HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 Initial Study, Mitigated Negative DeclarationCalifornia Environmental Quality Act
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS/MND)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 20-015
ZONE CHANGE NO. 20-015
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 20358 (TTM 20-006)
DESIGN REVIEW NO. 20-028
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 22-013
MASTER CASE NO. 20-073
OCTOBER 2023
Lead Agency:
City of Fontana
Planning Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
909.350.6681
Contact: Jon Dille
jdille@fontanaca.gov
Prepared by:
3536 Concours St., Ste. 100
Ontario, CA 91764
Office: 909.974.4900
Contact: Alicia Gonzalez
Alicia.Gonzalez@mbakerintl.com
JN 181745
This page intentionally left blank
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page i
Table of Contents
Section A. Introduction and Purpose of the IS/MND ......................................................... 1
I. Format and Content of the IS/MND ................................................................................. 1
II. Purpose of the IS/MND .................................................................................................... 1
III. Planning Context .............................................................................................................. 3
IV. Initial Study Findings ........................................................................................................ 4
V. Public Review and Processing of the IS/MND .................................................................. 4
Section B. Project Description .......................................................................................... 4
I. Project Summary .............................................................................................................. 4
II. Project Location................................................................................................................ 5
III. Existing Site Conditions .................................................................................................... 5
IV. Proposed Improvements .................................................................................................. 6
V. Project Construction and Phasing .................................................................................... 6
Section C. Environmental Checklist Form ....................................................................... 15
I. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................. 17
II. Environmental Determination ....................................................................................... 19
Section D. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................................................ 20
I. Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................... 20
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................................... 28
III. Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 31
IV. Biological Resources ....................................................................................................... 47
V. Cultural Resources.......................................................................................................... 53
VI. Energy ............................................................................................................................. 55
VII. Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................... 61
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................ 67
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.................................................................................. 80
X. Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................ 86
XI. Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................... 92
XII. Mineral Resources .......................................................................................................... 94
XIII. Noise ............................................................................................................................... 95
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page ii
XIV. Population and Housing ............................................................................................... 108
XV. Public Services .............................................................................................................. 110
XVI. Recreation .................................................................................................................... 113
XVII. Transportation .............................................................................................................. 114
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 117
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................ 120
XX. Wildfire ......................................................................................................................... 124
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................. 126
Section E. References ................................................................................................... 129
Section F. List of Preparers ........................................................................................... 135
List of Tables
Table 1: Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Governing Scenic Quality ..................... 22
Table 2: Project Consistency with Municipal Code Sections Governing Scenic Quality ............... 23
Table 3: Project-Generated Construction Emissions .................................................................... 38
Table 4: Project-Generated Operational Emissions ...................................................................... 41
Table 5: Localized Emissions Significance ..................................................................................... 44
Table 6: City of Fontana General Plan Consistency ...................................................................... 60
Table 7: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................ 75
Table 8: Project Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan ............................................................ 76
Table 9: Project Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS .......................................................... 78
Table 10: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments ...................................... 97
Table 11: Noise Standards .......................................................................................................... 100
Table 12: Noise Measurements .................................................................................................. 101
Table 13: Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment ................................ 102
Table 14: Existing and Project Traffic Volumes ........................................................................... 103
Table 15: Typical Noise Levels Generated by Parking Areas ...................................................... 104
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page iii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Regional Location .......................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2: Project Location ............................................................................................................ 9
Figure 3: Site Photos .................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 4: Conceptual Site Plan ................................................................................................... 13
Appendices
Appendix A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data
Appendix B1 Habitat Assessment
Appendix B2 Updated Biological Resources Records Search
Appendix C1 Cultural Resources Identification Report
Appendix C2 Updated Cultural Resources Identification Report
Appendix D Field Infiltration Test Results
Appendix E1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix E2 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix F Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix G Noise Data
Appendix H Focused Traffic Study
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page iv
This page intentionally left blank
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 1
SECTION A. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE IS/MND
I. Format and Content of the IS/MND
The content and format of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is designed
to meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This report is
organized as follows:
▪ Section A, Introduction and Purpose of the IS/MND, identifies the purpose and scope of
the IS/MND.
▪ Section B, Project Description, describes the location, general environmental setting,
project background, project components, and the characteristics of the proposed
project’s construction and operational phases.
▪ Section C, Environmental Checklist Form, provides a checklist of environmental factors
that would be potentially affected by this project and whether the IS has identified a
potentially significant impact.
▪ Section D, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, presents the environmental setting and
impact analysis for each resource topic.
▪ Section E, References, identifies all printed references and individuals cited in this
IS/MND.
▪ Section F, List of Preparers, identifies all individuals involved in preparing this IS/MND.
II. Purpose of the IS/MND
The purpose of the Initial Study is to: (1) identify environmental impacts; (2) provide the lead
agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an environmental
impact report (EIR) or a negative declaration; (3) enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a
project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is required to be prepared; (4) facilitate
environmental assessment early in the design of the project; (5) document the factual basis of
the finding in a negative declaration that a project would not have a significant environmental
effect; (6) eliminate needless EIRs; (7) determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be
used for the project; and (8) assist in the preparation of an EIR, if required, by focusing the EIR
on the effects determined to be significant, identifying the effects determined not to be
significant, and explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would
not be significant.
CEQA Objectives
CEQA seeks to accomplish the following five major objectives using the procedures indicated
below:
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 2
▪ Disclose Environmental Impacts: The CEQA process is primarily designed to identify and
disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental impacts of a
proposed project prior to its consideration and approval. This is accomplished by the
preparation of the following types of CEQA documents:
o Initial Studies
o Environmental Impact Reports
▪ Prevent or Reduce Environmental Damage: If potential adverse environmental impacts
are identified, the CEQA process next attempts to identify ways to prevent or reduce
these impacts by requiring consideration of feasible project alternatives or the adoption
of mitigation measures for project impacts that cannot be avoided along with appropriate
mitigation monitoring.
▪ Disclose Agency Decisions: The CEQA process provides for the full disclosure to the public
of the reasons for agency (lead, responsible, trustee) approval of projects with significant
environmental impacts using the following methods:
o Findings
o Statement of Overriding Considerations (if required)
▪ Promote Interagency Coordination: Lead, responsible, and trustee agencies assist each
other in more thoroughly understanding the potential environmental impacts associated
with a proposed project by incorporating one or more of the following into their CEQA
processes:
o Early consultation
o Scoping meetings
o Notice of Preparation (NOP) (if required)
o State Clearinghouse review (if required)
▪ Encourage Public Participation: The CEQA process encourages and provides opportunities
for public participation in the overall project planning process in one or more of the
following CEQA processes:
o Scoping meetings
o Receipt of public notice
o Response to comments
o Legal enforcement procedures
o Citizen access to the courts
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 3
CEQA Requirements for MNDs
Section 15063(d) of the CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15000–15387 of the California Code of
Regulations [CCR]) identifies the following specific disclosure requirements for inclusion in an
Initial Study:
▪ A description of the project including the location of the project;
▪ An identification of the environmental setting;
▪ An identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method,
provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that
there is some evidence to support the entries;
▪ A discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any;
▪ An examination of whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans,
and other applicable land use controls;
▪ The name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the Initial Study.
III. Planning Context
Governing Body
The City of Fontana (City) is the lead agency under CEQA for the proposed project. The City has
reviewed the proposed project and, on the basis of the whole record before it, has determined
that there is no substantial evidence that the project, with mitigation measures identified in this
Initial Study, will have a significant effect on the environment. This IS/MND reflects the lead
agency’s independent judgement and analysis.
General Plan
The City of Fontana General Plan Update 2015-2035 (General Plan) is the current general plan in
place, adopted on November 13, 2018. The General Plan aligns with state planning priorities as
stated in California Government Code section 65041 and with the General Plan Guidelines (GPG),
though sometimes in slightly different language than used in the GPG. The General Plan covers a
broad range of topics in 16 chapters. These chapters or “elements” include a summary of existing
conditions and current trends, the planning process, and goals, policies, and actions for many
different topic areas that will affect the physical and economic development of the city over the
next 20 years. Because the Housing Element is required by state law to be updated more
frequently than the General Plan, it is published as a separate document (most recently adopted
on February 8, 2022).
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 4
General Plan Land Use Designations
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Single Family Residential (R-SF) which
permits single-family, detached dwellings at densities of 2.1–5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac).
The project site is bounded on all sides by the R-SF designation.
Zoning
The project site is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1). This zoning district permits single-family
dwellings at a density of 2.1–5 du/ac and is consistent with the underlying General Plan land use
designation of R-SF. The project site is bounded by the R-1 zoning district on all sides.
IV. Initial Study Findings
Section C of this document contains the Environmental Checklist/Initial Study that was prepared
for the proposed project pursuant to CEQA requirements. The Environmental Checklist/Initial
Study determined that implementation of the proposed project would result in no impacts or
less than significant environmental effects under the issue areas of Aesthetics, Agriculture, Air
Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and
Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation,
Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire.
The Environmental Checklist/Initial Study determined that the proposed project would result in
less than significant effects with mitigation incorporated to the following issue areas: Biological
Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Tribal Cultural
Resources.
The Environmental Checklist/Initial Study determined that there is no substantial evidence, in
light of the whole record before the lead agency (City of Fontana), that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment.
V. Public Review and Processing of the IS/MND
The environmental documentation and supporting analysis are subject to a public review period.
During this review, comments on the document relative to environmental issues should be
addressed to the City. Following review of any comments received, the City will consider these
comments as a part of the project’s environmental review and include them with the IS/MND
documentation for consideration by the City.
SECTION B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
I. Project Summary
The project consists of land use and zoning changes, a tentative tract map, and design review for
the construction of 53 single-family dwellings on 9.2 acres.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 5
The proposed project requires a number of entitlements from the City of Fontana, including:
• General Plan Amendment No. 20-015 – request to change the land use from R-SF to R-M
• Zone Change No. 20-015 – request to change the zone from R-1 to R-2
• Tentative Tract Map No. 20358 (TTM20-006) – request to subdivide 9.2 gross acres into
53 single-family residential lots with private internal streets, streetlighting, sewer, water,
and perimeter block wall
• Design Review No. 20-028 – request to approve the architectural design and layout of the
proposed housing product.
