project activities were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod),
Version 2016.3.2 (CAPCOA, 2017). CalEEMod is a planning tool for estimating emissions related to
land use projects. Operational emissions consider area emissions, such as space heating, from energy
use associated with land uses, and from the vehicle trips associated with the land uses. To assess the
overall lifetime project GHG emissions, the SCAQMD developed an Interim Guidance (SCAQMD,
2008a, p. 3-10) that recommends that construction emissions should be amortized over the life of
the project, defined in the guidance as 30 years. Annualized GHG emissions are then added to the
operational emissions and the sum is compared to the applicable interim GHG significance threshold.
Table 4.8-1 gives a detailed breakdown of the results of the GHG emissions analysis for both direct
and indirect related sources.
Table 4.8-1
UNMITIGATED ANNUAL GHG EMISSIONS, 2019 AND BEYOND
(Emissions in metric tons, or MT)
Category CO2e (MT/year)
Direct – (Amortized Construction) 4.02
Direct – Mobile (Operational) 1,691.65
Direct – Purchased Natural Gas 6.78
Direct – Area Source <0.01
Indirect – Purchased Electricity (Power) 229.86
Indirect – Purchased Electricity (Water) 32.47
Direct – Fugitive – Solid Waste 30.06
TOTAL 1,995
15 Indirect emission sources are those for which the project is responsible, but which are not located at the project site.
SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.8-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Construction
Construction is an episodic, temporary source of GHG emissions. Emissions are generally associated
with the operation of construction equipment and the disposal of construction waste. To be
consistent with the guidance from the SCAQMD for calculating criteria pollutant emissions from
construction activities, only GHG emissions from onsite construction activities and offsite hauling and
construction worker commuting are considered as project-generated. As explained by the California
Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in its 2008 white paper (CAPCOA, 2008), the
information needed to characterize GHG emissions from manufacture, transport, and end-of-life of
construction materials would be speculative at the CEQA analysis level. CEQA does not require an
evaluation of speculative impacts (CEQA Guidelines § 15145). Therefore, the construction analysis
does not consider such GHG emissions, but does consider non-speculative onsite construction
activities, and offsite hauling and construction worker trips. All GHG emissions are identified on an
annual basis.
The project proposes construction of an approximately 42,850-square-foot market, as well as three
drive-through restaurant pads. Each construction phase involves the use of a different mix of
construction equipment and therefore has its own distinct GHG emissions characteristics. A
generalized construction schedule was supplied by the applicant. CalEEMod defaults were used
otherwise. Construction emissions occur both onsite and offsite. Onsite air pollutant emissions
consist principally of exhaust emissions from offroad heavy-duty construction equipment. Offsite
emissions result from workers commuting to and from the job site, as well as from vendors and
visitors to the site.
CalEEMod estimated construction GHG emissions to be 120.7 MT of CO2e. The 30-year amortized
value is 4.02 MT per year.
Operation
Total unmitigated operational CO2e emissions from the project would be 1,990.8 MT per year. Mobile
sources account for about 85% of these emissions. With the addition of the amortized construction
emissions, the total project GHG emissions would be 1,995 MT per year. These emissions would be
below the significance threshold of 3,000 MT of CO2e per year. Therefore, GHG emissions would be
less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact
The City of Fontana does not have an adopted climate action plan. An approach to identifying
potential conflict with GHG reduction plans, policies, or regulations is to examine General Plan
provisions that prescribe or enable GHG emissions control. The EIR for the General Plan Update (City
of Fontana, 2018, Table 5.6-7) lists policies in the General Plan Update that reduce GHG emissions
and help to quantify emissions reductions. However, the policies prescribe actions to be taken by the
City, and not measures to be implemented by a project proponent. Nevertheless, the proposed project
would not conflict with any of the GHG emission reduction policies. Furthermore, the EIR determined
that implementation of the updated general plan will result in significantly lower GHG emissions from
Fontana than would continuation of the 2003 General Plan (City of Fontana, 2018, Table 5.6-6). As
was demonstrated in Section 4.11, the proposed project would, with approval of a requested zoning
SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.8-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
code amendment, have no impacts in relation to consistency with local land use plans, policies, or
regulations. Therefore, the project would not hinder the GHG emission reductions of the General Plan
Update.
Finally, as noted in Section 3.2.1, buildings would be designed to comply with the provisions of the
California Green Building Code, Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations. As noted in
Section 3.3.4, the proposed project would comply with the requirements of Fontana Municipal Code
§§ 30-260, 30-265, and 30-266 with wall-mounted light-emitting diode (LED) lighting fixtures.
Additionally, as noted in Section 3.2.5, new landscaping would include drought-resistant species
including trees, tall shrubs, low shrubs and groundcovers and energy-efficient features, including
insulated and glazed windows with low-E coating. These project features would assist the City in
meeting its GHG emission reduction targets.
SECTION 4.9–HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.9-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
X
The analysis in this section is based in part upon the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I
ESA) prepared by Terrax Environmental Engineering and Consulting, dated July 19, 2019 and the
Phase II Limited Report prepared by Hillman Consulting, dated May 23, 2017 (Refer to Appendix D).
The Phase I ESA presents information based on a site reconnaissance of the project area, historical
SECTION 4.9–HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.9-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
developments of the project site, and a comprehensive database search to determine if the project
site contains Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs).16
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact
Construction
The proposed project includes the construction of a commercial shopping center that would include
several businesses such as a market, restaurants, and other commercial businesses. Construction
activities would be temporary and could involve transport, storage, and use of chemical agents,
solvents, paints, and other hazardous materials commonly associated with construction activities.
Chemical transport, storage, and use would comply with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA);
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); California hazardous waste control law;
California Division of Safety and Health (DOSH); SCAQMD; and the City of Fontana Fire Protection
District requirements. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations would ensure that impacts
associated with routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during project
construction would be less than significant.
Operation
The proposed project is subject to compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws (including
Title 49 of the CFR) and regulations pertaining to the transport, use, disposal, handling, and storage
of hazardous waste. Future tenants of the proposed project would be required to comply with
existing regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the US Environmental Protection
Agency, State of California, County of San Bernardino, and City of Fontana related to storage, use, and
disposal of hazardous materials, which would reduce the potential risk of hazardous materials
exposure to a less than significant level.
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 with Mitigation Incorporated
Construction
The proposed project has several RECs associated with previous uses on site and adjacent properties.
Therefore, the proposed project would implement mitigation measure HAZ-1 to ensure that there
16 The term Recognized Environmental Conditions is defined in Section 1.1.1 of the American Society of Testing and
Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum
products in, at or on a property due to any release to the environment; under conditions indicative of a release to the
environment; under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment (ASTM, 2020).
Accessed online at https://www.partneresi.com/resources/glossary/recognized-environmental-condition-rec,
accessed on June 8, 2020.
SECTION 4.9–HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.9-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
would be less than significant impacts in regards to possible existing hazardous materials during the
project construction phase.
Additionally, the proposed project during construction may release hazardous materials into the
environment during construction. Chemical transport, storage, and use would comply with Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA); Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); California
hazardous waste control law; California Division of Safety and Health (DOSH); SCAQMD; and the City
of Fontana Fire Protection District requirements. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations
would ensure that impacts associated with accidental release of hazardous materials during project
construction would be less than significant.
Operation
As detailed in the Phase I ESA prepared for the project site (refer to Appendix D), there were several
RECs observed during the site survey. The project site was previously used for a car dealership and
was permitted as a Special Handler, which allowed the project site to store 1,320 to 10,000 gallons
of petroleum during 2011 and 2012. This permit is now inactive. In addition, this facility was
reported as a small quality generator of hydrocarbons solvents, other inorganic solid waste,
oil/separation sludge, and aqueous solution with total organic residues. This facility was formerly
permitted for the use of an aboveground storage tank (AST). Although the project site was never
reported in an EDR Radius Map Report for the release of gasoline, diesel, waste oil, other oil, and/or
chlorinated solvents, the project site is considered a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC)
based on the duration of facility automotive operations (at least 27 years) (Terrax Environmental
Engineering and Consulting, 2019, p. iii).
Additionally, a Shell gasoline station, located just southwest of the project site is considered a REC
due to the station’s history as a hazardous waste site in the EDR Radius Map Report with Geocheck.
As an underground storage tank (UST) site, this facility was reported as having at least four historic
USTs including: one 8,000 gallon, one 6,000 gallon, two 4,000 gallons, and one 500-gallon UST
(Terrax Environmental Engineering and Consulting, 2019, p. iii).
Further, Winston Tire Fontana, located adjacent to the project site at 9550 Sierra Avenue generated
aqueous solution between 2000 and 2002 with total organic residues less than 10 percent and
tetrachloroethylene wastes onsite. No unauthorized releases and/or related investigations are
reported for this facility in the regulatory database; however, based on the proximity of this facility
to the project site, and that this facility is upgradient from the project site, this is considered a REC
(Terrax Environmental Engineering and Consulting, 2019, p. iii).
A Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation was conducted for the site in the May 2017, before the
most recent Phase 1 ESA was prepared in 2019. The Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation found
14 subsurface hydraulic lifts and a wastewater clarifier in the former service area. These
underground utilities were also identified as potential sources of subsurface contamination.
However, the results of Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation at the project site indicated no
detectable levels of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil and no detectable levels of VOC in soil gas
indicating no significant vapor intrusion risk (refer to Appendix D). It should be noted that the
Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation was conducted pursuant to a preliminary site assessment,
three years prior to the most recent Phase 1 ESA conducted for the project site.
SECTION 4.9–HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.9-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
The 2019 Phase I ESA recommends that a subsequent Phase II ESA be performed at the project site
to confirm or deny the presence of hazardous wastes at the project site as a result of historic and
adjacent property operations (Terrax Environmental Engineering and Consulting, 2019, p. V).
Therefore, the proposed project would implement mitigation measure HAZ-1 to ensure that a
subsequent Phase II Investigation be conducted for the project site.
Mitigation Measure
MM HAZ-1 The project applicant shall have a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)
conducted prior to issuance of demolition or construction permits to confirm or deny
the presence of hazardous wastes at the project site as a result of historic and adjacent
property operations. The Phase II ESA would consist of soil and soil vapor sampling;
testing of soil and soil vapor samples for contaminants to be determined during the
Phase II ESA; and a human health hazard assessment based on the results of the
testing. If the human health hazard assessment concludes that hazardous materials
affecting the project site are present in concentrations above regulatory action levels
for commercial land use, then the ESA would recommend hazardous materials
remediation. Types of remediation include extraction and disposal in a landfill for
disposal of contaminated soil; in-situ treatment using bioremediation, thermal
treatment, or chemical treatment; soil vapor extraction; and capping. Additionally,
the project applicant shall follow all recommendations of the Phase II ESA to ensure
that there would be less than significant impacts in regard to hazardous materials on
and near the project site.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of mitigation measure HAZ-1, the proposed project would have less than
significant impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials.
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 closest school to the project site is Cypress Elementary School, located at 9751 Cypress Avenue,
approximately 0.6 mile southwest of the project site (Google Earth Pro, 2020). No schools are located
within 0.25 mile of the project site. Therefore, no impacts to schools would occur and mitigation is
not required.
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact
Government Code § 65962.5 requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to compile
and update, at least annually, lists of the following:
Hazardous waste and substances sites from the DTSC EnviroStor database.
SECTION 4.9–HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.9-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites by county and fiscal year in the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database.
Solid waste disposal sites identified by SWRCB with waste constituents above hazardous
waste levels outside waste management units.
SWRCB Cease and Desist Orders (CDOs) and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAOs).
Hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to § 25187.5 of the Health
and Safety Code, identified by DTSC.
These lists are collectively referred to as the “Cortese List”. The project site was not identified as a
Cortese site and the address was not in any of the databases searched (EPA, 2020) (refer to
Figure 4.9-1). Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact in this regard.
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 Riverside County/Flabob Airport is located approximately 6.25 miles southeast of the project
site. According to the Flabob Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Plan), Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan Policy Document (Riverside County ALUC, 2004, Map FL-1), the project site is not
located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the Flabob Airport. Additionally, the project site is
outside of the Flabob Airport’s Airspace Plan and Noise Compatibility Contours.
The project proposes construction of a new multi-tenant commercial center and proximity to Flabob
Airport would not result in a safety hazard for people working or residing in the project area.
Therefore, the project would have no impact in this regard.
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact
Construction
The project would comply with applicable City regulations, such as City’s Fire Code in regard to
providing adequate emergency access, as well as the California Building Standards Code. Prior to the
issuance of building permits, the City of Fontana would review project site plans, including location
of all buildings, fences, access driveways and other features that may affect emergency access. Fire
lanes would be provided for adequate emergency access. The site design for the proposed project
includes access and fire lanes that would accommodate emergency ingress and egress by fire trucks,
police units, and ambulance/paramedic vehicles. All onsite access and sight-distance requirements
would be in accordance with city and Caltrans design requirements. The City’s review process and
compliance with applicable regulations and standards would ensure that adequate emergency access
would be provided at the project site at all times.
Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.17, Transportation and Traffic, the City requires preparation
and implementation of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for all projects that require construction in
the public right-of-way (ROW). The TMP must be reviewed and approved by the City’s Traffic
SECTION 4.9–HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.9-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Engineer prior to the start of construction activity in the public ROW. The typical TMP requires such
things as the installation of K-rail between the construction area and open traffic lanes, the use of
flagmen and directional signage to direct traffic where only one travel lane is available or when
equipment movement creates temporary hazards, and the installation of steel plates to cover
trenches under construction. Emergency access must be maintained. With implementation of the
TMP, impacts in regard to emergency access during construction would be less than significant.
SECTION 4.9–HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.9-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Figure 4.9-1
CORTESE ACT SITES NEAR THE PROJECT SITE
SECTION 4.9–HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.9-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Operation
City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The purpose of the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) is to provide a plan for reducing
and/or eliminating risk in the City of Fontana. The goals of the LHMP are to: protect life, property,
and the environment; improve public awareness; protect the continuity of government; and improve
emergency management preparedness, collaboration and outreach. The LHMP states that interstates
would serve as major emergency response and evacuation routes (City of Fontana, 2017, p. 124). The
proposed project would not be adjacent to any interstates; therefore, the proposed project would not
interfere with the City of Fontana’s emergency response and evacuation routes. Additionally, as
mentioned above, the proposed project design would undergo a site design review to ensure that
there would be adequate emergency ingress and egress within the project site. Therefore, the
proposed project would have less than significant impacts in regard to emergency and evacuation
plans.
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) developed Fire Hazard
Severity Zones (FHSZ) for State Responsibility Areas (SRA) and Very High FHSZ Local Responsibility
Areas (LRA) (CAL FIRE, 2020) (CAL FIRE, 2008). As shown on Figures 4.9-2 and 4.9-3, the project
site is not located within either an SRA FHSZ or a Very High FHSZ LRA for San Bernardino County.
The State of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has created, and
continues to revise, a map of all FHSZ within the state, including those in the City. The “Very High
FHSZ” can be used to enforce enhanced regulations from the State Fire Marshal published within the
California Building Code that relates to ignition and ember-resistive building construction within the
City.
The proposed project site is located in an urban and developed area within the City of Fontana. A mix
of commercial/retail and residential land uses are located in the immediate project vicinity. The
project site is not located adjacent to wildlands that may increase the risk of wildland fires.
Additionally, the project would be developed in compliance with all applicable fire codes. The project
would not result in impacts due to exposure of people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, the project would have no
impact in this regard.
SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.9-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Figure 4.9-2
FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE– STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREA
SECTION 4.9 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.9-10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Figure 4.9-3
FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE – LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA
SECTION 4.10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.10-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition
of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or offsite; X
(ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
offsite;
X
(iii) create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
X
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
X
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact
Under existing conditions, most of the existing site sheet flows from the northeast to the southwest
corner of the site and discharges out in a parkway drain onto San Bernardino Avenue, and then
discharges into the San Sevaine Channel (Blue Peak Engineering Inc., 2020, p. 1). San Sevaine Channel
discharges into the Santa Ana River (Reach 3), which is a water of the U.S. (WOUS).
SECTION 4.10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.10-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Impacts related to water quality would occur during three different periods: (1) during the
demolition, earthwork, and construction phase, when the potential for erosion, siltation, and
sedimentation would be the greatest; (2) following construction, prior to the establishment of ground
cover in the landscaped areas, when the erosion potential may remain relatively high; and
(3) following completion of the project, when impacts related to sedimentation would diminish, but
those associated with urban runoff would increase.
Construction Pollutant Controls
The project site is larger than one acre. Therefore, the proposed project would be required by the
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to obtain coverage under a General Permit
for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit
Order 2009-0009-DWQ, as authorized by § 402 CWA, NPDES for projects which will disturb one or
more acres of soil during construction). The Construction General Permit requires potential
dischargers of pollutants into waters of the United States to prepare a site-specific SWPPP, which
establishes enforceable limits on discharges, requires effluent monitoring, designates reporting
requirements, and requires construction BMPs to reduce or eliminate point and non-point source
discharges of pollutants.
The project would be required to obtain an NPDES permit, prepare a SWPPP, and implement
construction stormwater BMPs prior to commencement of construction activities; additionally, BMPs
must be maintained, inspected before and after each precipitation event, and repaired or replaced as
necessary. As the project would be required by the SWRCB to comply with applicable conditions of
Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ, potential violations of water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements during project construction would be less than significant.
Operational Pollutant Controls
The San Bernardino County NPDES Permit (NPDES No. CAS618036) and Waste Discharge
Requirements Area-Wide Urban Storm Water Runoff Management Program regulates, through
Order No. R8-2010-0036, the discharge of pollutants into WOUS through stormwater and urban
runoff conveyance systems, including flood control facilities. These conveyance systems are
commonly referred to as municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), or storm drains. In this
context, the NPDES Permit is also referred to as an MS4 Permit.
Pursuant to the MS4 Permit, Principal Permittees (i.e., the San Bernardino County Flood Control
District) and Co-Permittees (the City of Fontana is a Co-Permittee) must regulate discharges of
pollutants in urban runoff from anthropogenic sources into storm water conveyance systems within
their jurisdiction.
As new development and redevelopment occurs, it can significantly increase pollutant loads in
stormwater and urban runoff, because increased population density results in proportionately
higher levels of vehicle emissions, vehicle maintenance wastes, municipal sewage wastes, household
hazardous wastes, fertilizers, pet waste, trash, and other anthropogenic pollutants (RWQCB, 2010,
p. 29). The San Bernardino County MS4 Permit requires new development and significant
redevelopment projects to incorporate post-construction low-impact development BMPs into
project design to comply with the local Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) or
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to reduce or eliminate the quantity, and improve the
quality of, stormwater being discharged from the project site.
SECTION 4.10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.10-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
A preliminary grading and WQMP has been prepared for the proposed project site and is included
herein as Appendix B (Blue Peak Engineering Inc., 2020). The MS4 permit and the associated WQMP
require the implementation of Low Impact Development (LID) features to ensure that most
stormwater runoff is treated and retained onsite. The LID features for the proposed project are
composed of structural and non-structural BMPs.
The project WQMP includes structural BMPs, such as underground infiltration with Maxwell Torrent
Drywells and Contech 72” CMP retention; providing storm drain system stenciling and signage;
design and construction of trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction; use of
efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source
control; finish grade of landscaped areas at a minimum of 1-2 inches below top of curb, sidewalk, or
pavement; and covered dock areas (Blue Peak Engineering Inc., 2020, p. 4-4).
The WQMP also includes non-structural source control BMPs, including but not restricted to,
education of property owners and employees on stormwater BMPs, activity restrictions, landscape
management BMPs, BMP maintenance, spill contingency plan, litter and debris control program,
employee training, catch basin inspection program, vacuum sweeping of private streets and parking
lots, and compliance with other applicable NPDES permits (Blue Peak Engineering Inc., 2020, pp. 4-2
and 4-3).
With implementation of construction and operational BMPs, potential impacts to water quality
would be less than significant and no mitigation is proposed.
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed project would be within the service area of the Fontana Water Company (FWC). The
water sources of FWC include local groundwater basins (the Chino Subbasin, above which the
proposed project would be situated, is the primary groundwater source for FWC), local surface water
from Lytle Creek, and untreated imported surface water from the State Water Project (West Yost
Associates, 2016, p. 6-1). In their Final 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (West Yost Associates,
2016), FWC projects that, taking into account residential, retail, and commercial development, they
will be able to meet the water supply needs within their service area through at least 2040 (including
normal, single dry, and multiple dry years) without jeopardizing their available groundwater supply
(West Yost Associates, 2016, p. 4.3).
The proposed project would result in a similar amount of groundwater recharge compared to
existing conditions because both under existing conditions and the proposed project, the project site
would be fully developed with limited ornamental landscaping. Additionally, the proposed project
would implement LID BMP measures listed above (refer to Section 4.10 a) , which would maximize
the volume of stormwater runoff that would be captured and allowed to infiltrate in the soil and add
to groundwater recharge (Blue Peak Engineering Inc., 2020, p. 4-8).
The proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge, or impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin. Project-related impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is proposed.
SECTION 4.10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.10-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite;
Less Than Significant Impact
Construction
The proposed project site is located in an urban/developed area and has previously been developed.
No steams or rivers run on or through the project site.
Site preparation and grading at the project site would comply with the City of Fontana grading code
requirements. Furthermore, because construction of the proposed project would disturb more than
one acre of ground, it would be required to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit.
Dischargers whose projects disturb one or more acres of soil are required to obtain coverage under
the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity Construction
General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing,
grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include
regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility
(SWRCB, 2019).
The Construction General Permit requires the development of a SWPPP by a certified Qualified
SWPPP Developer. The required SWPPP would be project-specific and would prescribe site-specific
stormwater BMPs which would be intended to minimize or avoid soil from leaving the project site,
through either stormwater or wind, and thus minimize or avoid soil erosion onsite and siltation in
receiving waters.
With implementation of a project-specific SWPPP and proper maintenance and replacement of
required stormwater BMPs (as necessary), potential impacts resulting in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or offsite would be minimized or avoided, and impacts would be less than significant. No
mitigation is proposed.
Operation
The proposed project would ultimately match the existing drainage pattern, such that the northeast
runoff discharges to the southwest and into the parkway drainage along San Bernardino Avenue.
However, as part of the WQMP, underground infiltration systems as well as drywells would be
implemented at the south and southwest corner of the project site. Proposed inlets are placed
throughout the project site to collect the sheet flow from the development and discharge directly into
the underground infiltration system and drywells (Blue Peak Engineering Inc., 2020, p. 1). The LID
BMPs would ensure that erosion or siltation on or offsite would have less than significant impacts.
Therefore, impacts regarding erosion or siltation during project operation would be less than
significant.
SECTION 4.10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.10-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or offsite;
(i) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff;
Less than Significant Impact
The proposed project would incorporate operational LID BMPs in compliance with City of Fontana
SUSMP permit requirements. The proposed project would be drained by v-gutters tributary to the
onsite trench drain inlet at the southwest portion of the project site, at the driveway entrance on
San Bernardino Avenue, which would then be received by the Maxwell Torrent Drywells and the
Layfield Stormtank Underground Infiltration system (Blue Peak Engineering Inc., 2020, p. 3-6).
The MS4 permit and the project WQMP would require the implementation of water quality features
to ensure that runoff is treated prior to discharge into native soils (infiltration), storm drains or other
regional conveyance facilities, as described above. Therefore, with adherence to existing state water
quality requirements, including MS4 requirements, the proposed project would not cause a
substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would: (1) result in
flooding on or offsite; (2) would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or (3) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is proposed.
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact
The proposed project would be located in a densely developed area and the nearest waterway is the
Santa Ana River, approximately 5.25 miles southeast (Google Earth Pro, 2020). FEMA mapped the
project site as Zone X, Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% chance (500-year) annual flood (refer
to Figure 4.10-1) (FEMA, 2008; [FIRM numbers 06071C8654H and 06071C8658H]).
Since the project site is above the 100- and 500-year floodplains, it is not anticipated that floodwaters
would reach the project site, or that the proposed project would impede or redirect flood flows.
Additionally, per the County of San Bernardino (2010) General Plan Hazard Overlays map, the project
site is located outside of a dam inundation area. Therefore, no impacts associated with flooding would
occur, and no mitigation is proposed.
SECTION 4.10 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.10-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Figure 4.10-1
FEMA FIRM MAP PANEL
SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.10-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
No Impact
As described in Section 4.10-10 iv), the proposed project site is above the 100-year and the
500-year flood hazard zones and it is not anticipated that the site would become inundated due to
flood.
A tsunami is a sea wave (or series of waves) of local or distant origin that results from large-scale
seafloor displacements associated with large earthquakes, major submarine slides, or exploding
volcanic islands (California Seismic Safety Commission, 2020). Tsunami Inundation Zones are not
mapped for San Bernardino County (CGS, 2020). The closest mapped zones are in Orange County. A
review of the Orange County, California Tsunami Inundation Maps (CGS, 2020) revealed that the
tsunami inundation zone nearest to the proposed project site would be at Laguna Main Beach at the
southern end of Laguna Canyon in Orange County, approximately 42 miles southwest of the project
site. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would become inundated due to a
tsunami.
A seiche is an oscillating wave caused by wind, tidal forces, earthquakes, landslides, and other
phenomena in a closed or partially closed water body such as a river, lake, reservoir, pond, and other
large inland water body. A review of aerial imagery (Google Earth, 2020) revealed no water bodies
large enough to support a seiche within a five-mile radius of the proposed project site. Therefore, it
is not anticipated that the proposed project would be inundated by a seiche.
Per the County of San Bernardino General Plan Hazard Overlays map (County of San Bernardino,
2010), the project site is located outside of a dam inundation area. Additionally, the City of Fontana
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (City of Fontana, 2017) states there is no major dam located upstream
from the Fontana area; therefore, the city currently is not susceptible to dam inundation.
Due to the project’s inland location, relatively flat topography, and lack of adjacent bodies of water,
the project site would have no impact regarding flood hazards, tsunamis, seiche zones, or risk for
release of pollutants due to project inundation.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact
As detailed in the WQMP prepared for the project, stormwater would be retained onsite through LID
infiltration BMPs (Blue Peak Engineering Inc., 2020, p. 4-1). The project would be designed in
compliance with applicable City of Fontana regulations regarding stormwater runoff, as well as the
San Bernardino County MS4 permit (Order No. R8-2010-0036, NPDES No. CAS618036) to which the
City of Fontana is a signatory, and the LID capture and infiltration facilities would ensure that the
water quality objectives of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB) Water
Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan; RWQCB, 1995) are met. The proposed project is not anticipated to
conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.
The proposed project would not directly use groundwater but would buy water from the FWC, as
discussed in Section 4.10 b). In the Final 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (West Yost
SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.10-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Associates, 2016, p. 4-1), the FWC projects that, taking into account residential, retail, and
commercial development, they will be able to meet the water supply needs within their service area
through at least 2040 (including normal, single dry, and multiple dry years) without jeopardizing the
available groundwater supply (West Yost Associates, 2016, p. 7-7). Therefore, it is not anticipated
that the proposed project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable
groundwater management plan.
No project-related impacts related to conflict with or implementation of a water quality control plan
or sustainable groundwater plan are anticipated, and mitigation is not proposed.
SECTION 4.11 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.11-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
4.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
X
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
No Impact
The project site is largely vacant, with only the remnants of earlier development (a parking lot with
light standards) still remaining. The project site is located in an urban and developed area within the
City of Fontana and is located along a major street, Sierra Avenue, which is primarily surrounded by
commercial land uses. A mix of residential types is located in the project vicinity including
single-family homes, apartments and condominiums.
The proposed project would introduce a shopping center with a market, drive-through restaurants
and other (yet to be determined) commercial businesses, which would be similar in nature to the
nearby commercial shopping centers located to the east, south and southeast of the project site. No
streets or sidewalks would be permanently closed as a result of the project. The project would utilize
existing roadways, resulting in no change in roadway patterns. No separation of uses or disruption
of access between land use types would occur as a result of the project. The project site was
previously occupied by a car dealership, which has since been demolished. The project is proposing
a new commercial (i.e., non-residential) land use in its place. Therefore, the project would not
physically divide an established community and no impact would occur.
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any
land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
Less Than Significant Impact
As shown in Figure 4.11-1, the City’s General Plan land use designation for the project site is
WMXU-1 (City of Fontana, 2019). As shown in Figure 4.11-2, the City’s zoning designation for the
project site is Sierra Gateway Form Based Code (FBC) (City of Fontana, 2019). The Sierra Gateway
FBC is intended to encourage pedestrian-oriented development and land uses that include a mix of
medium- to high-density residential, trail, and services, office, entertainment, education and open
space (City of Fontana Municipal Code, 2020). The proposed project would create a commercial
development with a market, restaurants and offices, which would adhere to the Sierra Gateway FBC
zoning designation. However, the proposed project requires a Zoning Code Amendment to modify
SECTION 4.11 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.11-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
the Form Based Code standards, to allow a greater front setback and a reduction in the minimum
50 percent lot frontage requirement, approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 20-003 for subdividing
the property into three parcels, and approval of one Conditional Use Permit for the Northgate
Market’s ABC License and three Minor Use Permits (one for each of the three drive-through pads).
With approval of the Zoning Code Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, Conditional Use Permit, and
Minor Use Permits, the project would have less than significant impacts regarding conflict with any
land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
SECTION 4.10 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.11-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Figure 4.11-1
PROPOSED PROJECT SITE CURRENT GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
SECTION 4.11 – LAND USE AND PLANNING
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.11-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Figure 4.11-2
PROPOSED PROJECT SITE CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATIONS
SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.12-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
4.12 Mineral Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
X
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the State?
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?
Less Than Significant Impact
As illustrated in Figure 4.12-1, Mineral Resources, the project site is located within Mineral Resource
Zone (MRZ)-2, which is an area where adequate information indicates that significant mineral
deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists
(DOC, 2019a). However, according to the Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design section of the City of
Fontana General Plan, the city does not include mining in any of its zoning categories
(Stantec, 2018a). Also, it is unlikely that anyone would propose to establish new surface mining
operations within the city since it is not allowed within the city. According to ‘Well Finder’ generated
by the California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, & Geothermal Resources (see
Figure 4.12-2, Oil and Gas Wells and Fields), the project site is not located near (within one mile of)
any oil or gas wells (DOC, 2020b).
Although this project is located within MRZ-2, where significant amounts of deposits are present, the
project would not interfere with the availability of these resources since they have not been accessed
due to the City of Fontana’s General Plan that does not allow active mining within the city limits.
Therefore, the project site is not an important local mineral resource recovery site and the project
would have less than significant impact on the availability of known mineral- and oil-based resources
of value to the region or state residents and on any locally important mineral resource recovery sites.
SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.12-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Figure 4.12 1
MINERAL RESOURCES
SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.12-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Figure 4.12-2
OIL AND GAS WELLS AND FIELDS
SECTION 4.13 - NOISE
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.13-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
4.13 Noise
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? X
c) For a project located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip or an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
X
4.13.1 Characteristics of Sound
Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. It is described in terms of loudness or
amplitude (measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in hertz [Hz] or cycles per second),
and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The decibel (dB) scale is a logarithmic scale that
describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the
sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Because the human ear is not equally
sensitive to all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale is used to relate noise to
human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating
against upper and lower frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. The
scale is based on a reference pressure level of 20 micropascals (zero dBA). The scale ranges from
zero (for the average least perceptible sound) to about 130 (for the average human pain level).
4.13.2 Noise Measurement Scales
Several rating scales have been developed to analyze adverse effects of community noise on people.
Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise on
people depends largely upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of
day when the noise occurs. Those that are applicable to this analysis are as follows:
Leq, the equivalent noise level, is an average of sound level over a defined time period (such
as 1 minute, 15 minutes, 1 hour or 24 hours). Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of
a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during
exposure.
SECTION 4.13 - NOISE
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.13-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
L90 is a noise level that is exceeded 90 percent of the time at a given location; it is often used
as a measure of “background” noise.
Lmax is the root mean square (RMS) maximum noise level during the measurement interval.
This measurement is calculated by taking the RMS of all peak noise levels within the sampling
interval. Lmax is distinct from the peak noise level, which only includes the single highest
measurement within a measurement interval.
CNEL, the Community Noise Equivalent Level, is a 24-hour average Leq with a 4.77-dBA
“penalty” added to noise during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and a 10-dBA penalty
added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in
the evening and nighttime (Caltrans, 2013). The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a
60-dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a calculation of 66.7 dBA CNEL.
Ldn, the day-night average noise, is a 24-hour average Leq with an additional 10-dBA “penalty”
added to noise that occurs between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The Ldn metric yields values within
1 dBA of the CNEL metric. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered to be
equivalent and are treated as such in this assessment.
4.13.3 Existing Noise
The 2015 Fontana General Plan Noise and Safety Element (Stantec, et al., 2018a, p. 11-9) defines
“noise-sensitive” uses in areas of 24-hour-per-day of exposure as residential uses, hospitals, rest
homes, long-term care facilities, and mental care facilities. Sensitive receivers17 for shorter-term
exposures are defined as schools, libraries, places of worship, and passive recreation uses.
Figure 4.13-1 shows sensitive receivers in the project area, which include residences to the north,
northwest, west, southwest, and south. The single-family residences and apartment homes to the
north are the closest to the project site, approximately 50 feet away; the apartments to the west are
approximately 80 feet from the project site; and the apartment homes to the south are approximately
100 feet away from the project site.
As a large percentage of residents and employees in the project areas were staying at home because
of the COVID-19 epidemic, traffic on local streets was significantly reduced. If ambient noise levels
had been measured, they would not have been representative of “existing conditions.” For that
reason, no ambient noise survey was conducted. In order to obtain a reasonable approximation of
existing conditions, the results of an ambient noise survey conducted in 2008 for the Fontana Kaiser
Medical Center Hospital Replacement Project (Dudek, 2008) was reviewed. The Kaiser project area
is about 1,650 feet south-southwest of the Northgate Market Center Project.
The ambient noise measurement point closest to the Northgate Market Center Project is on the east
side of Sierra Avenue, about 2,070 feet south-southwest. Although this point is distant, Sierra Avenue
is a major traffic noise source in the area, and conditions would not be expected to vary over a
distance of several blocks. The 20-minute measurement was 67 dBA Leq (Dudek, 2008, p. 17). That
value was used to characterize baseline exposures in the area.
17 The targets of adverse noise impacts are called “sensitive receivers” in this document, while those of adverse air
quality impacts are termed “sensitive receptors.”
SECTION 4.13 - NOISE
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.13-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
4.13.4 Regulatory Setting
State of California
The most current guidelines prepared by the state noise officer are contained in Appendix D of the
General Plan Guidelines issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research in 2017 (OPR,
2017). These guidelines establish four categories for judging the severity of noise intrusion on
specified land uses:
Normally Acceptable: Is generally acceptable, with no mitigation necessary.
Conditionally Acceptable: May require some mitigation, as established through a noise
study.
Normally Unacceptable: Requires substantial mitigation.
Clearly unacceptable: Probably cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
The OPR noise compatibility guidelines assign ranges of CNEL values to each of these categories. The
ranges differ for different types of sensitive receivers, and are shown in Table 4.13-1.
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.13-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Table 4.13-1
CALIFORNIA LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE SOURCES
Land Use Category Noise Exposure (dBA, CNEL)
55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential – Low-Density Single-Family, Duplex,
Mobile Homes
Residential – Multiple Family
Transient Lodging – Motels, Hotels
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters
Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation,
Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business Commercial and
Professional
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture
Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements.
Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only
after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply system or air conditioning will normally suffice.
Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the
noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2017.
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.13-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
City of Fontana General Plan Noise and Safety Element
The City of Fontana General Plan EIR Noise and Safety Element (Stantec, 2018a) has the following
goals, policies and actions that apply to proposed project:
Goal 1: The City of Fontana protects sensitive land uses from excessive noise by diligent planning
through 2035 (Stantec, 2018a, p.11.12).
Policies
New sensitive land uses shall be prohibited in incompatible areas.
Noise-tolerant land uses shall be guided into areas irrevocably committed to land uses that
are noise-producing, such as transportation corridors.
Where sensitive uses are to be placed along transportation routes, mitigation shall be
provided to ensure compliance with state-mandated noise levels.
Noise spillover or encroachment from commercial, industrial and educational land uses shall
be minimized into adjoining residential neighborhoods or noise-sensitive uses.
Actions
A. The following uses shall be considered noise-sensitive and discouraged in areas in excess of
65 dBA CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level): Residential Uses; Hospitals; Rest Homes;
Long Term Care Facilities; and Mental Care Facilities.
B. The following uses shall be considered noise-sensitive and discouraged in areas in excess of
65 Leq(12) (Equivalent Continuous Sound Level): Schools; Libraries; Places of Worship; and
Passive Recreation Uses.
C. The State of California Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines shall be
followed with respect to acoustical study requirements.
Goal 2: The City of Fontana provides a diverse and efficiently operated ground transportation
system that generates the minimum feasible noise on its residents through 2035 (Stantec, 2018a,
p. 11.13).
Actions
A. On-road trucking activities shall continue to be regulated in the City to ensure noise impacts
are minimized, including the implementation of truck-routes based on traffic studies.
B. Development that generates increased traffic and subsequent increases in the ambient noise
level adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses shall provide appropriate mitigation measures.
C. Noise mitigation practices shall be employed when designing all future streets and highways,
and when improvements occur along existing highway segments.
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.13-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Goal 3: The City of Fontana’s residents are protected from the negative effects of “spill over” noise
(Stantec, 2018a, p. 11.13).
Policy
Residential land uses and areas identified as noise-sensitive shall be protected from excessive
noise from non-transportation sources including industrial, commercial, and residential
activities and equipment.
Actions
A. Projects located in commercial areas shall not exceed stationary-source noise standards at
the property line of proximate residential or commercial uses.
B. Industrial uses shall not exceed commercial or residential stationary source noise standards
at the most proximate land uses.
C. Non-transportation noise shall be considered in land use planning decisions.
D. Construction shall be performed as quietly as feasible when performed in proximity to
residential or other noise-sensitive land uses.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
The City of Fontana’s Municipal Code18 contains several provisions potentially related to construction
and operation of the proposed project. Prohibited noises enumerated in Chapter 18 (Nuisances),
Article II. - Noise include:19
Construction or repairing of buildings or structures. The erection (including excavating),
demolition, alteration or repair of any building or structure other than between the hours of
7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on
Saturdays, except in case of urgent necessity in the interest of public health and safety, and
then only with a permit from the building inspector, which permit may be granted for a period
not to exceed three days or less while the emergency continues and which permit may be
renewed for periods of three days or less while the emergency continues. If the building
inspector should determine that the public health and safety will not be impaired by the
erection, demolition, alteration or repair of any building or structure or the excavation of
streets and highways within the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and if he shall further
determine that loss or inconvenience would result to any party in interest, he may grant
permission for such work to be done on weekdays within the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.,
upon application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during the
progress of the work.20
18 https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH18NU_ARTIINO.
19 City of Fontana Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Article II, §§ 18-63(a)(7), (8), (10), and (11). Last revised September 11,
2007.
20 City of Fontana Municipal Code § 18-63(b)(7).
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.13-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Noise near schools, courts, place of worship or hospitals. The creation of any loud, excessive,
impulsive or intrusive noise on any street adjacent to any school, institution of learning,
places of worship or court while the premises are in use, or adjacent to any hospital which
unreasonably interferes with the workings of such institution or which disturbs or unduly
annoys patients in the hospital; provided conspicuous signs are displayed in such streets
indicating that the street is a school, hospital or court street.21
Blowers. The operation of any noise-creating blower or power fan or any internal combustion
engine other than from the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on a weekday and the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on a Saturday, the operation of which causes noise due to the
explosion of operating gases or fluids, unless the noise from such blower or fan is muffled and
such engine is equipped with a muffler device sufficient to deaden such noise.22
Piledrivers, hammers, etc. The operation between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of any
piledriver, steam shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, steam or electric hoist or other
appliance, the use of which is attended by loud, excessive, impulsive or intrusive noise.23
4.13.5 Significance Thresholds
The City of Fontana has not published explicit thresholds for use in determining significance of noise
impacts under CEQA. In keeping with standard practice, two criteria were used for judging noise
impacts. First, noise levels generated by the proposed project must comply with all relevant federal,
state, and local standards and regulations. Noise impacts on the surrounding community are limited
by local noise ordinances, which are implemented through investigations in response to nuisance
complaints. It is assumed that all existing applicable regulations for the construction and operation
of the proposed project will be enforced. In addition, the proposed project should not produce noise
levels that are incompatible with adjacent noise-sensitive land uses.
The second measure of impact used in this analysis is a significant increase in noise levels above
existing ambient noise levels as a result of the introduction of a new noise source. An increase in
noise level due to a new noise source has a potential to adversely impact people. The proposed
project would have a significant noise impact if it would do any of the following:
Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards recommended in the City
of Fontana General Plan Noise Element.
Include construction activities in or within 500 feet of residential areas between 6:00 p.m. of
one day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day, without a permit.
Increase short-term noise exposures at sensitive receivers during construction by 5 dBA Leq
or more.
Contribute, with other local construction projects, to a significant cumulative noise impact.
21 City of Fontana Municipal Code § 18-63(b)(8).
22 City of Fontana Municipal Code § 18-63(b)(11).
23 City of Fontana Municipal Code § 18-63(b)(10).
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.13-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Increase operational exposures at sensitive receivers (mainly because of an increase in traffic
flow) by 5 dBA Leq or more.
4.13.6 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
Less than Significant Impact
Construction activities, especially with heavy equipment operation, would create noise effects on and
adjacent to the construction site. Long-term noise impacts include project-generated onsite and
offsite operational noise sources. Onsite (stationary) noise sources from the operation of the
commercial shopping center would include the use of mechanical equipment such as air conditioners
and landscaping and building maintenance activities. Offsite noise would be attributable to
project-induced traffic, which would cause an incremental increase in noise levels within and near
the project vicinity. Each is described below.
This section also evaluates potential groundborne vibration that would be generated from the
construction or operation of the proposed project.
Short-Term Construction Noise
Noise impacts from construction activities are a function of the noise generated by the operation of
construction equipment and onroad delivery and worker commuter vehicles, the location of
equipment, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities. Using calculation methods
published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA, 2018), the distances used for the calculation
were measured from each of the four closest residences in each cardinal direction to the approximate
center of activity of each construction phase, since that would be the average location of construction
equipment most of the time. For the purpose of this analysis, it was estimated that the construction
of the proposed project would begin in August 2021 and end in May 2022.
The types and numbers of pieces of equipment anticipated in each phase of construction and
development were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version
2016.3.2 (BREEZE Software, 2017b), and from information received from the project applicant. The
CalEEMod equipment mix is based on a construction survey performed by the SCAQMD (BREEZE
Software, 2017a). Table 4.13-2 lists the equipment expected to be used. For each equipment type,
the table shows an average noise emission level (in dB at 50 feet, unless otherwise specified) and a
“usage factor,” which is an estimated percentage of operating time that the equipment would be
producing noise at the stated level.24,25 Equipment use was matched to phases of the construction
schedule.
24 Equipment noise emissions and usage factors are from Knauer, H. et al., 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise
Handbook. U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology, Administration, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, FHWA-HEP-06-015 (August 2006), except where otherwise noted.
25 Scraper, crane, and cement and mortar mixer, and roller noise emissions data from County of Ventura, Construction
Noise Threshold Criteria and Control Plan. Amended July 2010. This document was also source of usage factors fo
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.13-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Table 4.13-2
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE CHARACTERISTICS
Construction
Phase Equipment Type No. of
Pieces
Maximum
Sound Level
@ 50 feet
(dBA)
Usage
Factor
Site Preparation Graders 1 85 0.41
Rubber-Tired Dozers 1 79 0.40
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 85 0.37
Grading Crawler Tractorsa 1 85 0.37
Graders 1 85 0.41
Rubber-Tired Dozers 1 79 0.40
Building Construction Cranes 1 83 0.08
Forklifts 1 67 0.30
Generator Sets 1 73 0.50
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 85 0.37
Welders 3 74 0.45
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 85 0.40
Pavers 1 77 0.50
Paving Equipment 1 85 0.5
Rollers 1 75 0.10
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 85 0.37
Trenching Trenchers 1 83 0.30
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 85 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 81 0.48
aNoise characteristics data unavailable; assumed same as tractors/loaders/backhoes.
For the sensitive receivers on the north and west, existing buildings are on a line of sight between
the construction noise sources and the associated sensitive receiver for between about half and all of
each construction phase. According to Caltrans, in cases where the first row of buildings covers less
than about 60% of the field of view, the first row attenuates the noise by about 3 dBA, with 1.5 dBA
for each additional row (Caltrans, 2013, p. 2-35). Therefore, the exposures at the northern and
western receptors were decreased by 3 dBA for each phase.
A 10-foot-high concrete wall runs along the site’s northern boundary in front of the sensitive receiver
on the north. In addition, a six- to ten-foot wall shields the residences on the west. The Fresnel
number method (Foss, 1978) was used to estimate the walls’ noise attenuation. The Fresnel number
(No) is a dimensionless parameter calculated from the following formula:
NO = ± 2fδo/c
where
f = Frequency of the sound radiated by the source (hertz).
δo = Path length difference determined from site geometry (feet).
C = Speed of sound (feet/second).
No is positive when the line of sight between the source and receiver is lower than the top of the
barrier (as is the case here). It was assumed that f = 1,000 hertz (representative of heavy construction
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.13-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
equipment)26 and that c = 1115.49 feet per second. Using a graph27 of attenuation as a function of No,
it was determined that the existing walls on the north would provide between 14 and 15.5 dB of
attenuation, respectively. If one assumes conservatively that the wall on the west is only six feet high,
there would be no attenuation, because the top of the wall would be below the source and/or
receptor for all combinations of source and receiver.
Results of the construction noise calculations are presented in Table 4.13-3. The noisiest
construction phase for sensitive receivers on the north and east would be building construction,
which would result in a maximum hourly Leq of 59.6 dBA Leq east of the project site. For the sensitive
receivers on the south and west, the noisiest phase would be paving, which would result in a
maximum short-term exposure of 69.5 dBA Leq on the west. The City of Fontana Municipal Code does
not contain standards with which to compare these results.