• Conditional Use Permit No. 22-103
The project is described in detail in Section B.IV., Proposed Improvements.
II. Project Location
The City of Fontana (City) is located in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County. The
City is bounded by the San Bernardino National Forest to the north, the City of Rialto to the east,
the Jurupa Hills to the south, and unincorporated San Bernardino County and the Cities of Rancho
Cucamonga and Ontario to the west. The City’s sphere of influence extends north to the San
Bernardino National Forest and west to the Cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario. Refer to
Figure 1: Regional Location.
The project site is approximately 9.2 acres located on the west side of Catawba Avenue at the
terminus of Hibiscus Street, and on the east side of Poplar Street. The project proposes to develop
53 single-family residential units with associated road, utility, park, and water quality
management improvements. Refer to Figure 2: Project Location.
III. Existing Site Conditions
On-site Conditions
The site condition of parcels making up the project site is provided by APN below.
Land Use Change and Development Parcels
APNs 0233-122-28 and 0233-122-29: These parcels are occupied by a single-story residence, a
detached garage, three sheds, and four abandoned greenhouses.
APNs 0233-122-60 and 0233-122-63: These parcels are undeveloped land.
Refer to Figure 3: Site Photos.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 6
Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is surrounded by predominately residential land uses. Specifically, surrounding
land uses in the project area are as follows:
North: The site is bordered to the north by Orchid Avenue and single-family residences.
East: The site is bordered to the east by Catawba Avenue and single-family residences.
South: The site is bordered to the south by Athol Street and single-family residences.
West: The site is bordered to the west by Poplar Avenue and single-family residences.
IV. Proposed Improvements
Land Use and Zone Change
The project proposes to change the General Plan land use of the 9.2-acre project site from R-SF
which permits 2.1–5 du/ac to R-M which would permit 5.1–12 du/ac.
The project also proposes to change the zoning district from R-1 which permits 2.1–5 single family
du/ac to R-2 which would allow up to 7.6 du/ac for single-family detached dwellings.
Demolition
Prior to grading, the project will involve the demolition and removal of the abandoned green
houses and removal of the existing single-story residence with storage sheds situated at the
southeast potion of the project.
Residential Development
The project proposes to develop 9.2 acres with 53 single-family dwellings on 53 residential lots,
water quality management improvements, common landscaping, and a 0.4-acre park in the
central portion of the development. The residential development would be supported by internal
private streets, sewer and water access, a six (6) foot perimeter block wall, six (6) foot white vinyl
fencing and gates for interior lots, and the installation of right-of-way improvements including
curb, gutter, sidewalks, and streetlights. Refer to Figure 4: Conceptual Site Plan.
Site Access
Access to the residential development would be from Orchid Avenue and a private street network
would traverse the site.
V. Project Construction and Phasing
Proposed land use changes would take effect upon approval of the City Council. The project
would be constructed over approximately 10 months beginning in fall 2023 and concluding in fall
2024.
°0 2.5 5
Miles
Source: ESRI Figure 1
Regional Location
MASTER CASE NO. 20-073
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project
Location
Lo
s
A
n
g
e
l
e
s
C
o
u
n
t
y
Sa
n
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
San
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
i
n
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
Ora
n
g
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
Project Location
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 8
This page intentionally left blank.
°0 125 250
Feet
Source: ESRI, San Bernardino County
Project Location
MASTER CASE NO. 20-073
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Figure 2
Legend
Proposed Development
Merrill Ave
Ca
t
a
w
b
a
A
v
e
Po
p
l
a
r
A
v
e
Athol St
Athol St
Dianthus St
Orchid Ave
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 10
This page intentionally left blank
MASTER CASE NO. 20-073
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Existing Conditions Photographs
Figure 3Source: Michael Baker International
Southeastern view of the project site from Orchid Avenue.Northwestern view of Poplar Avenue and single-family residential
uses to the west of Poplar Avenue. Distant views of the
San Gabriel Mountains are also present.
Northeastern view of the project site, Orchid Avenue, andsingle-family residential uses to the north of Orchid Avenue.Eastern view of the existing abandoned greenhouses on theproject site.
Northwestern view of existing single-family residential uses
to the south of the project site along Athol Street.
Northern view of outdoor storage uses to the north of the
project site along Orchid Avenue.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 12
This page intentionally left blank.
°
Source: KVH Design Group Figure 4
Conceptual Site Plan
MASTER CASE NO. 20-073
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NOT TO SCALE
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 14
This page intentionally left blank.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 15
SECTION C. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title: Master Case No. 20-073
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Fontana
Planning Division
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jon Dille
Associate Planner
(909) 350-6681
4. Project Location: The project site is approximately 9.2 acres
located on the west side of Catawba Avenue at
the terminus of Hibiscus Street, and on the east
side of Poplar Street.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Mr. Steven Landis
MV AMCV, LLC
8628 Hillside Road,
Alta Loma, California 91701
steve@landexcorp.com
6. General Plan Designation: Current: Single Family Residential (R-SF)
Proposed: Medium Density Residential (R-M)
7. Zoning: Current: Single Family Residential (R-1)
Proposed: Medium-Density Residential (R-2)
8. Description of Project:
The Project Applicant proposes to develop 53 single-family residential units with
associated road and utility improvements. This project involves the following entitlement
applications with the City: General Plan Amendment No. 20-015, Zone Change No. 20-
015, Tentative Tract Map No. 20358 (TTM20-006), Conditional Use Permit No. 22-103 and
Design Review No. 20-028.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
North: The site is bordered to the north by Orchid Avenue and single-family residences.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 16
East: The site is bordered to the east by Catawba Avenue and single-family residences.
South: The site is bordered to the south by Athol Street and single-family residences.
West: The site is bordered to the west by Poplar Avenue and single-family residences.
10. Public Approvals Required:
Fontana Planning Commission review with recommendation to City Council.
Fontana City Council: General Plan Amendment approval, Zone Change approval,
Tentative Parcel Map approval, two Tentative Tract Map approvals, Conditional Use
Permit approval, and Design Review approval.
Fontana Building & Safety Department: Site Plan review and approval, grading permits,
building permits.
Fontana Engineering Department: Construction permits, sewer connection approval,
storm drain connection approval, and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
approval.
Fire Protection District: Building Plan check and approval; review for compliance with
2019 California Fire Code, 2019 California Building Code, California Health & Safety Code,
and Fontana Municipal Code; and plans for fire detection and alarm systems, and
automatic sprinklers.
Fontana Water Company: Letter of authorization/consent for proposed improvements to
provide water supply connection to new development.
Southern California Edison: Letter of authorization/consent for proposed improvements
to provide electrical supply connection to new development.
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
project requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If
so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of
significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality,
etc.?1
1 NOTE: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project
proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal
cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 17
Yes. The City of Fontana notified tribes and conducted consultation with tribes that
elected to participate. A summary of the consultation and the resulting determination of
potential impacts to tribal cultural resources and applicable mitigation measures are
included in Section D, XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources.
I. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ☐ Air Quality
☒ Biological Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☒ Geology/Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☒ Hazards & Hazardous Materials
☐ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Mineral Resources
☒ Noise ☐ Population/Housing ☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation ☐ Transportation/Traffic ☒ Tribal Cultural Resources
☐ Utilities/Service Systems ☐ Wildfire ☒ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and
an answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The
analysis considers the long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the project. To each
question, there are four possible responses:
▪ No Impact. The project would not have any measurable environmental impact on the
environment.
▪ Less Than Significant Impact. The project would have the potential for impacting the
environment, although this impact would be below established thresholds that are
considered to be significant.
▪ Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project would have the
potential to generate impacts which may be considered a significant effect on the
environment, although measures or changes to the development’s physical or
Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American
Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical
Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note
that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 18
operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than
significant.
▪ Potentially Significant Impact. The project would have impacts which are considered
significant, and additional analysis is required to identify measures that could reduce
these impacts to less than significant levels.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 20
SECTION D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
I. Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AESTHETICS:
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views
of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion
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. Although the General Plan does not identify specific scenic view
corridors within the City, the project site is located in an urbanized area approximately 5.5 miles
south of the San Gabriel Mountains. Under clear atmospheric conditions, motorists and
pedestrians traveling north along Poplar Avenue and Catawba Avenue have partial views of the
San Gabriel Mountains, as the viewshed is obstructed by off-site trees, overhead powerlines, and
buildings; refer to Figure 3: Site Photos.
A scenic vista is defined as a publicly accessible, prominent vantage point that provides expansive
views of highly valued landscapes or prominent visual elements composed of man-made or
natural features. Poplar Avenue and Catawba Avenue, with their partial views of the San Gabriel
Mountains, could be considered a public vantage point that provides a view of a highly valued
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 21
landscape. However, the views of the San Gabriel Mountains are distant, extensively obstructed,
and not expansive. The proposed project would have a maximum building height of 25 feet, or
two stories, consistent with surrounding development. As such, it is not expected that the new
buildings would block views of or from the identified scenic resources. Impacts to scenic
resources would be less than significant.
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. According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Scenic
Highway Mapping System, the nearest designated state scenic highway is a 15.7-mile portion of
State Route 38 from South Fork Campground to State Lane.2 This portion of scenic highway is
approximately 37 miles northeast of the project site. Based on this distance, the intervening
natural topography, and constructed structures, the development site is not located within the
viewshed of this officially designated state scenic highway. Additionally, there are no officially
designated or eligible scenic highways within or adjacent to the City. Therefore, there would be
no impact.
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. The project site is surrounded by urbanized uses; refer to Figure
3: Site Photos. Thus, for the purposes of this threshold, the analysis considers whether the project
would conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality.
General Plan
The General Plan includes goals and policies that aid in governing scenic quality. Table 1: Project
Consistency with General Plan Policies Governing Scenic Quality, provides a consistency analysis
of the proposed project and these relevant policies.
2 California Department of Transportation, List of Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways, July 2019.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 22
Table 1: Project Consistency with General Plan Policies Governing Scenic Quality
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails Element
Goal 3 Fontana has a healthy, drought-resistant urban forest.
Policy Support tree conservation and planting that enhances
shade and drought resistance.
Policy Expand Fontana’s tree canopy.
Consistent. As discussed in the project’s Habitat
Assessment (Appendix B), native vegetation communities
do not occur within the project site; rather, the project site
consists of disturbed and developed land dominated by
non-native and ornamental plant species. The project
would remove limited ornamental trees, including sparse
individuals of China berry tree (Melia azedarach) in the
central portion of the project site, and well as limited
individuals of Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii),
California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and silver dollar
gum (Eucalyptus polyanthemos) within the eastern and
southern portion of the project site. The project’s
landscape plan would offset this by installing landscaping
along the site perimeter and interior. The project would be
consistent with Conservation, Open Space, Parks and
Trails Element Goal 3 and its policies in this regard.
Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design Element
Goal 7 Public and private development meets high design
standards.
Policy Support high-quality development in design standards
and in land use decisions.
Consistent. The proposed project would develop the site
into a 53-unit residential community. The proposed
community would be designed with various architectural
building elements following the Tuscan, Spanish, and
Craftsman architectural styles and earth-tone color
schemes. Depending on the architectural style, units
would be designed with architectural building elements
such as textured stucco siding, stone veneer, textured
shake siding, window trims and shutters, stucco corbels,
decorative gable vents, and illuminated address signs.
Landscaping is also proposed along the site perimeter and
interior. Further, the project would be subject to special
site plan and design review as required by the City’s
Design Review process. This regulatory procedure would
enforce the City’s regulations governing scenic quality for
the project site and surrounding area. Thus, the project
would support the City’s policy to support high-quality
development in design standards and in land use
decisions.
Community and Neighborhoods Element
Goal 6: The safe, attractive, and lively central part of the city
has new infill development and infrastructure and public realm
improvements.
• Support revitalization of the central area of the city with an
integrated approach including mixed-use development, infill
housing, infrastructure improvements, interconnections, and
Consistent. According to the Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment, the project site contains one occupied
residence, garage, and sheds (9092 Catawba Avenue),
and four dilapidated greenhouses that contain numerous
abandoned flower containers and shredded green cloth
shade materials, water piping, and ventilation equipment.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 23
General Plan Policy Project Consistency
placemaking programs. The balance of the site is vacant. The existing conditions
of the project site create a blighted façade along Poplar
Avenue and Catawba Avenue. The proposed project
would develop the site into a 53-unit residential
community. As discussed above, the proposed community
would be designed with various architectural building
elements following the Tuscan, Spanish, and Craftsman
architectural styles and earth-tone color schemes.
Landscaping is also proposed along the site perimeter and
interior. Thus, the project would support the City’s policy to
revitalize the City with infill housing.
Source: City of Fontana, General Plan Update 2015-2035, 2018.
Zoning
The project proposes to change the zoning district from R-1, which permits 2.1 to 5 single family
du/ac, to R-2, which would allow up to 7.6 du/ac for single-family detached dwellings and 7.7 to
12 du/ac, for single-family attached or multi-family dwellings. Municipal Code Division 7, Design
Guidelines, includes design guidelines that aid in governing scenic quality. Table 2: Project
Consistency with Municipal Code Sections Governing Scenic Quality, provides a consistency
analysis of the proposed project and these relevant development standards associated with the
site’s proposed R-2 zoning. Refer to Section D.XI, Land Use and Planning, of this IS/MND for a
discussion concerning the project’s consistency with other applicable zoning requirements.
Table 2: Project Consistency with Municipal Code Sections Governing Scenic Quality
Relevant Section Project Consistency
Sec. 30-426. – Land use compatibility.
The site and design of a project shall recognize that conflicts
between abutting or nearby land uses can arise due to such
factors as the operating characteristics of an existing use,
hazards posed by a use, or the physical orientation of a
building. On a citywide scale, the general plan land use map
establishes a pattern of land use designed to minimize land
uses conflicts. At the project level, the features described in this
section should be incorporated into a project as appropriate to
ensure the compatibility of different land uses.
(1) Open space buffer. Landscaped parkways, parks, and
similar open space areas will be used as appropriate
to separate residential uses from potentially
incompatible uses. The width and treatment of the
open space buffer will vary depending upon the types
of potential conflicts to be resolved. To soften visual
Consistent. The analysis below corresponds to each
subsection of Municipal Code Sec. 30-426.
(1) The project is surrounded by compatible,
residential development and thus does not
require landscaped parkways, parks, and similar
open space areas. To soften visual impacts,
perimeter landscaping would be installed.
(2) The project site has previously been graded and
is level with surrounding development. Based on
the project’s consistency with surrounding
development, graded earth berms would not be
required to create visual screens.
(3) Sec. 30-426 (3) does not aid in governing scenic
quality and is inapplicable in this regard.
(4) As shown in Figure 4, Conceptual Site Plan,
landscaping is proposed along the site perimeter
and interior. As discussed in Aesthetics (d)
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 24
Relevant Section Project Consistency
impacts, the open space buffer shall include
landscaping.
(2) Topography. Grading plans will incorporate natural
earth forms and graded earthen berms as appropriate
to create visual screens and to buffer noise.
(3) Streets. Street design and site access will be
configured to discourage through, nonresidential
traffic in residential neighborhoods. Features, such as
raised medians that restrict turning movements, cul-
de-sacs, and curvilinear street patterns can
discourage such through traffic.
(4) Landscaping. Landscaping shall be used alone or in
conjunction with other features (e.g. open space
buffer, topography) to reduce potential visual, light
and glare conflicts.
(5) Physical barriers. Physical barriers such as block
walls and fences shall be provided as specified in
these regulations to reduce noise, visual, light and
glare impacts. These barriers may also be used to
restrict unwanted access between abutting land uses.
(6) Building orientation. All buildings shall be sited and
oriented to ensure mutual privacy and safety, and to
reduce noise, light and glare, visual, and other
conflicts.
(7) Infill development. Infill as defined in this chapter shall
be especially sensitive to compatibility concerns and
shall be developed in a manner sensitive to existing
uses in terms of density, scale, aesthetics, and design
theme. Infill developments shall meet or exceed the
development standards and shall incorporate the
general architectural theme of existing development
adjacent to the proposed project. Further, the
planning commission may require any proponent of a
proposed infill development project to provide
illustrations and site redesigns showing the proposed
project in relation to the surrounding developments.
(8) Community design. Design of residential communities
will reduce and/or prevent land use conflicts by
considering the constraints and opportunities of
adjacent existing neighborhoods and by establishing
design themes that ensure some variation of
individual units in large developments.
below, the project would result in less than
significant operational light and glare impacts.
The City would verify the project’s consistency
with the lighting standards outlined in Municipal
Code Section 30-471 to verify that neighboring
uses are not exposed to substantial off-site
lighting impacts or daytime glare as part of the
project’s design review process.
(5) As shown in Figure 4, Conceptual Site Plan, the
proposed residential development would be
bounded by a 6-foot block perimeter wall and
interior lots will be delineated by vinyl fencing.
(6) Privacy is not related to scenic quality and is
inapplicable in this regard. Refer to Response to
Sec. 30-426 (4) above regarding light and glare.
(7) As shown in the Figure 3, Site Photos, the
existing conditions of the project site create a
blighted appearance along Poplar Avenue and
Catawba Avenue. As an infill development
project, the proposed community would include
one- to two-story buildings, consistent with
surrounding development, and would design
with various architectural building elements
following the Tuscan, Spanish, and Craftsman
architectural styles and earth-tone color
schemes. Depending on the architectural style,
units would be designed with architectural
building elements such as textured stucco
siding, stone veneer, textured shake siding,
window trims and shutters, stucco corbels,
decorative gable vents, and illuminated address
signs. Landscaping is also proposed along the
site perimeter and interior. Further, the project
would be subject to special site plan and design
review as required by the City’s Design Review
process. This regulatory procedure would
enforce the City’s regulations governing scenic
quality for the project site and surrounding area.
Thus, the project has been designed manner
sensitive to existing uses in terms of density,
scale, aesthetics, and design theme.
(8) Refer to Response to Sec. 30-426 (7) above
regarding community design.
Sec. 30-435. – Plotting and design criteria. The following shall
comply with new design reviews. Variations and possible
additional criteria may be added by the Planning Commission to
individual design reviews based upon Planning Commission
consideration of individual circumstances:
Consistent. The analysis below corresponds to each
subsection of Municipal Code Sec. 30-435.
(1) Based on the project’s Tentative Tract Map, the
project does not propose two adjacent homes
using the same floor plan. Thus, project would
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 25
Relevant Section Project Consistency
(1) No two adjacent homes using the same floor plan
shall have the same exterior color scheme/treatment.
(2) Adjacent homes shall have varying setbacks.
Minimum variation shall be four feet unless located on
a curvilinear street, which provides a varied street
scene, and then the variation shall be three feet.
When one-story and two-story homes are adjacent,
the two-story home shall have the larger front
setback.
(3) Window mullions shall be provided on first, second,
and third story windows of all elevation seen from
public view, as approved by the Planning
Commission. The mullions shall be provided in a
variety of shapes.
(4) Trim with a stucco covering may be painted in a
contrasting color. The contrasting color should be
color compatible with the trim color.
(5) Homes with a trim (band) feature, which distinguishes
the first and second floors, should have the band on
the front, side, and rear elevation of the homes.
(6) A variety of designs (window and door pattern) shall
be used on car garage doors, with no two adjacent
homes that have the same floor plan and elevation
shall use the same garage door/window pattern. In no
case shall more than three homes of any floor plan or
elevation have the same garage door/window pattern
in a row. The applicant shall provide a color board
indicating proposed garage door colors and window
pattern for Planning Commission approval.
(7) Wall-mounted decorative lighting fixtures at a
minimum of 18 inches in height shall be provided at
the front porch and on each side of the garage door.
A sample of lighting types shall be provided for
Planning Commission review and approval.
(8) All front doors shall provide decorative treatment. A
sample of door treatments shall be provided for
Planning Commission review and approval.
(9) All utility boxes shall be landscaping with shrubs or
other low-profile landscaping. A sample of
landscaping/landscaping treatments shall be provided
for Planning Commission review and approval.