Table 4.13-4 shows the estimated short-term increase in noise exposure at the four sensitive
receivers. One of the significance criteria defined in Section 4.13.5 is that the project would increase
short-term noise exposures at sensitive receivers during construction by 5 dBA Leq or more. The
maximum increase in total noise level (which is at the west receiver) would be 4.4 dBA, which is
lower than the criterion. Short-term construction noise impacts would therefore be less than
significant.
Table 4.13-3
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION NOISE EXPOSURES AT NEAREST SENSITIVE RECEIVERS
Direction Site
Preparation Grading Building
Construction Paving Trenching Architectural
Coating
N 52.8 52.8 59.0 54.9 50.8 54.3
E 58.4 58.4 59.6 59.0 56.4 51.9
S 66.2 66.2 67.4 67.6 64.3 62.7
W 64.1 64.1 63.8 69.5 62.2 59.1
Table 4.13-4
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM INCREASES IN NOISE EXPOSURE DUE TO CONSTRUCTION
Direction Ambienta
dBA Leq
Construction
dBA Leq
New Total
dBA Leq
Increase
dBA Leq
N 67 59.4 67.6 0.6
E 67 59.6 67.7 0.7
S 67 67.6 70.3 3.3
W 67 69.5 71.4 4.4
aResult of one measurement point for the Fontana Kaiser Medical Center Hospital
Replacement Project (Dudek, 2008, p. 17).
The Noise and Safety Element also recommends a limit of 65 dBA CNEL for residential exposures.
The Kaiser noise study estimated a CNEL value of 70 dBA for the same measurement point whose Leq
was used to characterize ambient noise levels in the area (Dudek, 2008, p. 17). That value already
exceeds the recommended 65-dBA value. Assuming that project construction activities begin at
26 Noise frequency spectra for typical bulldozers and front-end loaders are presented in Vardhan et al., 2005.
27 Propagation of Outdoor Sound - Partial Barriers. Available at https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/outdoor-sound-
partial-barriers-d_65.html. Verified June 13, 2019.
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.13-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
7:00 a.m. and end at 7:00 p.m., the maximum 24-hour weighted average exposure contribution from
construction would be 66.5 dBA CNEL. The new total exposure would be 71.6 dBA CNEL, and the
increase would be 1.6 dBA. Therefore, weighted average daily exposures to construction noise would
be less than significant.
Operational Noise
Onsite
Onsite noise sources from the proposed shipping center would include operation of rooftop
mechanical equipment such as air conditioners, parking lot activities, and truck deliveries. Noise
levels from these sources are generally lower than from the traffic on streets bordering the project
site. Furthermore, § 18-63 of the Fontana Development Code limits onsite noise impacts of the
operation of any noise-creating blower or power fan or any internal combustion engine other than
from the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on a weekday and the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on a
Saturday, the operation of which causes noise due to the explosion of operating gases or fluids, unless
the noise from such blower or fan is muffled and such engine is equipped with a muffler device
sufficient to deaden such noise.
The operational noise levels would be within both the City’s daytime and nighttime residential noise
standards of 70 dBA and 65 dBA, respectively. Therefore, operational noise would be less than
significant.
Mobile Sources
The principal noise source in the project area is traffic on local roadways. The project may contribute
to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity due to project-generated
vehicle traffic on nearby roadways and at major intersections.
The increases in average daily traffic on Sierra Avenue and San Bernardino Avenue due to the project
were calculated from results of the Traffic Impact Analysis (LL&G, 2020, Figures 3-3 and 5-5). The
maximum increase would be 14%, in the segment of Sierra Avenue between San Bernardino Avenue
and Randall Avenue. Given the logarithmic nature of the decibel, traffic volume needs to be doubled
in order for the noise level to increase by 3 dBA (ICF Jones & Stokes, 2009), the minimum level
perceived by the average human ear. A doubling is equivalent to a 100% increase. Because the
maximum increase in traffic in any road segment would be far below 100%, the increase in roadway
noise experienced at sensitive receivers would not be perceptible to the human ear. Therefore,
roadway noise associated with project operation would not expose a land use to noise levels that are
considered incompatible with or in excess of adopted standards, and impacts would be less than
significant.
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact
Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. Vibration can result from a source (e.g., subway
operations, vehicles, machinery equipment, etc.) that causes the adjacent ground to move, thereby
creating vibration waves that propagate through the soil to the foundations of nearby buildings. This
effect is referred to as groundborne vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) or the RMS velocity is
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.13-9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
usually used to describe vibration levels. PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the
vibration level, while RMS is defined as the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of
the level. PPV is typically used for evaluating potential building damage, while RMS velocity in
decibels (VdB) is typically more suitable for evaluating human response.
The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually around 50 VdB. The vibration
velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity level
of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible
levels for most people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings such
as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical
outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled
trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is
rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB to 100 VdB, which is the
general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings.
Construction Vibration
Construction activities for the project have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne
vibration. The operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that propagate though the
ground and diminishes in intensity with distance from the source. Vibration impacts can range from
no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration
at moderate levels, to slight damage of buildings at the highest levels. The construction activities
associated with the project could have an adverse impact on both sensitive structures (i.e., building
damage) and populations (i.e., annoyance).
The FTA has published standard vibration levels for construction equipment operations, at a distance
of 25 feet, along with a method for calculating vibration at other distances. The construction-related
vibration levels were calculated for the distances between each of the four sensitive receivers
evaluated and the nearest construction activities to each one. Results are listed in Table 4.13-7.
Table 4.13-7
VIBRATION LEVELS OF TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Equipment
North Receiver
(126 feet)
East Receiver
(698 feet)
South Receiver
(284 feet)
West Receiver
(245 feet)
RMS
(in/sec) VdB RMS
(in/sec) VdB RMS
(in/sec) (VdB) RMS
(in/sec) (VdB)
Loaded trucks 0.0067 65 0.0005 43 0.0020 54 0.0024 56
Small
bulldozer 0.0003 37 0.00002 15 0.00008 26 0.0001 28
As shown in Table 4.13-7, the PPV of construction equipment at the nearest sensitive receiver
(126 feet) is at most 0.0067 inch per second, which is less than the FTA damage threshold of 0.12 inch
per second PPV for fragile historic buildings. The maximum vibration decibels are 65 VdB, which are
below the FTA threshold for human annoyance of 80 VdB. Vibration impacts would therefore be less
than significant. No mitigation is needed.
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.13-10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Operational Vibration
The project consists of retail stores and restaurants and would not involve the use of stationary
equipment that would result in high vibration levels, which are more typical for large manufacturing
and industrial projects. Groundborne vibrations at the project site and immediate vicinity currently
result from heavy-duty vehicular travel (e.g. freight trucks) on the nearby local roadways, and the
project would not result in a substantial increase of these heavy-duty vehicles on the public
roadways. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with operation of the project 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
As further detailed in Section 4.9, the closest airport or private airstrip would be the Flabob Airport
of Riverside County, a public use airport about 6.25 miles southeast of the project site. The project
site would be outside of the Airport Influence Area (AIA) and would be outside of the Noise
Compatibility Contours. Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels and no impact would occur.
SECTION 4.14 – POPULATION AND HOUSING
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.14-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
4.14 Population and Housing
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned 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
The project proposes the development of 64,037 square feet of building area that would include a
market store and three quick service drive-through pads. It does not propose construction of any
residential uses, nor does it include extension of existing infrastructure. The project would create
employment opportunities (both during the construction and operational phases). However, it is
anticipated that employees from the local workforce would be hired during both the construction
and operational phases of the project. The project is not of the scope or scale to induce people to
move from out of the project area to work at the proposed project. Furthermore, the City of Fontana
General Plan 2015-2035 Update, accounts for an additional 40,599 employees within the planning
area with the focus for growth identified as the Downtown Core of the City and “Livable Corridors”.
These Livable Corridors are envisioned for Sierra Avenue from Baseline to I-10, Foothill Blvd through
the entire City, and Valley Boulevard for several blocks east and west of Sierra Boulevard (Stantec,
2018b, p. 5.11-2). The proposed project site is located within the “Livable Corridors” identified for
growth and increased economic activity in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, less than significant
impacts would occur regarding unplanned growth as a result of the project.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact
The project site is mostly vacant other than some remnants of a parking lot used in previous
development. Therefore, the project would not displace housing or people and the project would not
necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur.
SECTION 4.15 – PUBLIC SERVICES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.15-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
4.15 Public Services
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
a) Fire Protection?
Less than Significant Impact
Fire prevention, fire protection and emergency response services for the city of Fontana are provided
by the Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD) through a contract with the San Bernardino County
Fire Department. The FFPD also investigates and mitigates hazardous materials and has firefighters
with special expertise in wildfires (Stantec, 2018a, p. 8-6). The FFPD is staffed with 129 full-time
personnel. The FFPD has a response time goal for all service calls to arrive on scene in six minutes or
less (City of Fontana, 2019b, p. 351).
There are seven fire stations in the city, two of them within two miles of the project site.
Fire Station 72 is located at 15380 San Bernardino Avenue, approximately 1.9 miles west of the
project site (Google Earth Pro, 2020). This station serves the City of Fontana and unincorporated
areas of San Bernardino County and is staffed with one Captain, one Engineer, two Firefighter Medics,
and one Firefighter. The station is equipped with one medic engine and one squad vehicle (City of
Fontana, 2020b).
Fire Station 77 is located at 17459 Slover Avenue, approximately 1.7 miles southeast of the project
site (Google Earth Pro, 2020). This station serves the South Fontana area, including Kaiser Hospital,
Interstate 10, and numerous commercial shopping centers. Station 77 is staffed with one Captain,
one Engineer, two Firefighter Medics, and one Firefighter, and is equipped with one medic truck and
one medic squad (City of Fontana, 2020b).
The project proposes the development of 64,037 square feet of building area that would include a
market store and three quick service drive-through pads. Travel time to the project site from
Station 72 is approximately six minutes and from Station 77 is approximately five minutes
(Google Earth Pro, 2020). Therefore, the FFPD response time for the two closest fire stations to the
project site would be within the FFPD’s goal of having a six-minute response time.
SECTION 4.15 – PUBLIC SERVICES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.15-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
As shown on Figures 4.9-3 and 4.9-4, provided in Section 4.9 of this IS, the project site is not located
within either an SRA FHSZ or a Very High FHSZ LRA for San Bernardino County. The project would
be in compliance with applicable portions of the City of Fontana Municipal Code, Chapter 11: Fire
Prevention. The project would also be consistent with the 2019 edition of the California Building
Code (CBC), and the 2018 edition of the International Fire Code (IFC), as adopted and amended by
the Fire District.
Furthermore, the adequacy of existing water pressure and water availability in the project area
would be verified by the FFPD during the proposed project’s plan check review process. Compliance
with the above-mentioned codes and FFPD standards is mandatory and routinely conditioned upon
projects. The project, once operational, would be inspected periodically by the FFPD.
Development of the project site would be consistent with the land use goals and strategic policy map
included in the City of Fontana’s 2015-2035 General Plan and has therefore been planned for, from
the standpoint of long-term infrastructure needs (Stantec, 2018a, Chapter 15). In addition, the
Fontana Fire Protection District collects development mitigation fees for fire facilities which would
be available to fund additional fire protection facilities as needed.
The project’s demands on fire protection services would have a less than significant impact.
b) Police Protection?
Less than Significant Impact
The City of Fontana Police Department provides police and law enforcement services in the project
area. The FPD has 188 sworn officers (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.12-1). FPD is comprised of four separate
divisions: Office of the Chief of Police; Administrative Services; Field Services; and Special Operations
(City of Fontana, 2018a). The nearest police station to the project site is located at 17005 Upland
Avenue, approximately two miles north of the project site (City of Fontana 2020c). The City of
Fontana standard for police protection prescribes a ratio of 1.4 sworn police officers per 1,000
residents (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.12-1). Given the estimated population of 213,739 in 2018 (City of
Fontana, 2020d), the FPD has an approximate service to population ratio of one sworn officer per
1,137 residents (0.88 sworn officers per 1,000 residents).
Although the City of Fontana does not meet its police service ratio, the residential population is not
expected to increase as a result of the proposed project. While the project would create employment
opportunities (both during the construction and operational phases), it is anticipated that employees
from the local workforce would be hired during both phases. The project is not of the scope or scale
to induce people to move from out of the project area to work at the proposed project. Therefore, the
ratio of sworn officers to residents is not expected to change.
Moreover, development of the project site is consistent with the overall growth anticipated by the
General Plan at buildout and has therefore been planned for from the standpoint of long-term
infrastructure needs (Stantec, 2018a, Chapter 15). The project would not result in a substantial
increase in the population and housing in the surrounding area nor is it expected to significantly
affect the existing service capacity of the FPD. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur.
SECTION 4.15 – PUBLIC SERVICES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.15-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
c) Schools?
No Impact
The project site is located within the Fontana Unified School District (FUSD). FUSD provides public
education for over 40,000 students and includes 29 elementary schools, seven middle schools and
five high schools (FUSD, 2019). FUSD schools serving the project site include Poplar Elementary
School (grades K-5), Almeria Middle School (grades 6-8), and Fontana High School (grades 9-12).
Poplar Elementary School is located 1.8 miles west of the project site at 9937 Poplar Avenue. Almeria
Middle School is located 3.9 miles northwest of the project site at 7723 Almeria Avenue. Fontana High
School is located 1.4 miles west of the project site at 9453 Citrus Avenue.
The project does not propose any new residential uses and therefore, no new residents of school age
are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, no impact would occur.
d) Parks?
Less than Significant Impact
Recreational services in the City of Fontana are provided by the city’s Department of Facilities and
Parks, which maintains over 40 parks, sports facilities, and community centers (City of Fontana,
2020a). The city’s park acreage standard is five acres of public park land per 1,000 residents. The city
currently has approximately 1,359 acres total in parks and land for public use, enough to meet this
performance standard (Stantec, 2018a, p. 7.10).
Jack Bulik Skate Park, located at 16581 Filbert Avenue, is approximately 0.35 mile southwest of the
project site. The park includes facilities such as picnic tables and a skate park (City of Fontana,
2020e). Veterans Park, at 17255 Merrill Avenue, is located approximately one mile northeast from
the project site. The park includes facilities such as ball fields, barbecue area, and picnic shelters (City
of Fontana, 2020f).
The project does not propose residential land uses or an increase in the resident population of the
city. While it is possible that employees at the project site may visit nearby parks, the potential impact
of these visits would be less than significant.
e) Other Public Facilities?
No Impact
Library services in the city are provided by the San Bernardino County Library System, which is
comprised of 32 branch libraries. Within the City of Fontana, there are three libraries: the Fontana
Lewis Library and Technology Center located at 8437 Sierra Avenue; the Summit Branch Library
located at 15551 Summit Avenue; and the Kaiser High School Library located at 11155 Almond
Avenue (San Bernardino County Public Library, 2020). The Fontana Lewis Library and Technology
Center is located approximately 1.6 miles north of the project site. The project is not of the scope or
scale to induce significant resident population growth in the city. Therefore, the project would have
no impact on other public facilities.
SECTION 4.16 – RECREATION
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.16-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
4.16 Recreation
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
X
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant Impact
Recreational services in the City of Fontana are provided by the City’s Department of Facilities and
Parks, which maintains over 40 parks, sports facilities, and community centers (City of Fontana,
2020a). The City’s park acreage standard is five acres of public park land per 1,000 thousand
residents. The City currently has approximately 1,359 acres total in parks and land for public use,
enough to meet this performance standard (Stantec, 2018a, p. 7.10).