(10) The Community Development Director, or his/her
designee, shall have the authority for minor
architectural changes focusing around items such as
window treatments, color combinations, facade
treatments, and architectural relief. Questions on the
interpretation of this provision or changes not clearly
not have the potential to result in two adjacent
homes using the same floor plan that have the
same exterior color scheme/treatment.
(2) The proposed units would have varying
setbacks. The City would ensure the conditions
of Municipal Code Sec. 30-435(2) are met as
part of the project’s Design Review process.
(3) All units would include window mullions in a
variety of shapes on all elevations seen from
public view.
(4) The project proposes a neutral, earth tone color
scheme with rustic taupe or white stucco trim
and cream or sand colored stucco. Thus, the
trim and stucco would contrast while remaining
compatible.
(5) None of the floor plans would include a band
feature that distinguishes the first and second
floors. Thus, Municipal Code Sec. 30-435(5)
would not be applicable.
(6) Based on the project’s Tentative Tract Map, the
project does not propose two adjacent homes
using the same floor plan. Thus, project would
not have the potential to result in two adjacent
homes using the same car garage doors.
(7) Based on the project elevations, each floor plan
would include wall-mounted decorative lighting
features at the front porch and on each side of
the garage doors. The decorative lighting would
be mounted at approximately eight feet height
and thus would meet the City’s minimum height
requirements.
(8) Each floor plan would include six-panel entry
doors, which would be reviewed as part of the
City’s Design Review process.
(9) The project would be required to uphold the
City’s requirement to landscape utility boxes,
which would be reviewed as part of the City’s
Design Review process.
(10) Any architectural changes focusing around items
such as window treatments, color combinations,
facade treatments, and architectural relief would
be addressed as part of the City’s Design
Review process.
(11) Each floor plan would include decorative
pathways leading to the front door which
complement the proposed Tuscan, Spanish, and
Craftsman architectural styles in conformance
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 26
Relevant Section Project Consistency
within the scope of this provision shall be submitted to
the Planning Commission for consideration under a
revision to the design review.
(11) All lots shall provide decorative hardscape within the
concrete walkways leading to the front door of the
house in order to complement the home’s exterior
architectural elements. (Example: If the home uses
rock, brick, or other similar material on the exterior of
the house, these materials shall be incorporated into
the walkways along with decorative trowled bands;
decorative patterned scoring; exposed aggregate
finishes; stamped concrete, etc. This requirement
shall be identified on the phasing site plan that is
submitted to the Building and Safety Division for plan
check. A detail of the types of hardscape to be used
on the walkways shall also be shown on the phasing
site plan.)
(12) Steel gates with privacy screening (defined as
material used on the steel gate to obscure the view of
the back yard from the street) shall be required for
side yards. A sample of gate privacy screening
treatment shall be provided for Planning Commission
review and approval.
with Municipal Code Sec. 30-435(11).
Source: City of Fontana, City of Fontana Municipal Code, current through October 15, 2020.
Conclusion
As indicated in the tables above, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable
General Plan and Municipal Code requirements that govern scenic quality. Further, the project
would be subject to special site plan and design review as required by the City’s Design Review
process. This regulatory procedure would enforce the City’s regulations governing scenic quality
for the project site and surrounding area. As a result, implementation of the proposed project
would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts
would be less than significant.
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.
Construction Impacts
Construction activities associated with the project could involve temporary light and glare
impacts as a result of construction equipment and materials. Project construction would be
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 27
required to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 18, Article II, Noise, of the Fontana
Municipal Code), which prohibits construction between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on
weekdays and 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.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.
Thus, as no construction activities would be permitted after 6:00 p.m. on weekdays or after 5:00
p.m. on Sundays, project construction would be limited to the daytime hours and nighttime
lighting would not be required until the project is operational. Short-term construction-related
impacts to lighting and glare would be less than significant.
Operational Impacts
The proposed project would require nighttime lighting for safety and security. Consistent with
Fontana Municipal Code Section 30-471, Light and Glare, all on-site lighting would be required to
be directed and/or shielded to prevent the light from adversely affecting adjacent properties,
and no structures or features that create adverse glare effects are permitted. All exterior lighting
used would be shielded/hooded to prevent light trespass onto nearby properties, including the
adjacent residential development. The City would verify the project’s consistency with the
lighting standards outlined in Municipal Code Section 30-471 to verify that neighboring uses are
not exposed to substantial off-site lighting impacts or daytime glare as part of the project’s design
review process. Therefore, long-term impacts associated with light and glare would be less than
significant.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 28
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES:
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer
to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding
the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the
Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in
Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 29
Discussion
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. According to Chapter 30, Zoning and Development Code, of the Fontana Municipal
Code, animal grazing, breeding, raising, or training is permitted on property zoned for Open
Space (OS-N or OS-R) or Public Facilities (P-PF) with certain restrictions and requirements. The
proposed project site is currently zoned for Single-Family Residential (R-1) with a zone change
proposed for Medium-Density Residential (R-2). These zoning designations do not allow for
agricultural uses. Additionally, the project site is surrounded by R-1 zoning on all sides, except for
the area to the immediate northeast.
As shown by the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program, the project site is designated as “Urban and Built Up Land” and is surrounded by this
land designation on all sides.3 Therefore, the project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, and there would be no impact.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
No Impact. As mentioned previously in Section II.a of this IS/MND, the proposed project site is
located on land that is zoned for Single-Family Residential (R-1) with a zone change proposed for
Medium Density Residential (R-2). These zoning designations do not allow for agricultural uses.
Furthermore, neither the project site nor any portion of the City of Fontana is under a Williamson
Act contract. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or
a Williamson Act contract, and there would be no impact.
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. The project site contains undeveloped, vacant land in its western half and a single-
story residence, a detached garage, three sheds, and four greenhouses in its eastern half. The
site does not contain any forestland or timberland, nor is it zoned for timberland production.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
3 California Department of Conservation, n.d. California Important Farmland Finder, accessed December 17, 2020.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 30
forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, and there would be no
impact.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
No Impact. The project site contains undeveloped, vacant land in its western half and a single-
story residence, a detached garage, three sheds, and four greenhouses in its eastern half. It does
not contain any forestland, as defined above. Furthermore, the project site is not zoned for
forestland. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forestland or the conversion of
forestland to non-forest use, and there would be no impact.
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. While agricultural uses were once prominent in the City’s past, agricultural uses have
largely declined and are no longer a significant element of the local economy as the community
has urbanized. Remaining undeveloped land considered suitable for farming purposes is planned
for a variety of urbanized uses, according to the General Plan.4 The project site is located in the
central portion of the city and is surrounded by residential uses on all sides. There is no farmland
or forestland on or in the vicinity of the project site that could be converted to non-agricultural
or non-forestland uses as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, there would be no impact.
4 Fontana, General Plan Update, Appendix One: Background Report, p. 9.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 31
III. Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AIR QUALITY:
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management
district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors adversely affecting a substantial number
of people?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
The analysis and findings throughout this section are based on the CalEEMod modeling analysis
prepared by Michael Baker International (July 25, 2023), provided as Appendix A of this IS/MND
and incorporated herein by reference.
Discussion
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan?
Less Than Significant Impact.
The project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is governed by the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). In order to reduce emissions, the SCAQMD
adopted the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (2022 AQMP) which establishes a program of
rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving State and Federal
air quality standards. The AQMP is a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD,
California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The 2022 AQMP pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical
information and planning assumptions, including the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 32
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS), updated emission inventory
methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. SCAG’s latest
growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local
general plans. The SCAQMD considers projects that are consistent with the AQMP, which is
intended to bring the Basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants, to also have less than
significant cumulative impacts.
Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined by the following indicators:
Criterion 1:
With respect to the first criterion, SCAQMD methodologies require that an air quality analysis for
a project include forecasts of project emissions in relation to contributing to air quality violations
and delay of attainment.
a) Would the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality
violations?
The consistency criteria identified under the first criterion pertains to pollutant concentrations,
rather than to total regional emissions; therefore, an analysis of the project’s pollutant emissions
relative to localized pollutant concentrations is used as the basis for evaluating project
consistency. As discussed in Response D.III(c), localized concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and particulate
matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) would be less than significant during project
construction and operations. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase in
the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations.5
b) Would the project cause or contribute to new air quality violations?
As discussed in Response D.III(b) and D.III(c), the proposed project would result in emissions that
are below the SCAQMD regional and localized thresholds. Therefore, the project would not have
the potential to cause or affect a violation of the ambient air quality standards.
c) Would the project delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim
emissions reductions specified in the AQMP?
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to regional and
localized concentrations during project construction and operations; refer to Responses D.III(b)
5 Because reactive organic gases (ROGs) are not a criteria pollutant, there is no ambient standard or localized
threshold for ROGs. Due to the role ROG plays in ozone formation, it is classified as a precursor pollutant and only
a regional emissions threshold has been established.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 33
and D.III(c). As such, the project would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards
or 2022 AQMP emissions reductions.
Therefore, as substantiated above, the air quality analysis for the proposed project includes
forecasts of project emissions in relation to contributing to air quality violations and delay of
attainment and as such, the project is consistent with Criterion 1.
Criterion 2:
With respect to the second criterion for determining consistency with SCAQMD and Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) air quality policies, it is important to recognize that
air quality planning within the Basin focuses on attainment of ambient air quality standards at
the earliest feasible date. Projections for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions
regarding population, housing, and growth trends. Thus, the SCAQMD’s second criterion for
determining project consistency focuses on whether or not the proposed project exceeds the
assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts presented in the 2022 AQMP. Determining
whether or not a project exceeds the assumptions reflected in the 2022 AQMP involves the
evaluation of the three criteria outlined below. The following discussion provides an analysis of
each of these criteria.
a) Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth
projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP?
Growth projections included in the 2022 AQMP form the basis for the projections of air pollutant
emissions and are based on the General Plan land use designations and SCAG’s 2020-2045
RTP/SCS demographics forecasts. The population, housing, and employment forecasts within the
2020-2045 RTP/SCS are based on local general plans as well as input from local governments,
such as the City of Fontana. The SCAQMD has incorporated these same demographic growth
forecasts for various socioeconomic categories (e.g., population, housing, employment) into the
2022 AQMP.
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Single Family Residential (R-SF), which
permits single-family, detached dwellings at densities of 2.1 to 5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac).
As proposed, the 53-unit residential development would be constructed on 9.2 acres, which
would result in a density of 6.0 du/ac and exceed the allowed density under the existing R-SF
designation. As such, the project is proposing a General Plan Amendment to change the site’s
land use designation from R-SF to Medium Density Residential (R-M), which would allow a range
of 5.1 to 12 du/ac.
Based on the City’s average household size of 4.12 persons per household, the project would
introduce approximately 218 additional residents within the City; refer to Section D.XIV,
Population and Housing. For this reason, the project is considered growth-inducing since it would
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 34
generate population growth through its provision of a residential development. However, the
project’s potential growth-inducing impacts would be considered less than significant since the
218 additional residents represent less than a 0.1 percent increase from the City’s current
population of 213,000 persons.6 Additionally, SCAG growth forecasts estimate the City’s
population to reach 286,700 persons by 2045, representing a total increase of 73,700 persons
between 2023 and 2045. The project’s residential population (218 persons) represents 0.2
percent of the City’s anticipated growth by 2045, and only 0.08 percent of the City’s total
projected 2045 population.7 Upon approval of the General Plan Amendment, the proposed
project would be consistent with the types, intensity, and patterns of land use envisioned for the
site in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Additionally, as the SCAQMD has incorporated these same
projections into the 2022 AQMP, it can be concluded that the proposed project would be
consistent with the projections included in the 2022 AQMP. The impact would be less than
significant.
b) Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures?
The proposed project would result in less than significant air quality impacts. Compliance with all
feasible emission reduction measures identified by the SCAQMD would be required as identified
in Responses D.III(b) and D.III(c). As such, the proposed project meets this 2022 AQMP
consistency criterion.
c) Would the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth in the
AQMP?
As discussed in Section D.VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the project would be consistent with
the actions and strategies of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The project would be located adjacent to
existing residential development and is in close proximity to neighborhood shopping and
commercial areas along Merrill Avenue and Fontana Avenue. As a result, the opportunity to use
alternative forms of transportation (i.e., walking, bicycling, public transportation) exists and,
therefore, would reduce associated criteria pollutant emissions. In addition, as discussed above,
upon approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment, the project would be consistent with
the site’s redesignated R-M land use designation. As such, the proposed project meets this AQMP
consistency criterion.
6 California Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State – January 1, 2022
and 2023, May 2023, https://dof.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/sites/352/Forecasting/Demographics/Documents/E-1_2023PressRelease.pdf, accessed July
24, 2023.
7 Southern California Association of Governments, Demographics and Growth Forecast,
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-
forecast.pdf?1606001579, accessed July 24, 2023.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 35
In conclusion, the determination of 2022 AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with the long-
term influence of a project on air quality in the Basin. The proposed project would not result in a
long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet State and Federal air quality standards. Further,
the proposed project’s long-term influence on air quality in the Basin would also be consistent
with the SCAQMD and SCAG’s goals and policies and is considered consistent with the 2022
AQMP. Therefore, as substantiated above, the proposed project does not exceed the
assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts presented in the 2022 AQMP and as such, the
project is consistent with Criterion 2.
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.
Criteria Pollutants
Carbon Monoxide (CO). CO is an odorless, colorless toxic gas that is emitted by mobile and
stationary sources as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based
fuels. In cities, automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions. CO
replaces oxygen in the body’s red blood cells. Individuals with a deficient blood supply to the
heart, patients with diseases involving heart and blood vessels, fetuses (unborn babies), and
patients with chronic hypoxemia (oxygen deficiency) as seen in high altitudes are most
susceptible to the adverse effects of CO exposure. People with heart disease are also more
susceptible to developing chest pains when exposed to low levels of carbon monoxide.
Ozone (O3). O3 occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the Earth’s surface
is the troposphere. The troposphere extends approximately 10 miles above ground level, where
it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The stratosphere (the “good” ozone layer) extends
upward from about 10 to 30 miles and protects life on Earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet
rays. “Bad” O3 is a photochemical pollutant, and needs volatile organic compounds (VOCs), NOX,
and sunlight to form; therefore, VOCs and NOX are O3 precursors. To reduce O3 concentrations,
it is necessary to control the emissions of these O3 precursors. Significant O3 formation generally
requires an adequate amount of precursors in the atmosphere and a period of several hours in a
stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. High O3 concentrations can form over large regions when
emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles from their
origins.
While O3 in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet
radiation, high concentrations of ground-level O3 (in the troposphere) can adversely affect the
human respiratory system and other tissues. O3 is a strong irritant that can constrict the airways,
forcing the respiratory system to work hard to deliver oxygen. Individuals exercising outdoors,
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 36
children, and people with pre-existing lung disease such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung
disease are considered to be the most susceptible to the health effects of O3. Short-term
exposure (lasting for a few hours) to O3 at elevated levels can result in aggravated respiratory
diseases such as emphysema, bronchitis and asthma, shortness of breath, increased
susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, increased fatigue, as well as chest
pain, dry throat, headache, and nausea.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). NOX are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to
the formation of ground-level ozone and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. NO2 (often
used interchangeably with NOX) is a reddish-brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at
elevated levels. Peak readings of NO2 occur in areas that have a high concentration of combustion
sources (e.g., motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations).
NO2 can irritate and damage the lungs and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as
influenza. The health effects of short-term exposure are still unclear. However, continued or
frequent exposure to NO2 concentrations that are typically much higher than those normally
found in the ambient air may increase acute respiratory illnesses in children and increase the
incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO2 may aggravate eyes
and mucus membranes and cause pulmonary dysfunction.
Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10). PM10 refers to suspended particulate matter, which is smaller
than 10 microns or ten one-millionths of a meter. PM10 arises from sources such as road dust,
diesel soot, combustion products, construction operations, and dust storms. PM10 scatters light
and significantly reduces visibility. In addition, these particulates penetrate into lungs and can
potentially damage the respiratory tract. On June 19, 2003, the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) adopted amendments to the Statewide 24-hour particulate matter standards based upon
requirements set forth in the Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act (Senate Bill 25).
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5). Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts related to
PM2.5, both State and Federal PM2.5 standards have been created. Particulate matter impacts
primarily affect infants, children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing cardiopulmonary
disease. In 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new PM2.5
standards. Industry groups challenged the new standard in court and the implementation of the
standard was blocked. However, upon appeal by the EPA, the United States Supreme Court
reversed this decision and upheld the EPA’s new standards. On January 5, 2005, the EPA
published a Final Rule in the Federal Register that designates the Basin as a nonattainment area
for Federal PM2.5 standards. On June 20, 2002, CARB adopted amendments for Statewide annual
ambient particulate matter air quality standards. These standards were revised and established
due to increasing concerns by CARB that previous standards were inadequate, as almost
everyone in California is exposed to levels at or above the current State standards during some
parts of the year, and the Statewide potential for significant health impacts associated with
particulate matter exposure was determined to be large and wide-ranging.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 37
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). SO2 is a colorless, irritating gas with a rotten egg smell; it is formed primarily
by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. SO2 is often used interchangeably with SOX.
Exposure of a few minutes to low levels of SO2 can result in airway constriction in some
asthmatics.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). VOCs are hydrocarbon compounds (any compound
containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the ambient air.
VOCs contribute to the formation of smog through atmospheric photochemical reactions and
may be toxic. Compounds of carbon (also known as organic compounds) have different levels of
reactivity; that is, they do not react at the same speed or do not form O3 to the same extent when
exposed to photochemical processes. VOCs often have an odor, and some examples include
gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints. Exceptions to the VOC designation include: CO,
CO2, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate. VOCs are a
criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant. The SCAQMD uses
the terms VOC and ROG interchangeably (see below).
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Similar to VOC, ROG are also precursors in forming O3 and consist
of compounds containing methane, ethane, propane, butane, and longer chain hydrocarbons,
which are typically the result of some type of combustion/decomposition process. Smog is
formed when ROG and NOX react in the presence of sunlight. ROGs are a criteria pollutant since
they are a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant.
Construction Emissions
The project involves construction activities associated with demolition, grading, paving,
construction, and architectural coating applications. The project would be constructed over
approximately 10 months, estimated to commence in fall 2023. Earthwork would be balanced
on-site and require approximately 33,797 cubic yards of cut and 29,610 cubic yards of fill. Exhaust
emission factors for typical diesel-powered heavy equipment are based on the California
Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1.1 (CalEEMod) program defaults. Variables factored
into estimating the total construction emissions include the level of activity, length of
construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics,
weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be
transported on- or off-site. The analysis of daily construction emissions has been prepared
utilizing CalEEMod. Refer to Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, for
the CalEEMod outputs and results. Table 3, Project-Generated Construction Emissions, presents
the estimated daily short-term construction emissions.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 38
Table 3: Project-Generated Construction Emissions
Emissions Source
Pollutant (pounds/day)1,2
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction Emissions2
Year 1 4.92 46.50 38.90 0.10 4.36 1.84
Year 2 29.60 15.70 21.70 0.05 0.98 0.70
Maximum Daily Emissions 29.60 46.50 38.90 0.10 4.36 1.84
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes:
1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod version 2022.1.1, as recommended by the SCAQMD.
2. The reduction/credits for construction emissions are based on “mitigation” included in CalEEMod and are required by the SCAQMD Rules. The
“mitigation” applied in CalEEMod include the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stockpiles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. The emissions results in this table represent the “mitigated” emissions shown in Appendix A.
Source: Air Quality and GHG Emissions Analysis prepared by Michael Baker International (July 25, 2023). Refer to Appendix A for assumptions used in this
analysis.
Fugitive Dust Emissions
Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial,
temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living
and working in the project area. Fugitive dust emissions are associated with land clearing, ground
excavation, cut-and-fill, and truck travel on unpaved roadways (including demolition as well as
construction activities). Fugitive dust emissions vary substantially from day to day, depending on
the level of activity, specific operations, and weather conditions. Fugitive dust from grading,
excavation and construction is expected to be short term and would cease upon project
completion. Most of this material is inert silicates, rather than the complex organic particulates
released from combustion sources, which are more harmful to health.