The project proposes the development of 64,037 square feet of building area that would include a
grocery market and three quick service drive-through pads. The residential population is not
expected to increase as a result of the proposed project. While the project would create employment
opportunities (both during the construction and operational phases), it is anticipated that employees
from the local workforce would be hired during both phases. Moreover, the land uses immediately
surrounding the project site are primarily residential and/or commercial.
The parks nearest to the project include Jack Bulik Skate Park, located approximately 0.35 mile
northwest of the project site, and Veterans Park located approximately one mile northeast from the
project site. While it is possible that employees at the project site may visit these parks, the potential
impact of these visits would be less than significant.
SECTION 4.16 – RECREATION
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.16-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
No Impact
As described above, the project does not propose new or expanded recreational facilities that would
have potential adverse effects on the environment. Therefore, no impact would occur.
SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.17-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
4.17 Transportation
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
a) Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact
The following City and County plans, ordinances and policies would apply to the project.
City of Fontana Active Transportation Plan (ATP)
The 2017 Fontana ATP (Alta Planning and Design, 2017) is used to implement infrastructure
improvements for better connectivity throughout Fontana, to surrounding cities, and the region by
providing safe and comfortable walking and bicycling linkages (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.13-14).
City of Fontana Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program
The City’s DIF program was adopted pursuant to Government Code § 66000 et seq. Fontana’s
Development Services Department oversees the use of the DIF fees, which fund projects in the City’s
capital improvement program (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.13-14).
San Bernardino Congestion Management Program (CMP)
The intent of the CMP is to provide the analytical basis for transportation decisions through the
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process, a multi-year capital improvement
program of transportation projects on and off the State Highway System. The San Bernardino County
CMP, published by the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA), defines a network
of state highways and arterials in the county and provides guidelines regarding level of service (LOS)
standards, impact criteria, and a process for mitigation of impacts on CMP facilities (Stantec, 2018b,
p. 5.13-14). With certain exceptions, the minimum acceptable LOS for CMP facilities is defined as
SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.17-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
LOS “E.” More specifically, the CMP states, “In no case shall the LOS standards established be below
the LOS E or the current level, whichever is farthest from LOS A. When the LOS on a segment or at an
intersection fails to attain the established LOS standard, a deficiency plan shall be adopted pursuant
to Section 65089.4” (San Bernardino Associated Governments, 2016, p. 1-2). The San Bernardino
County CMP was last updated in 2016 (San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, 2018).
Existing Conditions and Proposed Project
The project site fronts on San Bernardino Avenue and Sierra Avenue. Vehicles would access the
facility via two driveways, one on Sierra Avenue and one on San Bernardino Avenue. Access for
pedestrians from the public right-of-way to the buildings onsite would be via the sidewalk on the
eastern portion of the project site, along Sierra Avenue, and the sidewalk on the southern portion of
the project site, along San Bernardino Avenue. The project site’s primary connections to the nearest
regional transportation corridor, the I-10 Freeway, is via Sierra Avenue approximately 0.64 mile
south of the project site (Google Earth Pro, 2020).
Public transit bus service is provided in the project area by Omnitrans. Three Omnitrans bus routes
operate within the vicinity of the project site on Sierra Avenue and/or San Bernardino Avenue with
connections to Colton, Redlands, Yucaipa, Ontario, Pomona, and Rancho Cucamonga (Linscott, Law,
& Greenspan Engineers, 2020). The service to some of these areas is via the Fontana Metrolink
Station located on Sierra Avenue approximately 1.1 miles north of the project site. The project site is
within walking distance of several existing bus stops, which currently serve and would continue to
serve the project site. The bus stops nearest to the project site are located on the northeast corner of
the intersection of Sierra Avenue at San Bernardino Avenue, on the west side of Sierra Avenue, just
south of Holly Drive, on the north side of San Bernardino Avenue, just west of Juniper Avenue, on the
west side of Sierra Avenue, north of Marygold Avenue, and on the east side of Sierra Avenue, just
north of Marygold Avenue (Linscott, Law, & Greenspan Engineers, 2020). No Class I, II or III bikeways
are located along the roads adjacent to the project site (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.13-2).
The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of the City General Plan’s Circulation
Element, the City’s ATP, and San Bernardino’s CMP, or interfere with public transit or bicycle
transportation, project impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Less than Significant Impact
Section 15064.3, Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts, of the CEQA Guidelines
describes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. Section
15064.3(b) includes criteria for analyzing transportation impacts. For land use projects, “Vehicle
miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact.
Generally, projects within a 0.5-mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing
high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation
impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing
conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact” (CEQA
Guidelines § 15064.3).
On June 9, 2020, the City of Fontana adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Thresholds for
determining transportation impacts pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. This adoption was required by
SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.17-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Senate Bill (SB) 743 and the recent changes to Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines. For the
purpose of CEQA analysis of VMT and traffic impacts associated with projects proposed in the City of
Fontana, the City also adopted Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
and Level of Service Assessment (City of Fontana, June 2020).
The TIA report prepared for the project (Linscott, Law, & Greenspan Engineers, 2020, p. 42-43)
included a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis consistent with the Technical Advisory on
Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA prepared by the State of California Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) (December, 2018) as well as the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis
Guidelines for VMT Assessment. The City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for VMT Assessment
consistent with the OPR Technical Advisory, provides project screening criteria and guidance for
analysis of VMT assessments. The following VMT screening criteria was utilized for the proposed
project.
The project is located within a 0.5-mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop
along a high-quality transit corridor.
The project is local serving retail less than 50,000 square feet.
Transit Service
As stated previously, public transit bus service is provided in the project area by Omnitrans. Three
Omnitrans bus routes (routes 19, 61, and 82) operate within the vicinity of the project site on
Sierra Avenue and/or San Bernardino Avenue with connections to Colton, Redlands, Yucaipa,
Ontario, Pomona, and Rancho Cucamonga. These routes provide service to some of these areas via
the Fontana Metrolink Station located on Sierra Avenue, approximately 1.1 miles north of the project
site. The bus stops nearest to the project site are located on the northeast corner of the intersection
of Sierra Avenue at San Bernardino Avenue and on the west side of Sierra Avenue, just south of
Holly Drive. These bus stops are located directly adjacent to the project frontage on Sierra Avenue
and are well within 0.5 mile of the project site (Linscott, Law, & Greenspan Engineers, 2020, p. 42).
Some frequencies between the three bus routes between the two bus stop locations are less than
every 15 minutes during the AM and PM peak periods and thus the project area qualifies as a high-
quality transit corridor. Therefore, based on City’s VMT Assessment guidelines, it was qualitatively
concluded that the proposed project be screened out from further VMT analysis (Linscott, Law, &
Greenspan Engineers, 2020, p. 42).
Local Serving Retail
The proposed project includes the construction of four buildings totaling 56,917 square feet. The four
buildings consist of a 42,850-square-foot supermarket (Northgate Market), and three additional
building pads as follows: Pad 1: a 6,690-square-foot multi-use building (inclusive of a
2,700-square-foot fast-food restaurant with drive-through window and a 3,990-square-foot
commercial business), Pad 2: a 2,300-square-foot fast-food restaurant with drive-through window,
and Pad 3: a 5,077-square-foot fast-food restaurant with drive-through window. Although the
proposed project would provide slightly greater than 50,000 square feet, the individual land uses of
the proposed project meet the OPR definition of local serving retail (Linscott, Law, & Greenspan
Engineers, 2020, p. 42).
SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.17-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Additionally, the proposed project is consistent with both the definition and location of the City of
Fontana General Plan designation of Neighborhood-Serving Retail. Therefore, based on the
aforementioned reasons, the TIA report qualitatively concluded that the proposed project be
screened out from further VMT analysis (Linscott, Law, & Greenspan Engineers, 2020, p. 42-43).
In conclusion, the proposed project is within 0.5 mile of a high-quality transit corridor and is
considered Neighborhood-Serving Retail per the City of Fontana General Plan, and is generally
consistent with OPR’s definition of local serving retail (when considered individually), it is concluded
that the project should be screened out from further VMT analysis and could be presumed to have a
less than significant VMT impact per the OPR Technical Advisory (Linscott, Law, & Greenspan
Engineers, 2020, p. 43).
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
Vehicles would access the facility via one driveway on Sierra Avenue and one driveway on
San Bernardino Avenue. Access for pedestrians from the public right-of-way to the buildings onsite
would be from the sidewalk on the eastern portion of the project site, along Sierra Avenue and the
sidewalk on the southern border of the project site, along San Bernardino Avenue. All onsite access
and sight-distance setbacks would be in accordance with City of Fontana and Caltrans design
requirements. The project site is currently developed but vacant. It was previously used as a car
dealership and has existing driveways along Sierra Avenue and San Bernardino Avenue. The
proposed project would improve driveway access to the site and therefore, would not increase
hazards due to a geometric design feature, such as the driveways.
As discussed in Section 4.11, the City’s General Plan land use designation for the project site is
WMXU-1 (City of Fontana, 2019). The City’s zoning designation for the project site is Sierra Gateway
FBC (City of Fontana, 2019). The proposed project would create a commercial development with a
market, restaurants and offices, which would adhere to the Sierra Gateway FBC zoning designation.
Therefore, the proposed project land use would be compatible with the designated land use and
would not increase hazards due to incompatible land use.
In conclusion, the proposed project would not substantially alter or impact roads, intersections, sight
lines, or land uses. The facility would not require farm equipment or other unusually slow vehicles
that would present a traffic hazard. Therefore, the project would not increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature or incompatible uses, and therefore, traffic hazard impacts would be less
than significant.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact
Construction
During the construction phase, lanes and sidewalks may be temporarily closed off. To ensure that
circulation and emergency access during construction is adequate, the City requires preparation and
implementation of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for all projects that require construction in the
SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.17-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
public right-of-way (ROW). The typical TMP requires such things as the installation of K-rail between
the construction area and open traffic lanes, the use of flagmen and directional signage to direct
traffic where only one travel lane is available or when equipment movement creates temporary
hazards, and the installation of steel plates to cover trenches under construction. Emergency access
must be maintained. Compliance with City requirements for traffic management during construction
in the public ROW would ensure adequate emergency access. The TMP would be reviewed and
approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer prior to the start of construction activity in the public
right-of-way. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access
during construction and impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
The project would comply with applicable City regulations, such as the requirement to comply with
the City’s Fire Code with regard to providing adequate emergency access, as well as the California
Building Standards Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City of Fontana would review
project site plans, including location of all buildings, access driveways and other features that may
affect emergency access. The driveways and site circulation would provide adequate emergency
access and parking that would accommodate emergency ingress and egress by fire trucks, police
units, and ambulance/paramedic vehicles. All onsite access and sight-distance requirements would
be in accordance with City and Caltrans design requirements. The City’s review process and
compliance with applicable regulations and standards would ensure that adequate emergency access
would be provided at the project site at all times. Therefore, the proposed project would not result
in inadequate emergency access and there would be no impacts in this regard.
SECTION 4.18 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.18-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register
of historical resources as defined
in Public Resources Code
section 5020.1(k)?
X
ii) A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1.
In applying the criteria set forth
in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource
to a California Native American
tribe.
X
4.18.4 Methods
Information from the Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory Report, dated June 5, 2020 (see
Appendix E), prepared by UltraSystems for the Northgate Market Center Project describes the
research for and analysis of potential cultural resources data conducted for the project. This research
included a cultural resources record search at the SCCIC of the California Historical Resources
Information System, a SLF record search by the NAHC, and a pedestrian survey assessment (refer to
Section 4.5).
No prehistoric archaeological resources were observed during the field survey. Previous cultural
resources surveys within the 0.5-mile radius resulted in no archaeological sites or isolates being
recorded. During the cultural resources record search at the SCCIC, no prehistoric resources were
present on the project site. The results of the pedestrian assessment indicate it is highly unlikely that
SECTION 4.18 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.18-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
prehistoric properties would be adversely affected by construction of the project. The cultural
resource study findings suggest that there is a low potential for finding prehistoric resources.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size
and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or
in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code
section 5020.1(k)?
No Impact
The Cultural Resources investigation determined that there are no Traditional Cultural Resources
(TCRs) listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)
within the project site or within a 0.5-mile radius surrounding the project site. Therefore, no impact
would occur.
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) requires meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes
regarding potential impacts on TCRs, as defined in Public Resources Code § 21074. TCRs are sites,
features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe that are either eligible or listed in the California Register of
Historical Resources or local register of historical resources (California Natural Resources Agency
[CNRA], 2007).
As part of the AB 52 process, Native American tribes must submit a written request to a lead agency
to be notified of projects within their traditionally and culturally affiliated area. The lead agency must
provide written, formal notification to those tribes within 14 days of deciding to undertake a project.
The tribe must respond to the lead agency within 30 days of receiving this notification if they want
to engage in consultation on the project, and the lead agency must begin the consultation process
within 30 days of receiving the tribe’s request. Consultation concludes when either (1) the parties
agree to mitigation measures (MMs) to avoid a significant effect on a TCR, or (2) a party, acting in
good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes mutual agreement cannot be reached.
In compliance with AB 52, letters were sent by the City of Fontana’s Planning Department (the lead
agency) (City) to all applicable Native American Tribes. Brett Hamilton, Associate Planner with the
City’s Community Development Department, is the City lead for this process. The letters were sent
April 7, 2020 by certified mail and emails were sent April 13, 2020 to the following tribes:
SECTION 4.18 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.18-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians,
Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians,
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians,
Cahuilla Band of Indians,
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation,
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians,
Gabrielino/Tongva Nation,
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council,
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe,
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla Band of Indians,
Morongo Band of Mission Indians,
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation,
Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians,
San Fernando Band of Mission Indians,
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians,
Serrano Nation of Mission Indians,
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, and
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians.
The City received a reply from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Gabrieleño –
Kizh Nation) on April 13, 2020, by email, asking about the project’s potential for ground disturbance.
Another email response was received by the city on April 14, 2020 from the Gabrieleño – Kizh Nation
with an attached letter requesting consultation. On April 17, 2020, Gabrieleño – Kizh Nation
Chairperson Salas emailed requesting the consultation take place on May 21, 2020. A consultation
teleconference call between the City and the Gabrieleño – Kizh Nation was conducted on
May 21, 2020. In the May 21, 2020 call, the Gabrieleño – Kizh Nation indicated that they are
concerned with the Northgate project and wanted to know if the City knew of any historical
information on prior soil disturbance. The City reported that the Northgate site was previously
occupied by a car dealership. The Gabrieleño – Kizh Nation understood that the site is currently paved
but indicated that they would like to know if native soil had been removed from the site and replaced
with non-native infill or whether the soil had just been graded. The tribe also indicated the desire to
be involved if native soil is still underneath the pavement. The City stated that as part of the project,
all of the existing pavement would need to be removed. The site is not very level so there is likely to
be a fair amount of grading at the site. No subsequent communications have been received from the
tribe.
The City received a response on April 14, 2020 from Jill McCormick of the Quechan Tribe of the
Fort Yuma Reservation indicating that they had no concerns with the project. A response was
received on April 13, 2020 from the Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians updating the tribal
chairperson and tribal administrative assistant contacts; the tribe had no comment on the project.
The Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians responded via email on April 21, 2020 that they defer
all comments to the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. There was no further follow up from the City
because the Soboba Band was not on the NAHC contact list received by the City. A response was
received from Jessica Mauck of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians on May 12, 2020 indicating
that the project area is in their traditional territory but they do not have concerns with the project.