Dust (larger than 10 microns) generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local
nuisance than a serious health problem. Of particular health concern is the amount of PM10
generated as a part of fugitive dust emissions. PM10 poses a serious health hazard alone or in
combination with other pollutants. PM10 is mostly produced by mechanical processes. These
include automobile tire wear, industrial processes such as cutting and grinding, and re-
suspension of particles from the ground or road surfaces by wind and human activities such as
construction or agriculture. PM2.5 is mostly derived from combustion sources, such as
automobiles, trucks, and other vehicle exhaust, as well as from stationary sources. These
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 39
particles are either directly emitted or are formed in the atmosphere from the combustion of
gases such as NOX and sulfur oxides (SOX) combining with ammonia. PM2.5 components from
material in the Earth’s crust, such as dust, are also present, with the amount varying in different
locations.
The project would implement required SCAQMD dust control techniques (i.e., daily watering),
limitations on construction hours, and adhere to SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (which require
watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), to reduce PM10 and PM2.5
concentrations. As depicted in Table 3, total PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the
SCAQMD thresholds during construction. Thus, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions impacts associated
with project construction would be less than significant.
Construction Equipment and Worker Vehicle Exhaust
Exhaust emissions from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of
machinery and supplies to and from the project site, employee commutes to the project site,
emissions produced on-site as the equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting
materials to/from the site. As presented in Table 3, construction equipment and worker vehicle
exhaust emissions (i.e., ROG, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5) would not exceed the established
SCAQMD threshold for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
ROG Emissions
In addition to gaseous and particulate emissions, the application of asphalt and surface coatings
creates ROG emissions, which are O3 precursors. In accordance with the methodology prescribed
by the SCAQMD, ROG emissions associated with paving and architectural coating have been
quantified with the CalEEMod model. As required by SCAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 1113 –
Architectural Coating, all architectural coatings for the proposed structures would comply with
specifications on painting practices as well as regulation on the ROG content of paint.8 ROG
emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant; refer to Table 3.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals that are a human
health hazard when airborne. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types
such as tremolite and actinolite are also found in California. Asbestos is classified as a known
human carcinogen by State, Federal, and international agencies and was identified as a toxic air
contaminant by CARB in 1986.
8 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings,
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xi/r1113.pdf, accessed July 25, 2023.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 40
Asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or
crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality
and human health hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads,
landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be
released to the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during grading for
development projects, and at quarry operations. All of these activities may have the effect of
releasing potentially harmful asbestos into the air. Natural weathering and erosion processes can
act on asbestos bearing rock and make it easier for asbestos fibers to become airborne if such
rock is disturbed. According to the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology,
A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to Contain
Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report (August 2000), serpentinite and ultramafic rocks are not
known to occur within the project area. There would be no impact.
Operational Emissions
Long-term operational air quality impacts consist of mobile source emissions generated from
project-related traffic and emissions from stationary area and energy sources.
Area source emissions would be generated by the project from consumer products, architectural
coating, and landscaping. Energy source emissions would be generated as a result of electricity
and natural gas usage associated with the proposed project. The primary use of electricity and
natural gas by the project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation,
lighting, appliances, and electronics.
Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions.
Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either
regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of
regional concern (NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3 [photochemical smog], and wind
currents readily transport SOX, PM10, and PM2.5). However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant,
dispersing rapidly at the source.
Project-generated vehicle emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. According to the Fontana
53 Focused Traffic Study prepared by TJW Engineering, Inc. on June 19, 2023, the proposed
project is projected to generate a total of 491 daily trips; refer to Appendix H.
The analysis of daily operational emissions has been prepared utilizing CalEEMod. Emissions
associated with each of these sources are detailed in Table 4, Project-Generated Operational
Emissions. As shown by the data, total project emissions from area, energy, and mobile sources
would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 41
Table 4: Project-Generated Operational Emissions
Emissions Source
Pollutant (pounds/day)1
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Project Summer Emissions
Area 2.67 0.03 3.00 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Energy 0.02 0.42 0.18 <0.01 0.03 0.03
Mobile 1.99 1.58 14.50 0.03 2.63 0.68
Total Summer Emissions2 4.69 2.03 17.70 0.03 2.66 0.72
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Project Winter Emissions
Area 2.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.02 0.42 0.18 <0.01 0.03 0.03
Mobile 1.84 1.70 12.40 0.03 2.63 0.68
Total Winter Emissions3 4.26 2.12 12.60 0.03 2.66 0.72
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes:
1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod version 2022.1.1, as recommended by the SCAQMD.
2. The numbers may be slightly off due to rounding.
Source: Air Quality and GHG Emissions Analysis prepared by Michael Baker International (July 25, 2023). Refer to Appendix A for assumptions used in this analysis.
Air Quality Health Impacts
Adverse health effects induced by criteria pollutant emissions are highly dependent on a
multitude of interconnected variables (e.g., cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and
atmospheric conditions, and the number and character of exposed individual [e.g., age, gender]).
In particular, O3 precursors, VOCs and NOX, affect air quality on a regional scale. Health effects
related to O3 are therefore the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout
a region. Existing models have limited sensitivity to small changes in criteria pollutant
concentrations, and, as such, translating project-generated criteria pollutants to specific health
effects or additional days of nonattainment would produce meaningless results. In other words,
the project’s less than significant increases in regional air pollution from criteria air pollutants
would have nominal or negligible impacts on human health.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 42
As the SCAQMD explained in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD submitted April 6, 2015
in Sierra Club vs. County of Fresno, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to quantify
health impacts of criteria pollutants for various reasons including modeling limitations and the
way in which air pollutants interact and form. Further, as noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by
the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) (April 13, 2015) submitted in the
same case, currently available modeling tools are not equipped to provide a meaningful analysis
of the correlation between an individual development project’s air emissions and specific human
health impacts.
The SCAQMD acknowledges that increased health effects from O3, as an example, are correlated
with the increases in ambient level of O3 in the air (concentration) that an individual person
breathes. However, it would take an extremely large amount of additional emissions to cause a
modeled increase in ambient O3 levels over the entire region. The SCAQMD states that based on
their own modeling in the SCAQMD’s 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, a reduction of 432 tons
(864,000 pounds) per day of NOX and a reduction of 187 tons (374,000 pounds) per day of VOCs
would reduce O3 levels at highest monitored sites by only nine parts per billion. As such, the
SCAQMD concludes that it is not currently possible to accurately quantify O3-related health
impacts caused by NOX or VOC emissions from relatively small projects (defined as projects with
regional scope) due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. Thus, as the project would
not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for construction and operational air emissions, the project would
have a less than significant impact for air quality health impacts.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that
include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants,
such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are
residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. The CARB has identified the following groups
of individuals as those most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children
under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as
asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.
Sensitive receptors near the project site include surrounding residences to the north, east, south,
and west. In order to identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends
addressing localized significance thresholds for construction and operational impacts (stationary
sources only).
Localized Significance Thresholds
Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing
Boards’ Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final
Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 43
The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized air quality impacts. LSTs
represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute
to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard
and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source
receptor area and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The SCAQMD provides the LST
lookup tables for one-, two-, and five-acre projects emitting CO, NOX, PM2.5, and/or PM10. The
LST methodology and associated mass rates are not designed to evaluate localized impacts from
mobile sources traveling over the roadways. The SCAQMD recommends that any project
disturbing over five acres during construction should perform air quality dispersion modeling to
assess impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. The project site is located within Source Receptor
Area (SRA) 34, Central San Bernardino Valley.
Construction LST
The SCAQMD guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs specifies the number of acres a particular
piece of equipment would likely disturb per day.9 SCAQMD provides LST thresholds for one-, two-
, and five-acre site disturbance areas; SCAQMD does not provide LST thresholds for projects over
five acres. The project would actively disturb approximately four acres per day during the grading
phase of construction. Therefore, the LST thresholds for two-acre were utilized as a conservative
estimate for the construction of LST analysis. Further, the nearest sensitive receptors would be
adjacent to the project site. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of
25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. As the nearest sensitive receptors are adjacent to the project
site, the LST values for 25 meters were used.
Table 5, Localized Emissions Significance, shows the localized construction-related emissions. It
is noted that the localized emissions presented in Table 5 are less than those in Table 3 because
localized emissions include only on-site emissions (i.e., from construction equipment and fugitive
dust) and do not include off-site emissions (i.e., from the worker, vendor, and hauling trips). As
seen in Table 5, emissions would not exceed the LSTs for SRA 34 (Central San Bernardino County).
Construction LST impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
9 In order to properly grade a piece of land, multiple passes with equipment may be required. The acres value is
based on the equipment list and days in grading or site preparation phase according to the anticipated maximum
number of acres a given piece of equipment can pass over in an 8-hour workday.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 44
Table 5: Localized Emissions Significance
Source 3,4 Pollutant (pounds/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Year 11 46.40 37.20 3.58 1.76
Year 22 15.40 19.90 0.68 0.62
Maximum Daily Emissions 46.40 37.20 3.58 1.76
Localized Significance Threshold 170 972 7 4
Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No
Notes:
1 The grading phase emissions are presented as the worst-case scenario for NOX, CO, and PM2.5, and the demolition phase emissions are presented as the worst-case scenario for PM10 in Year 1.
2 The building construction phase emissions are presented as the worst-case scenario for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 in Year 2.
3 The reduction/credits for construction emissions are based on “mitigation” included in CalEEMod and are required by the SCAQMD Rules. The
“mitigation” applied in CalEEMod include the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stockpiles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. The emissions results in this table represent the “mitigated” emissions shown in Appendix A.
4 The Localized Significance Threshold was determined using Appendix C of the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significant Threshold Methodology guidance
document for pollutants NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The Localized Significance Threshold was based on the anticipated daily acreage disturbance for
construction (approximately four acres; therefore, the two-acre threshold was conservatively used) for Source Receptor Area 34, Central San
Bernardino Valley.
Source: Air Quality and GHG Emissions Data prepared by Michael Baker International. July 25, 2023.
Operational LST
According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to operational activities if the project
includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend extended periods queuing
and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). The proposed project does not
include such uses. Thus, due to the lack of such emissions, no long-term LST analysis is needed.
Operational LST impacts would be less than significant.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
CO emissions are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological conditions, and traffic flow.
Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway
or intersection may reach unhealthful levels (e.g., adversely affecting residents, school children,
hospital patients, and the elderly).
The Basin is designated as an attainment/maintenance area for the Federal CO standards and an
attainment area under State standards. There has been a decline in CO emissions even though
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on U.S. urban and rural roads have increased; estimated
anthropogenic CO emissions have decreased 68 percent between 1990 and 2014. In 2014, mobile
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 45
sources accounted for 82 percent of the nation’s total anthropogenic CO emissions.10 Three
major control programs have contributed to the reduced per-vehicle CO emissions, including
exhaust standards, cleaner burning fuels, and motor vehicle inspection/maintenance programs.
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a potential CO hotspot may occur at any
location where the background CO concentration already exceeds 9.0 parts per million (ppm),
which is the 8-hour California ambient air quality standard. As previously discussed, the site is
located in SRA 34. Communities within SRAs are expected to have similar climatology and
ambient air pollutant concentrations. The monitoring station representative of SRA 34 is the
Fontana-Arrow Highway station, which is located approximately 1.8 miles northwest of the site.
The CO concentration at Fontana-Arrow Highway station was measured at 1.035 ppm in 2023.11
Given that the background CO concentration does not currently exceed 9.0 ppm, a CO hotspot
would not occur at the project site. Therefore, CO hotspot impacts would be less than significant.
Air Quality Health Impacts
As evaluated above, the project’s air emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s LST thresholds,
and CO hotpots would not occur as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the project would
not exceed the most stringent applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standards for
emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5. It should be noted that the ambient air quality standards
are developed and represent levels at which the most susceptible persons (e.g., children and the
elderly) are protected. In other words, the ambient air quality standards are purposefully set in
a stringent manner to protect children, elderly, and those with existing respiratory problems.
Thus, air quality health impact would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely
affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses
associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants,
food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass
molding. The proposed project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being
associated with odors.
Construction activities associated with the proposed residential project may generate detectable
odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust and architectural coatings. However, construction-
related odors would be short term in nature and cease upon project completion. In addition, the
10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Carbon Monoxide Emissions,
https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=10, accessed July 25, 2023.
11 California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Meteorological Information,
https://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/aqdselect.php?tab=specialrpt, accessed July 25, 2023.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 46
project would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections
2449(d)(3) and 2485, which minimizes the idling time of construction equipment either by
requiring equipment to be shut off when not in use or limiting idling time to no more than five
minutes. Compliance with these existing regulations would further reduce the detectable odors
from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. The project would also be required to comply with the
SCAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 1113 – Architectural Coating, which would minimize odor impacts
from ROG emissions during architectural coating. Any odor impacts to existing adjacent land uses
would be short term and negligible. As such, the project would not result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts would be
less than significant.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 47
IV. Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
The analysis and findings throughout this section are based on the Habitat Assessment prepared
by Michael Baker International (January 22, 2021) and the Updated Biological Resources Records
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 48
Search (December 23, 2021), provided as Appendix B1 and B2 of this IS/MND, respectively, and
incorporated herein by reference.
Discussion
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site consists of
disturbed/developed land that is subject to routine weed abatement, resulting in heavily
disturbed and compacted surface soils. Specifically, approximately 0.20-acre of ornamental
vegetation, 8.87 acres of disturbed habitat, and 3.52 acres of developed area occur on the
biological study area. As such, native vegetation communities do not occur within the project
site; instead, it consists of disturbed and developed land dominated by non-native and
ornamental plant species.
A literature search identified 55 special-status plant species, 75 special-status wildlife species,
and 5 special-status vegetation communities as occurring within the USGS Cucamonga Peak,
Devore, Fontana, and Guasti, California 7.5-minute quadrangles. Special-status plant and wildlife
species were evaluated for their potential to occur within the project site based on habitat
requirements, availability and quality of suitable habitat, and known distributions.
No special-status plant species were observed during the field survey. The project site is primarily
comprised of residential development and disturbed habitat characterized by heavily
disturbed/compacted soils. Additionally, the routine weed abatement within the project site and
surrounding residential land uses have reduced the potential for the project site to provide
suitable habitat for special-status plant species. Based on the results of the habitat assessment
and a review of specific habitat preferences, occurrence records, known distributions, and
elevation ranges, it was determined that the special-status plant species identified by the
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
databases are not expected to occur within the project site.
No special-status wildlife species identified by the CNDDB were observed within the project site
during the field survey. Based on the results of the field survey and a review of specific habitat
preferences, occurrence records, known distributions, and elevation ranges, it was determined
that the project site has a low potential to support Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii; a California
Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] Watch List species), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter
striatus; a CDFW Watch List species), and California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia; a
CDFW Watch List species). All remaining special-status wildlife species identified by the CNDDB
database are not expected to occur within the project site.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 49
The project site provides marginal foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of resident and
migrant bird species that are adapted to a high degree of disturbance associated with the
surrounding residential land uses. Fifteen (15) bird species were detected during the field survey,
including northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), rock dove (Columba livia), American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus),
northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), black phoebe
(Sayornis nigricans), lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria), Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia
decaocto), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), common starling (Sturnus vulgaris), Cassin’s
kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and white-crowned sparrow
(Zonotrichia leucophrys). Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 and the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). To maintain
compliance with the MBTA and CFGC, clearance surveys are typically required prior to any ground
disturbance or vegetation removal activities to avoid direct or indirect impacts to active bird nests
and/or nesting birds. Therefore, despite the limited vegetation on the project site, Mitigation
Measure BIO-1 provides for the protection of migratory birds that could be present on the project
site during nesting season when construction activities occur.
Although no burrowing owls were observed during the field survey, Mitigation Measure BIO-2
requires a pre-construction burrowing owl clearance survey to be conducted by a qualified
biologist to ensure that burrowing owls remain absent from the project site and impacts to
burrowing owls do not occur. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would ensure
protection of burrowing owls, if any, on the project site.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, potential impacts to special-status
species would be reduced to a less than significant level.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or
by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact. There is an existing residence with associated structures on the
project site and disturbed habitat that is subject to routine weed abatement, resulting in heavily
disturbed and compacted surface soils which reduces the likelihood of a sensitive natural
community from establishing. Additionally, no riparian habitats were observed on the project
site. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact associated with riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified by CDFW or USFWS.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 50
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. No jurisdictional drainage or wetland features were observed within the boundaries
of the project site. Therefore, development of the project site would not result in impacts to US
Army Corps of Engineers, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, or CDFW jurisdictional
areas and regulatory approvals would not be required. There would be no impact.
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within any wildlife corridors,
wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, or areas of critical environmental concern identified in
the San Bernardino County Land Use Plan.12 The project site is located within a heavily developed
area of the City and is surrounded by residential development and highly trafficked roadways
(i.e., Merrill Avenue to the north, Fontana Avenue to the east, Randall Avenue to the south). The
surrounding residential land uses have fragmented the connection between the project site and
surrounding naturally occurring vegetation communities. The disturbed and developed
landscape of the project site and absence of native vegetation for cover most likely precludes the
movement of wildlife through the project site. Further, elevated noise levels, vehicle traffic,
lighting, and human presence associated with the surrounding residential development and
roadways, decrease the suitability of the project site to be used as a wildlife movement corridor
or linkage. Additionally, no hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes,
reservoirs) with frequent sources of water that would be sufficient in supporting fish populations
were observed in the project site. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Fontana Public Services Department Tree Policy Manual
addresses the protection of heritage, significant, and specimen trees,13 and the Fontana
Municipal Code Chapter 28, Vegetation, addresses requirements for tree preservation and
removal. Implementation of the proposed project would impact existing trees on-site. However,
no special-status trees (as described in the Fontana Municipal Code) occur within the site.
Further, native vegetation communities do not occur within the project site, which is comprised
of disturbed land dominated by non-native and ornamental plant species. The removal of the
12 County of San Bernardino. 2020. http://countywideplan.com/policy-plan/lup/ Accessed January 26, 2021.
13 City of Fontana, n.d., Public Services Department Tree Policy Manual, accessed January 4, 2021.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/836/tree_manual?bidId=
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 51
existing non-native trees would not conflict with the provisions of the Tree Policy Manual and
the Fontana Municipal Code. Impacts would be less than significant.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
No Impact. The project site is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural
Community Conservation Plan area. The nearest such plan is the North Fontana Conservation
Program Area, located approximately 4 miles north of the project site. Therefore, no impact
would occur.
Mitigation Measures
BIO-1: Nesting Bird Surveys
The project site and surrounding vegetation communities provide limited suitable
foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of year-round and seasonal avian residents as
well as migrating songbirds that could occur in the area. Nesting birds are protected under
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. If project-related
construction activities are to be initiated during the nesting season (January 1 to August
31), a preconstruction nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist no more than three days prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground-
disturbing activities. The qualified biologist shall survey all suitable nesting habitat within
the project impact area and areas within a biologically defensible buffer zone surrounding
the project impact area. Documentation of surveys and findings shall be submitted to the
City of Fontana for review and file. If no active nests are detected during the clearance
survey, project activities may begin, and no additional avoidance and minimization
measures would be required. If an active nest is found, the bird species shall be identified
and a “no-disturbance” buffer shall be established around the active nest. The size of the
“no-disturbance” buffer shall be increased or decreased based on the judgement of the
qualified biologist and level of activity and sensitivity of the species. It is further
recommended that the qualified biologist periodically monitor any active nests to
determine if project-related activities occurring outside the “no-disturbance” buffer
disturb the birds and if the buffer should be increased. Once the young have fledged and
left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, project
activities within the “no-disturbance” buffer may occur.
BIO-2: Burrowing Owl Surveys
Preconstruction clearance surveys shall be conducted no more than 30 days prior to any
vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities. The survey shall be performed in
accordance with the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW, 2012).