Ms. Mauck did suggest two mitigation measures that would be addressed through project compliance
with the City’s standard conditions of approval for historic and archaeological resources. The
SECTION 4.18 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.18-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
remaining tribes did not reply to the city within the 30-day response period, nor have they done so
to date.
No prehistoric archaeological resources were observed during the field survey. The results of the
pedestrian assessment indicate it is highly unlikely that prehistoric properties will be adversely
affected by construction of the project. During the cultural resources record search at the SCCIC, no
prehistoric resources were found. The cultural resource study findings suggest that there is a low
potential for finding resources.
The cultural resource study findings (see Section 4.5) suggest that there is a low potential for finding
prehistoric resources. However, previous development on the project site was conducted prior to
CEQA cultural resources review requirements.
The City requires all development projects, in the City, to comply with the City’s standard conditions
of approval regarding historic and archaeological resources, provided above in Section 4.5.3 a). The
proposed project would be required to comply with the City's standard conditions of approval
regarding historic and archaeological resources. Compliance with the City’s standard conditions of
approval would ensure that project impacts on tribal cultural resources would be less than
significant.
SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.19-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State
or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
X
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact
Water Treatment: As detailed in threshold 4.19 b) below, there would be sufficient water supplies
to serve the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not require new or expanded water
facilities. The project would have a less than significant impact in this regard.
Wastewater Treatment: The City’s sanitary sewer system involves more than 250 miles of six-foot
to 42-inch sewer lines and six sewage pump stations (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.12-17). Regional domestic
wastewater treatment services are provided under the Regional Sewer Service Contract with the
Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). The City’s wastewater is treated at the IEUA’s Regional Plant
(RP)-1. The plant has undergone several expansions to increase the wastewater treatment capacity
SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.19-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
to its current 44 million gallons per day. The plant treats an average effluent wastewater flow of
approximately 28 million gallons per day (IEUA, 2020).
As shown in Table 4.19-1, the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 83 gallons
per day of wastewater. The estimated amount of wastewater generated daily by the proposed project
is a fraction of IEUA’s RP-1 daily capacity. Therefore, there is sufficient capacity available at the RP-1
to meet the demands of the proposed project.
Table 4.19-1
ESTIMATED PROJECT WASTEWATER GENERATION
Land Use
Generation Rate
Gallons Per Net Acre
Per Day (GPAD)1
Net Acres
Total Estimated
Wastewater
Generation
(GPD)
Commercial 10.76 7.7 82.85
Notes:
1 City of Fontana, General Plan Update FEIR, Table 5.12-8 Wastewater Generation Factors, pp. 5.12-17.
The project proposes offsite sewer improvements to connect the sewer lines from the project site to
the existing sewer network in San Bernardino Avenue. It proposes to construct a six-inch VCP sewer
line along the western edge of the site, including two sewer manholes with a connection to
San Bernardino Avenue, a proposed six-inch VCP sewer line southeast of the project with a second
connection on San Bernardino Avenue, and a proposed six-inch VCP sewer lateral east with a new
connection into Sierra Avenue. All sewer line sizes and connections are subject to review by the City.
The project applicant will work with the City’s Public Works Department for necessary approvals and
ensure compliance with applicable requirements. No new treatment facilities or expanded
entitlements will be required. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact
regarding wastewater treatment.
Stormwater Drainage: Stormwater drainage would be handled through use of the MaxWell Plus
drainage system and the Contech 72” CMP retention system, considered to be the industry standard
for draining large paved surfaces and nuisance water. The system, which provides both volume
retention by the 72” CMP system and treatment by deep infiltration by the Maxwell Plus Drainage
system. The 72” CMP will store over a combined volume of 14,800 cf. As detailed in the Water Quality
Management Plan for the proposed project, the recently developed Dunkin Donuts parcel just north
of the project site installed a Layfield Stormtank Underground Infiltration system in 2019, which
treats the required design capture volume (DCV). The proposed project would connect to the existing
storm drain stub downstream of the existing Layfield Stormtank Underground Infiltration system,
and would pipe the high-flow through the project site, which would ultimately discharge onto San
Bernardino Avenue (Blue Peak Engineering, Inc., 2020, p. 1-1).
The proposed project would be designed in compliance with applicable City of Fontana regulations
regarding stormwater runoff and the project would be reviewed by the City of Fontana Public Works
Department to ensure that the development would not create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems. Refer to
Section 4.10 of this IS for additional information.
SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.19-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Electric Power: Electric power for the City of Fontana is provided by SCE (City of Fontana Utilities,
2020). The proposed project is located in a developed area, and infrastructure for providing electric
power to the area is well established. SCE typically utilizes existing utility corridors to reduce
environmental impacts, and has energy-efficiency programs to reduce energy usage and maintain
reliable service throughout the year (Southern California Edison, 2019). The project would be
constructed in accordance with applicable Title 24 regulations, and would not necessitate the
construction or relocation of electric power facilities. Therefore, a less than significant impact would
occur.
Natural Gas: SoCalGas is the primary distributor of retail and wholesale natural gas across Southern
California, including the City of Fontana. SoCalGas provides services to residential, commercial, and
industrial consumers, and also provides gas for electric generation customers. In its 2018 California
Gas Report, SoCalGas analyzed an 18-year demand period, from 2018-2035, to determine its ability
to meet projected demand (California Gas and Electric Utilities, 2018. p. 63).
SoCalGas expects total gas demand to decline 0.74 percent annually from 2018 to 2035 as a result of
energy-efficiency standards and programs, renewable electricity goals, modest economic growth in
its service region, and advanced metering infrastructure (California Gas and Electric Utilities, 2018,
p. 66). Moreover, SoCalGas plans on implementing aggressive energy-efficiency programs that will
result in natural gas savings across all sectors that will ensure longevity of its natural gas supplies
and adequate generation rates (California Gas and Electric Utilities, 2018, p. 78). Therefore,
anticipated natural gas supply is adequate to meet demand in the SoCalGas region, and the proposed
project is not expected to impact this determination. Thus, no natural gas facilities would have to be
constructed or relocated to accommodate the proposed project, and a less than significant impact
would occur.
Telecommunications Facilities: Telecommunication services, including internet, phone, and
television, for the city of Fontana are provided by AT&T (City of Fontana Utilities, 2020). The
proposed project would be served by existing telecommunication facilities. Therefore, the project
would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunications
facilities. The project would have a less than significant impact in this regard.
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
Fontana Water Company manages water supply for much of the City of Fontana, including the project
area. It provides water utility service to a population of about 223,000 persons. Besides the City of
Fontana, the company also serves portions of Rialto and Rancho Cucamonga, as well as adjacent
unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County. Fontana Water Company’s service area covers
approximately 52 square miles with 38 wells, 17 storage reservoirs, and 3.5 million feet of water
distribution mains (Fontana Water Company, 2017, p. 3-1).
The primary sources of water supply for the Fontana Water Company service area are local
groundwater, local surface water, and imported surface water. The sources of water provided to
Fontana Water Company's customers, as of July 2015, were approximately 73 percent groundwater,
five percent local surface water, and 22 percent water from the State Water Project. Groundwater is
produced from the Chino Basin, Rialto Basin, Lytle Basin, and No Man’s Land basin. Water to
SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.19-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
replenish the Chino Basin is purchased from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(MWD) by IEUA in cooperation with the Chino Basin Watermaster. Local surface water from
Lytle Creek and imported surface water from the State Water Project is treated at Fontana Water
Company's Sandhill Surface Water Treatment Plant (Fontana Water Company, 2017, 7-1).
The most recent Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) prepared for Fontana Water Company,
written in 2015 and amended in 2017, estimated the future demands and supplies for the company’s
service area. The quantity of supply available from different water supply sources can vary from year
to year, depending on hydrologic conditions; however, Fontana Water Company supplies are
adequate to meet current and projected population demands through 2040 (Fontana Water
Company, 2017, Table 7-4. p. 7-5). The service area growth forecast was based on the regional growth
forecast for Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)’s 2012–2035 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
The proposed project would result in the construction of a new commercial shopping center that
would not induce population growth as a result of construction or operation. Fontana Water
Company calculated its actual 2015 water use for the 2015 calendar year, which showed an urban
per capita water use of 140 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) (Fontana Water Company, 2017). The
projected water use for 2020 was calculated to be 156 GPCD based on the average overall GPCD from
2014 to 2015 (Fontana Water Company, 2017, p.4-3).
To determine the reliability of its water supplies, Fontana Water Company analyzed anticipated
water supply and demand for normal, dry, and multiple dry years. These analyses totaled the amount
of water expected from each of its supplies during various types of years, and compared them with
anticipated demand, accounting for water conservation policies to be implemented in dry years. As
shown in Table 4.19-2 below, water supplies are adequate to meet projected demand in normal, dry,
and multiple dry years.
Table 4.19-2
DETAIL OF WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND1
Normal Year1 Single Dry Year1 Multiple Dry Years1,3 (3)
Supply Demand Supply Demand Supply Demand
2020 40,140 40,140 29,998 29,998 29,998 29,998
2025 47,536 47,356 35,526 35,526 35,526 35,526
2030 50,773 50,773 37,945 37,945 37,945 37,945
2035 53,711 53,711 40,141 40,141 40,141 40,141
2040 56,562 56,562 42,272 42,272 42,272 42,272
Notes:
1Volumes are in acre-feet (AF).
2Volumes are for third of three consecutive dry years.
Source: Fontana Water Company, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, pp. 7.5-7.7
Moreover, although the project would use water during project operation, increased water use from
projects such as the proposed project have been accounted for in the latest UWMP prepared for
Fontana Water Company. The UWMP found that with its current water supplies, planned future
water supplies, and water conservation, Fontana Water Company will be able to reliably provide
SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.19-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
water to its customers. Although a minor increase in the demand for water would occur as a result
of the project, the increase would not be significant because adequate water supplies and facilities
are available to serve the proposed project, and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact
As described in Section 4.19 a) above, the estimated volume of wastewater generated by the
proposed project would comprise only a small fraction of the IEUA’s daily wastewater treatment
capacity. Therefore, the estimated wastewater generated by the project would be within the existing
capacity of the wastewater treatment provider and less than significant impacts would occur.
d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
Less than Significant Impact
Solid waste disposal services for the City of Fontana are provided by Burrtec Waste Industries, a
private company under franchise agreement with the City. Burrtec also operates the City’s curbside
recycling (including greenwaste recycling) program. Currently, the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill
located adjacent to the City of Fontana, in Rialto, is the primary solid waste depository for the area
(Stantec, 2018a, p. 10.8).
The current maximum permitted throughput of the Mid-Valley Landfill is 7,500 tons per day. As of
2019, the facility had 61,219,377 cubic yards of capacity remaining and an anticipated closure year
of 2045 (CalRecycle, 2020).
Project construction and operation would generate solid waste requiring disposal at local landfills.
Materials generated during construction of the project would include paper, cardboard, metal,
plastics, glass, concrete, lumber scraps and other materials. During construction (short-term) and
operation (long-term), bulk solid waste, excess building material, fill, and other construction-related
solid waste, would be disposed of in a manner consistent with State of California Integrated Waste
Management Act of 1989 (CIWMA) and would be removed from the project site. Existing regulations
related to recycling during construction and operation phases of the project require that the project
provide readily accessible areas that serve the entire building and are identified for the depositing,
storage, and collection of nonhazardous materials for recycling, including (at a minimum) paper,
corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics, and metals.
The project’s estimated solid waste generation in tons per day is estimated below in Table 4.19-3.
The proposed project is estimated to generate 0.933 tons of solid waste per day. The current
permitted solid waste disposal at the Mid-Valley Landfill is 7,500 tons per day. Therefore, the
project’s construction waste would represent a small fraction of the City’s landfill capacity.
SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.19-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Table 4.19-3
ESTIMATED PROJECT-GENERATED SOLID WASTE
Project
Component Land Use Solid Waste Generation
Rate1
Approximate
Square Footage
Estimated Waste
(tons/day)
Northgate
Gonzalez
Market
Supermarket 3.12 pounds per 100 square
feet per day
42,850 0.668
Shops Shopping Center 2.5 pounds per 100 square
feet per day 7,120 0.089
Pad 1 Shopping Center 2.5 pounds per 100 square
feet per day 6,690 0.084
Pad 2 Shopping Center 2.5 pounds per 100 square
feet per day 2,300 0.029
Pad 3 Shopping Center 2.5 pounds per 100 square
feet per day 5,077 0.063
Notes:
1 Cal Recycle, 2020. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Accessed online at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates, accessed on June 6, 2020. As a “worst case”
analysis, the generation rate for shopping center was used for the square footage of the project that is not the proposed
market because it has a higher solid waste generation rate (2.5 pounds per 100 square feet per day) than the category
of Restaurant (with a generation rate of 0.005 pounds per square feet per day).
The project’s estimated increase of 0.933 tons of waste per day represents a small fraction of the
Mid-Valley Landfill’s daily capacity (0.0001%). Since sufficient permitted landfill capacity exists to
support operation of the proposed project, no adverse impact on either solid waste collection service
or the landfill disposal system would occur. Therefore, project impacts on existing solid waste
disposal facilities would be less than significant.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact
In 1989, the California Legislature enacted the California Integrated Waste Management Act
(AB 939), in an effort to address solid waste problems and capacities in a comprehensive manner.
The law required each city and county to divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills by the year
2000.
The San Bernardino Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (SBCIWMP) outlines the goals,
policies, and programs the County and its cities would implement to create an integrated and
cost-effective waste management system that complies with the provisions of AB 939 and its
diversion mandates. The Infrastructure and Green Systems Element of the City of Fontana General
Plan outlines programs to reduce, recycle and properly divert solid waste from sanitary landfills
(Stantec, 2018a, p. 10.8).
Solid waste generated by the project would be collected by Burrtec Waste Industries, the designated
waste hauler, and transported offsite to transfer facilities and landfills for reuse, recycling and/or
disposal, as appropriate (Stantec, 2018b, p. 5.12-20). Burrtec delivers solid waste to the Mid-Valley
Landfill, which operates under a permit from San Bernardino County Department of Public Health,
Solid Waste Management Division which requires regular reporting and monitors compliance.
SECTION 4.19 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.19-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
The proposed project would comply with the SBCIWMP and the City’s waste reduction procedures
and comply with applicable elements of AB 1327, Chapter 18 (California Solid Waste Reuse and
Recycling Access Act of 1991) and other applicable local, state, and federal solid waste disposal
standards, thereby ensuring that the solid waste stream to regional landfills is reduced in accordance
with existing regulations. Impacts are considered less than significant.
SECTION 4.20 – WILDFIRE
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.20-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
4.20 Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility
areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X
A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire that spreads through vegetative fuels, posing danger and
threatening life and property. Wildfires can occur in undeveloped areas and spread to urban areas,
where development can be heavily concentrated. The City is surrounded by foothills that have steep
terrain and light, flashy fuels, and the predominate weather patterns feature high temperatures and
low humidity, as well as seasonal high-speed Santa Ana winds. These factors together, with many
homes that are built near or in the interface zone, have created a potential for significant damage due
to wildfire. Historically, most of the wildfires in the City have occurred in northwest Fontana, with
occasional fires in the Jurupa Hills. Northwest Fontana has high chaparral vegetation, steep slopes
and is subject to hot Santa Ana winds blowing down the Cajon Pass. The Jurupa Hills have high
grasses and steep slopes. The City has established a Fire Hazard Overlay District in sections of
North Fontana and open space areas in South Fontana to reduce risk from wildfire.
The project site is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone Local Responsibility Area. Review of the
CAL FIRE Fire Resource and Assessment Program (FRAP) maps for state responsibility areas (SRAs)
in San Bernardino County indicates that the project site is not located in an SRA (CAL FIRE, 2020).
Moreover, the City of Fontana does not contain any areas classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones (VHFHSZs) in state responsibility areas. A portion of land along the city’s southern boundary,
is classified as a VHFHSZ under a local responsibility area (LRA) (CAL FIRE, 2008). This region is
separated from the project site by Interstate 10 and other developed areas of the city. Therefore, the
project site is not located in a fire hazard severity zone, and is not located in a fire hazard severity
zone for either an SRA or an LRA, as detailed in Figure 4.9-2, Fire Hazard Severity Zone - State
SECTION 4.20 – WILDFIRE
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.20-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Responsibility Area and Figure 4.9-3, Fire Hazard Severity Zone - Local Responsibility Area, provided
in Section 4.9 of this Initial Study.
a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact
As detailed above, the project site is not located in or near areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones. The city’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) anticipates that all interstates
would serve as evacuation routes, and Interstate 10 is located 0.7 miles south of the site, accessible
from an onramp on Sierra Avenue. The city has accommodated for continued growth and
development in VHFHSZs and the proposed project would not affect efficacy of established fire-safety
plans. Since the project is not located in an SRA or LRA and development near LRAs and VHFHSZs
has been accounted for in the City’s safety plans, the project would not impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (City
of Fontana, 2018b). Thus, no impact would occur.
b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact
As detailed above, the project site is not located in or near areas or lands classified as VHFHSZs. No
slopes are located on the project site which could exacerbate wildfire risks. The project is located in
central Fontana and historically, northwestern Fontana has faced the majority of wildfires in the city
due to slopes and Santa Ana winds blowing down from the Cajon Pass. These fires have been
contained in that region, and are not anticipated to affect central and southern areas of the city,
including the project site (Stantec, 2018b, pp. 5.7-10–5.7-11). Therefore, the project would not
expose project occupants (i.e., those working at the project site during project operations) to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire and no impact would
occur.
c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact
As detailed above, the project site is not located in or near areas or lands classified as VHFHSZs. The
project would not require the installation or maintenance of infrastructure that may exacerbate fire
risk. As demonstrated in this document, neither construction nor operation of the project would, after
implementation of mitigation, result in significant temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.
The project would be constructed in compliance with applicable building and fire codes. Therefore,
the proposed project would have no impact in this regard.
SECTION 4.20 – WILDFIRE
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.20-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Less Than Significant Impact
As detailed above, the project site is not located in or near areas or lands classified as VHFHSZs. The
proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes. The project site is relatively flat and is not located in an area with high slopes or unstable
ground conditions. Moreover, the City of Fontana 2017 LHMP, states that there have been no
historical occurrences of landslides in the city. The majority of the City of Fontana, including the
project site, has relatively stable geology and soils with a very low risk of liquefaction (Stantec, 2018b,
p. 5.5-10). Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact in this regard.
SECTION 4.21 – MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.21-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Does the project have:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) The potential to substantially degrade
the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major
periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
b) Impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
X
c) Environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
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 Impact with Mitigation
Section 4.4 of this document addresses impacts on biological resources. The project site is located
in an urbanized setting. The project site provides low habitat value for special-status plant and
wildlife species. No special-status plants or wildlife28 were observed within the project site. Thus, no
direct or indirect impacts on special-status plants or wildlife species are anticipated. The project site
supports ornamental vegetation that could potentially provide cover and nesting habitat for bird
28 Special status species include candidate and sensitive species.
SECTION 4.21 – MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.21-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
species that have adapted to urban areas, and are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code. With the implementation of mitigation measures
BIO-1 and BIO-2, the project would have a less than significant impact on nesting bird species.
Section 4.5 of this document addresses potential impacts on Cultural Resources. The project would
be built on a vacant parking lot that used to operate as a car dealership. Based on the cultural
resources records search, it was determined that no historic cultural resources have been previously
recorded within the project site boundary. The result of the pedestrian survey was negative for both
prehistoric and historic sites and isolates on the project site. Based on the results of the records
search, tribal consultation, and the onsite field survey, it is unlikely that cultural resources or tribal
resources would be adversely affected by construction of the project. No human remains have been
previously identified or recorded onsite. It is unlikely that undisturbed unique archaeological
resources exist on the project site. However, grading activities associated with development of the
project would cause new subsurface disturbance and could potentially result in the unanticipated
discovery of archaeological resources. Compliance with City’s standard conditions of approval
regarding historic and archaeological resources and mitigation measure CUL-3 are recommended to
reduce potential impacts on archeological resources and human remains to a less than significant
level.
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 Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
The proposed project would be consistent with regional plans and programs that address
environmental factors such as air quality, water quality, and other applicable regulations that have
been adopted by public agencies with jurisdiction over the project for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating environmental effects.
Sections 4.3 and 4.13 of this document address potential impacts related to Air Quality and Noise,
respectively. As detailed in Section 4.3, air quality impacts associated with project construction and
operation would be less than significant and do not warrant mitigation. As detailed in Section 4.13,
construction and operational noise impacts associated with the project site were found to be less
than significant and do not warrant mitigation.
The project would create employment opportunities (both during the construction and operational
phases); employees from the local workforce would be hired during both the construction and
operational phases of the project. The project is not of the scope or scale to induce people to move
from outside of the project area to work at the proposed project. The project does not include a
housing component or otherwise support an increase in the resident population of the City and
would utilize existing infrastructure for its operation. Therefore, indirect population growth
resulting solely from the project is expected to be less than significant.
Because the project would not increase environmental impacts after mitigation measures are
incorporated, the incremental contribution to cumulative impacts is anticipated to be less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
SECTION 4.21 – MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 4.21-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated
The Phase I ESA report prepared for the project states that there are several Recognized
Environmental Concerns (RECs) identified for the project site being that the project site was a long-
term car dealership that handled a large amount of petroleum products and other car dealership
related hazardous materials. Additionally, the adjacent properties, a gasoline station and a tire shop,
also held large amount of petroleum products that could have potentially leaked to the project site,
which is also an REC. As detailed in Section 4.9 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), due to the project
site’s previous use and adjacent properties, there is a potential for contamination of the soils from
petroleum products. With the implementation of mitigation measure HAZ-1, potential impacts
associated with handling of subsurface soils during project construction would be less than
significant.
As discussed in Sections 4.3 through 4.8 of this document, after the implementation of mitigation
measures, potential adverse environmental effects were found to be less than significant on human
beings, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur.
SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 5-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
5.0 REFERENCES
Alta Planning + Design et. al, 2017. City of Fontana Active Transportation Plan (ATP). Adopted
November 14, 2017. Accessed online at:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/27009/ATP-Final-Report, on June 17,
2020.
ARB (California Air Resources Board), 2016. Changes to California’s Commercial Vehicle Idling
Regulation. Accessed online at https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/factsheet.pdf,
accessed on May 29, 2020.
ARB, 2020a. Proposed 2018 Amendments to Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality
Standards. California Air Resources Board. December 2018.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2019/areadesignations. Effective date July 9, 2019.
Accessed June 17, 2020.
ARB, 2020b. iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics. California Air Resources Board.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam. Accessed June 17, 2020.
Blue Peak Engineering, Inc., 2020. Water Quality Management Plan Prepared for Fontana Multi-
Tenant. January 20, 2020.
BREEZE Software, 2017a. California Emissions Estimator Model. User’s Guide, Version 2016.3.2.
Prepared for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, in collaboration with
South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Districts. November
2017.
BREEZE Software, 2017b. California Emissions Estimator Model. User’s Guide, Version 2016.3.2,
Appendix E. Technical Source Documentation. Prepared for the California Air Pollution
Control Officers Association, in collaboration with South Coast Air Quality Management
District and the California Air Districts. November 2017.
CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency), 2006. Climate Action Team Report to
Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature. California Environmental
Protection Agency, Climate Action Team. March 2006.
CALFIRE, 2020. State Responsibility Area Viewer. Available at: https://calfire-
forestry.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=73510b7d74ee410fbfd9
e73725ddad04. Accessed on April 1, 2020.
CALFIRE, 2008. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Accessed online at
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5943/fontana.pdf. Accessed on April 1, 2020.
California Gas and Electric Utilities, 2018. 2018 California Gas Report, Available on line at:
https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/documents/cgr/2018_California_Gas_Report.pdf.
Accessed March, 20, 2020.
California Seismic Safety Commission, 2020. Tsunami Information. What is a Tsunami? Accessed
online at: https://ssc.ca.gov/disasters/tsunami.html on March 20, 2020.
SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 5-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
CalRecycle, 2020. CalRecycle website, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/36-
AA-0055/. Accessed April 1, 2020.
Caltrans, 2015. California Department of Transportation. Scenic Highway Mapping System. Accessed
online at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-
community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed in June 2, 2020.
CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association), 2008. CEQA & Climate Change.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. January 2008.
CAPCOA, 2013. California Emissions Estimator Model®, Version 2013.2, Appendix E. California Air
Pollution Control Officers Association. July 2013.
CAPCOA, 2017. California Emissions Estimator Model®, Version 2016.3.2. California Air Pollution
Control Officers Association. November 2017.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife), 2020. California Natural Diversity Database
(CNNNB). Available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp.
Accessed June 4, 2020.
CDFW and DOJ (California Department of Justice), 2018. Legal Advisory on Migratory Bird Act.
Available online at https://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2018/11/29/attorney-general-
becerra-and-the-california-department-of-fish-and-wildlife-issue-legal-advisory-on-
migratory-bird-treaty-act. Accessed in May 2020.
CGS, 2020. Tsunami Inundation Zones. Accessed online at https://ssc.ca.gov/disasters/tsunami.html
Accessed on March 20, 2020.
Chico, T. and Koizumi, J. 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. South Coast Air
Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, California. June 2003. Revised June 2008.
City of Fontana, 2015. City of Fontana Draft Climate Action Plan. Fontana Community Development
Department. August 2015. Accessed online at:
https://cdm16255.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16255coll1/id/169/ , on March
19, 2020.
City of Fontana, 2017. City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at
https://www.fontana.org/3196/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan-LHMP. Downloaded on
March 20, 2020.
City of Fontana, 2018a. Police Org Chart.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/22742/PD-Org-Chart?bidId=. Accessed
on April 1, 2020.
City of Fontana, 2018b. Hazard Screening Maps.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29774/LHMP-Appendix-E---Hazard-
Screening-Maps. Accessed on April 1, 2020.
SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 5-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
City of Fontana, 2019. General Plan Land Use Map. Accessed online at
https://www.fontana.org/854/Zoning-General-Plan-Information-Maps , accessed on
March 17, 2020.
City of Fontana, 2019b. Adopted Operating Budget.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29901/2019--2020-Adopted-
Operating-Budget?bidId=. Accessed on April 1, 2020.
City of Fontana, 2020a. Facilities and Parks. https://www.fontana.org/156/Facilities-Parks.
Accessed on March 27, 2020.
City of Fontana, 2020b. Fire Stations. https://www.fontana.org/639/Stations-Equipment. Accessed
on April 1, 2020.
City of Fontana, 2020c. Police. https://www.fontana.org/2808/Contact-Us. Accessed on April 1,
2020.
City of Fontana, 2020d. Business Resource Center. https://www.fontana.org/761/Business-
Resource-Center. Accessed on April 1, 2020.
City of Fontana, 2020e. Bulik Skate Park. https://www.fontana.org/1429/Jack-Bulik-Skate-Park.
Accessed on April 1, 2020.
City of Fontana, 2020f. Veterans Park. https://www.fontana.org/731/Veterans-Park. Accessed on
April 1, 2020.
City of Fontana, 2020g. Facilities and Parks. Accessed online at
https://www.fontana.org/156/Facilities-Parks , accessed on June 5, 2020.
City of Fontana, June 2020. Regular City Council Meeting Action Report and Traffic Impact Analysis
Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service Assessment, adopted by
the City on June 9, 2020.
City of Fontana Departments, 2020. Accessed online at https://www.fontana.org/8/Departments ,
accessed on June 17, 2020.
City Fontana Form-Based Code, 2020. Accessed online at
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/zoning_and_development_code?nodeId=A
RTICLE_III.__%20FORM%20BASE%20CODE%20-%20redlines%20after%20CC. Accessed
on March 16, 2020.
City of Fontana Municipal Code, 2020. Available at: https://www.fontana.org/90/Municipal-Code.
Accessed March 17, 2020.
City of Fontana Utilities, 2020. City of Fontana Utilities. Accessed online at
https://www.fontana.org/3032/Utilities , accessed on March 19, 2020.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society), 2020. Available online at:
http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/inventory/. Accessed May 11, 2020.
SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 5-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
CNRA (California Natural Resources Agency), 2007. The California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Electronic document.
County of San Bernardino, 2010. County of San Bernardino General Plan: Hazard Overlay [map].
March 9, 2010. Accessed online at:
http://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/lus/hazmaps/fh21b_20100309.pdf on March 20,
2020.
CWE, 2016. City of Fontana Final Water Quality Management Plan Handbook. Prepared for the City
of Fontana, September 2016. Available online at:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/19908/WQMP-Handbook. Downloaded
on November 22, 2019.
Day, Robert W., 2000. Geotechnical Engineer’s Portable Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
DOC (California Department of Conservation), 2016. Important Farmland.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/SanBernardino.aspx. Accessed on
April 1, 2020.
DOC, 2019a. Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands. Accessed online at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/smgb/Guidelines/Documents/ClassDesig.pdf on April
1, 2020.
DOC, 2020a. Williamson Act. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa/Pages/stats_reports.aspx.
Accessed on April 1, 2020.
DOC, 2020b. Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources- Well Search.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#openModal/-
117.43568/34.07758/16. Accessed on April 1, 2020.
DOT, 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. California Department
of Transportation, Division of Environmental Analysis. September 2013.
eBird, 2020. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Available online at: http://www.ebird.org. Accessed May
2020.
EPA, 2020a. WATERS GeoViewer. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-
geoviewer. Accessed in May 2020.
EPA, 2020b. Cortese List. Accessed online at https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist, accessed
on June 2, 2020.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for San
Bernardino County, California, and Incorporated Areas (FIRM 06071C8654H and
06071C8658H). Available at https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?#searchresultsanchor .
Downloaded on March 20, 2020.
SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 5-5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Fontana Water Company, 2017. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, Amended December 2017.
Available at: https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/San-Gabriel-
Fontana_Amended-Final-December-2017-1.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2020.
FTA, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment: Federal Transit Administration, Office of
Planning and Environment, FTA-VA-90-1003-06. May.
FUSD (Fontana Unified School District), 2019. A Quick Reference to Fontana Unified School District,
September 2018. Available online at:
https://ca50000190.schoolwires.net/cms/lib/CA50000190/Centricity/Domain/143/201
8-19%20Fontana%20Flash%20Facts.pdf . Accessed on April 1, 2020.
GMI, 2020. What is a Global Warming Potential? And Which One Do I Use? GHG Management Institute.
https://ghginstitute.org/2010/06/28/what-is-a-global-warming-potential/. Accessed
June 17, 2020.
Google Earth Pro, 2020. Accessed at: https://www.google.com/earth/ on March 31, 2020.
ICF Jones & Stokes, 2009. Technical Noise Supplement. Prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes, Sacramento,
California for California Department of Transportation, Division of Environmental Analysis,
Sacramento, California. November 2009.
Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), 2020. Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 1. Accessed online
at: https://www.ieua.org/facilities/regional-water-recycling-plant-no-1/ on March 19,
2020.
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007.
Jones, Lucile M., Richard Bernknopf, Dale Cox, James Goltz, Kenneth Hudnut, Dennis Mileti, Suzanne
Perry, Daniel Ponti, Keith Porter, Michael Reichle, Hope Seligson, Kimberley Shoaf, Jerry
Treiman, and Anne Wein, 2008. The ShakeOut Scenario: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 2008-1150 and California Geological Survey Preliminary Report 25. Available at
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1150/. Downloaded on August 15, 2019.
Lancaster, Jeremy T., Janis L. Hernandez, Wayne D. Hayden, Timothy E. Dawson, and Cheryl A.
Hayhurst, 2012: Geologic Map of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in Southern California,
Lancaster, 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle. California Geological Society Special Report 217, Plate 22.
LL&G (Linscott, Law, & Greenspan Engineers), 2020. Traffic Impact Analysis Report, Northgate
Market Center, Fontana, California, April 17, 2020.
Michael Baker International, 2016. Action Plan for Implementing the North Fontana Conservation
Program. Prepared for the City of Fontana. Available online at
https://novus.fontana.org/AttachmentViewer.ashx?AttachmentID=12873&ItemID=9794.
Accessed in May 2020.
Morton, Douglas M. and Fred K. Miller, 2003. Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Bernardino 30’ X
60” Quadrangle, California.
SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 5-6
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Omnitrans, 2020, Omnitrans Bus Book, accessed online at: https://omnitrans.org/getting-
around/maps-schedules/, on April 1, 2020.
OPR (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research), 2017. General Plan Guidelines: 2017 Update.
Accessed online at http://opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html , accessed on
March 20, 2020.
OPR, 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts In CEQA. Accessed online at:
https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf, on June 17, 2020.
RBF, 2012. Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan. Prepared for the City of Fontana, adopted June
12, 2012. Available at https://www.fontana.org/1297/Southwest-Industrial-Park-Specific-
Plan. Downloaded on March 18, 2020.
Riverside ALUC, 2004. Flabob Airport Land Use Plan. Accessed online at
http://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/PDFGeneral/plan/newplan/14-
%20Vol.%201%20Flabob.pdf , accessed on March 18, 2020.
RWQCB, 2010. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Waste
Discharge Requirements For San Bernardino, and the Incorporated Cities of San Bernardino
County Within the Santa Ana Region. Accessed online at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders/20
10/10_036_SBC_MS4_Permit_01_29_10.pdf, accessed on March 20, 2020.
Salem Engineering Group, Inc., 2020. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation. Prepared for
Northridge Gonzalez Markets, Inc. January 17, 2020.
SANBAG, 2014. San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. San Bernardino
Associated Governments. March 2014.
San Bernardino Associated Governments, 2016. San Bernardino County Congestion Management
Plan, 2016 Update. Accessed online at: https://www.gosbcta.com/plans-
projects/CMP/CMP16-Complete-061416.pdf, Accessed April 1, 2020.
San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, 2018. Congestion Management Plan. Accessed
online at: https://www.gosbcta.com/plans-projects/plans-traffic-mitigation.html,
Accessed on April 1, 2020.
San Bernardino County Public Library, 2020. Library Locations.
http://www.sbclib.org/LibraryLocations.aspx. Accessed on April 1, 2020.
SCAQMD, 2008a. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance
Threshold. South Coast Air Quality Management District. October 2008.
SCAQMD, 2010. Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.
September 28, 2010. South Coast Air Quality Management Board. September 28, 2010.
SCAQMD, 2017a. Letter from Wayne Nastri, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management
District, Diamond Bar, CA to Richard Corey, Executive Officer, California Air Resources
Board, Sacramento, California re Submittal of 2016 Air Quality Management Plan.
SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 5-7
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
SCAQMD, 2017b. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. South Coast Air Quality Management
District. March 2017.
SCAQMD, 2020. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. South Coast Air Quality Management
District. Revision: March 2015. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. Accessed June 17,
2020.
SoCalGas (Southern California Gas Company), 2020. Natural Gas Transmission. Accessed online at:
https://www.socalgas.com/stay-safe/pipeline-and-storage-safety/natural-gas-
transmission on March 19, 2020.
Southern California Edison, 2019. Meeting Demand. Accessed online at:
https://www.sce.com/about-us/reliability/meeting-demand on March 20, 2020.
Stantec, et al., 2018a. City of Fontana General Plan. Accessed online at
https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015---2035 , accessed on March
17, 2020.
Stantec, et al, 2018b. City of Fontana General Plan EIR. Accessed online at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-
Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update , accessed on March 17, 2020.
Terrax Environmental Engineering and Consulting, 2019. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Prepared for 9610 and 9612 Sierra Avenue. July 17, 2019.
USDA, 2020. Web Soil Survey. Available online at:
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed April 2, 2020.
USEPA, 2020. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases. Accessed June 17, 2020.
USEPA, 2020a. 8-Hour Ozone (2015) Nonattainment Area State/Area/County Report: Green Book.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Current Data as of September 30, 2019.
[https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/jncs.html#CA]. Accessed June 17, 2020.
USEPA, 2020a. Nitrogen Dioxide (1971) Maintenance Area (Redesignated from Nonattainment)
State/Area/County Report.: Green Book. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Current
[https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/nmcs.html]. Data as of September 30, 2019.
Accessed June 17, 2020.
USEPA, 2020b. PM-10 (1987) Maintenance Area (Redesignated from Nonattainment)
State/Area/County Report: Green Book. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Current
[https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/pmcs.html#CA]. Current Data as of
September 30, 2019. Accessed June 17, 2020.
SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 5-8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
USEPA, 2020c. PM-2.5 (2012) Designated Area State/Area/County Report: Green Book. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Current Data as of September 30, 2019.
[https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/kbcs.html#CA]. Accessed June 17, 2020.
USFWS, 2020a. Information, Planning and Conservation (IPaC). Available online at:
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed March 25, 2020.
USFWS, 2020b. National Wetlands Inventory. Available online at:
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. Accessed March 25, 2020.
USFWS, 2020c. Critical Habitat Portal. Available online at:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html. Accessed March 25, 2020.
USGS (United States Geological Survey), 2020a. 7.5-Minute Topographic Map Devore Quadrangle.
Available online at: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/. Accessed March 2020.
USGS, 2020b. Available online at: http://nhd.usgs.gov/. Accessed March 25, 2020.
West Yost Associates, 2016. Final 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, Amended December 2017.
Prepared for the Fontana Water Company. Accessed online at:
https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/San-Gabriel-
Fontana_Amended-Final-December-2017-1.pdf on November 22, 2019.
WRCC, 2019. Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries, Western Regional Climate Center.
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climsum.html. Accessed June 17, 2020.
SECTION 6.0 – LIST OF PREPARERS
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 6-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
6.1 Lead Agency (CEQA)
Brett Hamilton, Associate Planner
City of Fontana
909-350-6656
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana CA 92335-3528
6.2 Project Applicant
Northgate Gonzalez Markets
1201 N. Magnolia Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92801
6.3 UltraSystems Environmental, Inc.
6.3.1 Environmental Planning Team
Betsy Lindsay, M.A., MURP, ENV SP, Project Director
Hina Gupta, MURP, LEED AP, Project Manager
Billye Breckenridge, B.A., Deputy Project Manager
6.3.2 Technical Team
Allison Carver, B.S./B.A., Senior Biologist
David Luhrsen, B.S., Word Processing/Administrative Assistant
Hugo Flores, B.S., Staff Biologist
Joe O’Bannon, B.S., Senior Engineer
Margaret Partridge, M.A., AICP, LEED Green Associate, ENV SP, QA/QC
Megan Black Doukakis, M.A., Archaeological Technician
Michael Rogozen, D. Env, Senior Principal Engineer
Michelle Tollett, B.A., Senior Biologist
Mike Lindsay, B.S., Operations Director
Omar Sarsour, P.E., Traffic Engineer
Pam Burgett, A.A., Word Processing/Technical Editing
Stephen O’Neil, M.A., RPA, Cultural Resources Manager
Sukhmani Brar, B.S., Environmental Intern
Victor Paitimusa, B.A., Associate Planner
SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 7-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in conformance with
§ 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and § 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, which requires all state and local agencies to establish monitoring or reporting
programs whenever approval of a project relies upon a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The MMRP ensures implementation of the measures being
imposed to mitigate or avoid the significant adverse environmental impacts identified through the
use of monitoring and reporting. Monitoring is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project
oversight; reporting generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the
decision-making body or authorized staff person.
It is the intent of the MMRP to: (1) provide a framework for document implementation of the
required mitigation; (2) identify monitoring/reporting responsibility; (3) provide a record of the
monitoring/reporting; and (4) ensure compliance with those mitigation measures that are within the
responsibility of the lead agency and/or project applicant to implement.
The following subjects require mitigation:
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The following subjects do not require mitigation:
Agriculture and Forestry
Air Quality
Energy
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Services
Wildfire
Table 7.0-1 lists mitigation measures adopted by the City of Fontana in connection with approval of
the proposed project, level of significance after mitigation, responsible and monitoring parties, and
the project phase in which the measures are to be implemented. Only those environmental topics for
which mitigation is required are listed in this Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program.
SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 7-1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
Table 7.0-1
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
RESPONSIBLE/
MONITORING
PARTY
MONITORING
ACTION
1. ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
2. MONITORING AGENCY
3. MONITORING PHASE
4.1 Aesthetics
Threshold 4.1c) Except as
provided in Public
Resources Code Section
21099, would the project in
non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings?
(Public views are those that
are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the
project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
MM AES-1: The project applicant shall ensure that construction documents shall
include language that requires all construction contractors to strictly control the
staging of construction equipment and the cleanliness of construction equipment
stored or driven beyond the limits of the construction work area. Construction
equipment shall be parked and staged within the project site to the extent practical.
Staging areas shall be screened from view from residential properties with solid
wood fencing or green fence. Construction worker parking may be located offsite
with approval of the City; however, on-street parking of construction worker
vehicles on residential streets shall be prohibited. Vehicles shall be kept clean and
free of mud and dust before leaving the project site. Surrounding streets shall be
swept daily and maintained free of dirt and debris.
Project
Applicant
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
2. City of Fontana
3. Prior to the start of
construction
activities and during
project construction
SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 7-2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
RESPONSIBLE/
MONITORING
PARTY
MONITORING
ACTION
1. ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
2. MONITORING AGENCY
3. MONITORING PHASE
4.4 Biological Resources
Threshold 4.4a) Would the
project have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat
modifications, on any
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in
local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or
by the California
Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
MM BIO-1: Pre-Construction Breeding Bird Survey
If construction is anticipated to commence during the nesting season (between
January 1 and August 31 of any given year, or as determined by a local CDFW office),
a qualified avian biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey no
earlier than one week prior to construction.
If an active bird nest is located during the pre-construction survey and potentially
will be affected, a no-activity buffer zone shall be delineated on maps and marked in
the field by fencing, stakes, flagging, or other means up to 500 feet for raptors, or
100 feet for non-raptors. Materials used to demarcate the nests will be removed as
soon as work is complete or the fledglings have left the nest. The qualified avian
biologist will determine the appropriate size of the buffer zone based on the type of
activities planned near the nest and bird species.
Buffer zones will not be disturbed until the qualified avian biologist determines that
the nest is inactive, the young have fledged, the young are no longer being fed by the
parents, the young have left the area, or the young will no longer be affected by
project activities. Periodic monitoring by the qualified avian biologist will be
performed to determine when nesting is complete. After the nesting cycle is
complete, project activities may begin within the buffer zone.
Project
Applicant
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
2. City of Fontana
3. Prior to the start of
construction
activities and during
project construction
MM BIO-2: Biological Monitor
If special-status wildlife species or nesting bird species are observed and
determined present within the project site during the pre-construction breeding
bird surveys, then a biological monitor shall be onsite to monitor throughout
activities that result in tree or vegetation removal to minimize the likelihood of
inadvertent impacts on nesting birds and other wildlife species. Monitoring shall
also be conducted periodically during construction activities to ensure no new nests
occur during any vegetation removal or building demolition activities between
February 1 through August 31. The biological monitor shall ensure that all biological
mitigation measures, best management practices, avoidance, and protection
Project
Applicant
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
2. City of Fontana
3. Prior to the start of
construction
activities and during
project construction
SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 7-3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
RESPONSIBLE/
MONITORING
PARTY
MONITORING
ACTION
1. ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
2. MONITORING AGENCY
3. MONITORING PHASE
measures and mitigation measures described in the relevant project permits and
reports are in place and are adhered to.
The biological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt all construction
activities and all non-emergency actions if sensitive species and/or nesting birds
are identified and would be directly affected. The monitor shall notify the
appropriate resource agency and consult if needed. If necessary, the biological
monitor shall relocate the individual outside of the work area where it will not be
harmed. Work can continue at the location if the applicant and the consulted
resource agency determine that the activity will not result in effects on the species.
4.5 Cultural Resources
Threshold 4.5c) Would the
project disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
MM CUL-1: If human remains are encountered during excavations associated with
this project, all work shall stop within a 30-foot radius of the discovery and the San
Bernardino County Coroner will be notified (§ 5097.98 of the Public Resources
Code). The Coroner will determine whether the remains are recent human origin or
older Native American ancestry. If the coroner, with the aid of the supervising
archaeologist, determines that the remains are prehistoric, they will contact the
NAHC. The NAHC will be responsible for designating the Most Likely Descendant
(MLD). The MLD (either an individual or sometimes a committee) will be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by § 7050.5 of
the California Health and Safety Code. The MLD will make recommendations within
24 hours of their notification by the NAHC. These recommendations may include
scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items
associated with Native American burials (§ 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code).
Project
Applicant
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
2. City of Fontana
3. Project Construction
SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM
7051/Northgate Market Center Project Page 7-4
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2020
TOPICAL AREA
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE
RESPONSIBLE/
MONITORING
PARTY
MONITORING
ACTION
1. ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
2. MONITORING AGENCY
3. MONITORING PHASE
4.7 Geology and Soils
Threshold 4.7f) Project
could directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic
feature.
MM GEO-1: If paleontological resources are uncovered during project construction,
the contractor shall halt construction activities in the immediate area and notify the
City of Fontana. The on-call paleontologist shall be notified and afforded the
necessary time and funds to recover, analyze, and curate the find(s). Subsequently,
the monitor shall remain onsite for the duration of the ground disturbance to ensure
the protection of any other resources that are found during construction in the
project site.
Project
Applicant
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
2. City of Fontana
3. Project Construction
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Threshold 4.9b) 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?
MM HAZ-1: The project applicant shall have a Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) conducted prior to issuance of demolition or construction
permits to confirm or deny the presence of hazardous wastes at the project site as a
result of historic and adjacent property operations. The Phase II ESA would consist
of soil and soil vapor sampling; testing of soil and soil vapor samples for
contaminants to be determined during the Phase II ESA; and a human health hazard
assessment based on the results of the testing. If the human health hazard
assessment concludes that hazardous materials affecting the project site are present
in concentrations above regulatory action levels for commercial land use, then the
ESA would recommend hazardous materials remediation. Types of remediation
include extraction and disposal in a landfill for disposal of contaminated soil; in-situ
treatment using bioremediation, thermal treatment, or chemical treatment; soil
vapor extraction; and capping. Additionally, the project applicant shall follow all
recommendations of the Phase II to ensure that there would be less than significant
impacts in regard to hazardous materials on and near the project site.
Project
Applicant
Field
Verification
1. City of Fontana
2. City of Fontana
3. Prior to the issuance
of grading permits
and start of
construction
activities