Documentation of surveys and findings shall be submitted to the City of Fontana for
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 52
review and file. If no burrowing owls or occupied burrows are detected, construction may
begin. If an occupied burrow is found within the development footprint during
preconstruction clearance surveys, a burrowing owl exclusion and mitigation plan shall
be prepared and submitted to CDFW for approval prior to initiating project activities.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 53
V. Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CULTURAL RESOURCES:
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
The analysis and findings throughout this section are based on the Cultural Resources
Identification Report prepared by Michael Baker International (April 6, 2021) and the Updated
Cultural Resources Identification Report (January 11, 2022), provided as Appendix C1 and C2 of
this IS/MND, respectively.
Discussion
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
No Impact. Historic resources generally consist of buildings, structures, improvements, and
remnants associated with a significant historic event or person(s) and/or have a historically
significant style, design, or achievement. Damage to or demolition of historic resources is
typically considered to be a significant impact. Impacts to historic resources can occur through
direct impacts, such as destruction or removal, and indirect impacts, such as a change in the
setting of a historic resource.
The General Plan Community and Neighborhoods Element (Chapter 4) includes a list of known
cultural and historical resources. A records search determined that no cultural resources were
located within the project site, although seven resources are located within one mile of the
project site. The nearest resource, the West Fontana Flood Control Channel, is located
approximately 0.3 mile to the north.
As there are no historic resources present or adjacent to the project site, no substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource would be caused by the project. There would
be no impact.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 54
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact. Archaeological resources are those that are listed in or eligible by
the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources. Additionally, resources in local registers of historical resources and resources that a
lead agency determines as historically significant are also considered historical and
archaeological resources (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15064.5).
Archaeological sites contain resources associated with former human activities, and may contain
such resources as human skeletal remains, waste from tool manufacture, tool concentrations,
and/or discolorations or accumulation of soil or food remains.
There are no previously recorded prehistoric archaeological resources within one mile of the
project site. In addition, the project area is highly disturbed, having been previously used as
agricultural land, and is unlikely to yield any buried cultural resources. Impacts would be less than
significant.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Community and Neighborhoods Element (Chapter
4) does not identify any human burial sites on or near the project area, nor any areas suspected
as such. There is a possibility that future land alteration activities associated with any project to
develop currently undeveloped land could uncover human remains, whether from prehistoric
time periods or from more recent time periods. There is also the potential that Native American
remains or the remains of someone who has been missing or known to be dead could be
encountered.
In the event of a discovery of human remains during construction activities, contractors must
comply with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.514, which requires
that further excavation or disturbance of the area containing human remains cease until the
County coroner examines the remains and issues a report. If the coroner finds evidence of Native
American remains, they are required to contact the Native American Heritage Commission within
24 hours to verify Native American origin and facilitate recovery of the remains in accordance
with appropriate tribal customs. Compliance with this existing state law would prohibit future
land development projects from indiscriminately destroying or damaging human remains or
disturb human burial sites.
14 Contractors are typically made aware of this requirement and others via the Final Constraints section of the
Final Map.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 55
VI. Energy
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
ENERGY:
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24)
The 2022 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential
Buildings (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6), commonly referred to as “Title 24,”
became effective on January 1, 2023. In general, Title 24 requires the design of building shells
and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow
consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.
The 2022 Title 24 standards encourage efficient electric heat pumps, establish electric-ready
requirements for new homes, expand solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards,
strengthen ventilation standards, and more.
California Green Building Standards (CALGreen)
The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part
11), commonly referred to as CALGreen, went into effect on January 1, 2023. CALGreen is the
first-in-the-nation mandatory green buildings standards code. The California Building Standards
Commission developed CALGreen to meet the State’s landmark initiative Assembly Bill (AB) 32
goals, which established a comprehensive program of cost-effective reductions of greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. CALGreen was developed to (1) reduce GHG
emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, and healthier
places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the
environmental directives of the administration. CALGreen requires that new buildings employ
water efficiency and conservation, increase building system efficiencies (e.g., lighting,
heating/ventilation and air conditioning [HVAC], and plumbing fixtures), divert construction
waste from landfills, and incorporate electric vehicles charging infrastructure. There is growing
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 56
recognition among developers and retailers that sustainable construction is not prohibitively
expensive, and that there is a significant cost-savings potential in green building practices and
materials.15
California Public Utilities Commission Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) prepared an Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan
(Strategic Plan) in September 2008 with the goal of promoting energy efficiency and a reduction
in GHGs. In January 2011, a lighting chapter was adopted and added to the Strategic Plan. The
Strategic Plan is California’s single roadmap to achieving maximum energy savings in the State
between 2009 and 2020, and beyond 2020. The Strategic Plan contains the practical strategies
and actions to attain significant statewide energy savings, as a result of a year-long collaboration
by energy experts, utilities, businesses, consumer groups, and governmental organizations in
California, throughout the West, nationally and internationally. The plan includes four bold
strategies:
1. All new residential construction in California will be zero net energy by 2020;
2. All new commercial construction in California will be zero net energy by 2030;
3. Heating, ventilation, and air condition (HVAC) will be transformed to ensure that its
energy performance is optimal for California’s climate; and
4. All eligible low-income customers will be given the opportunity to participate in the
low-income energy efficiency program by 2020.
California Energy Commission Integrated Energy Policy Report
In 2002, the California State Legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 1389, which requires the
California Energy Commission (CEC) to develop an Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) every
two years. SB 1389 requires the CEC to conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy
industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices, and
use these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect
the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the State's economy, and protect public
health and safety.
The CEC adopted the 2021 integrated energy policy report (2021 IEPR) Volume I, Volume II, and
Volume IV on February 1, 2022 and Volume III on February 24, 2022.16 The 2021 IEPR provides
information and policy recommendations on advancing a clean, reliable, and affordable energy
15 U.S. Green Building Council, Green Building Costs and Savings, https://www.usgbc.org/articles/green-building-
costs-and-savings, accessed April 3, 2023.
16 California Energy Commissions, 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report, https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-
reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2021-integrated-energy-policy-report, accessed April 3, 2023.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 57
system for all Californian.17 Volume I of the 2021 IEPR addresses actions needed to reduce the
GHG emissions related to the buildings in which California live and work, with an emphasis on
energy efficiency; Volume II examines actions needed to increase the reliability and resiliency of
California’s energy system; Volume III looks at the evolving role of gas in California’ energy
system; and Volume IV reports on California’s energy demand outlook, including a forecast to
2035 and long-term energy demand scenarios of 2050. The 2021 IEPR builds on the goals and
work in response to AB 758 (Energy: energy audit), SB 350 (Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction
Act), AB 3232 (Zero-emissions buildings and sources of heat energy), and the 2019 IEPR to further
a comprehensive approach toward decarbonizing buildings in a cost-effective and equitable
manner. For the 2021 IEPR, the CEC extends the forecast timeframe to 15 years to coincide with
several state goals that are planned for 2035 and improves methodologies to better quantify and
predict the likelihood, severity, and duration of future extreme heat events.
Executive Order N-79-20
Executive Order N-79-20, issued September 23, 2020, directs the State to require all new cars
and passenger trucks sold in the State to be zero-emission vehicles by 2035. Executive Order N-
79-20 further states that all medium- and heavy-duty vehicles sold in the State will be zero-
emission by 2045.
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.
Construction Impacts
Project construction would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy consumed
by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as
asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and
glass.
Construction of the proposed project would involve on-site energy demand and consumption
related to the use of gasoline and diesel fuel for construction worker vehicle trips, hauling and
materials delivery truck trips, and operation of off-road construction equipment. In addition,
diesel-fueled portable generators may be necessary to provide additional electricity demands for
temporary on-site lighting, welding, and for supplying energy to areas of the sites where energy
supply cannot be met via a hookup to the existing electricity grid. Project construction would not
involve the use of natural gas appliances or equipment. Project construction methods would be
17 California Energy Commissions, Final 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report Volume I Building Decarbonization,
February 2022.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 58
typical of current construction practices and would not require the use of more energy intensive
machinery or higher than normal volumes of trucks and worker vehicle trips.
Even during the most intense period of construction, due to the different types of construction
activities (e.g., site preparation, grading, home construction), only portions of the project site
area would be disturbed at a time, with operation of construction equipment occurring at
different locations on the project site rather than a single location. All construction equipment
and operation thereof would be regulated per the In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation
administered by the CARB. The In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation is intended to reduce
emissions from in-use, off-road, heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California by imposing limits on
idling, requiring all vehicles to be reported to CARB, restricting the addition of older vehicles into
fleets, and requiring fleets to reduce emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older
engines, or installing exhaust retrofits. As another benefit of these restrictions, off-road diesel-
powered vehicles would consume less fuel and combust fuel more efficiently. The project would
also be subject to mandates on portable diesel generators and the California Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA) strict on-road emissions standards for heady-duty engines. These
regulations contain strict air emissions standards that result in efficient engine fuel consumption
rates (compared to previous standards) during operations. In addition, technological innovations
and more stringent standards are being researched, such as multi-function equipment, hybrid
equipment, or other design changes, which could help to reduce demand on oil and emissions
associated with construction in California, over the next few years. As such, temporary energy
use during construction of the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in peak
or base demands on regional energy supplies or require additional capacity from local or regional
energy supplies. As such, project construction activities would not result in a wasteful, inefficient,
or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.
Further, substantial reductions in energy inputs for construction materials can be achieved by
selecting building materials composed of recycled materials that require substantially less energy
to produce than non-recycled materials. The project-related incremental increase in the use of
energy bound in construction materials such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes and manufactured
or processed materials (e.g., lumber and gas) would not substantially increase demand for energy
compared to overall local and regional demand for construction materials. It is reasonable to
assume that production of building materials would employ all reasonable energy conservation
practices in the interest of reducing costs. Construction impacts would less than significant.
Operational Impacts
Following completion of the proposed project, Southern California Edison (SCE) would provide
electricity, and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) would provide natural gas to the
project site. Energy use associated with operation of the proposed project would be the same as
typical residential tract home developments. The project does not include any unusual project
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 59
characteristics or require special equipment that would be more energy intensive than typical
uses. The project would comply the most recent version Title 24 and CALGreen efficiency
standards, which would ensure the project incorporates energy-efficient windows, lighting, and
insulation; water-efficient fixtures; ENERGY STAR-rated appliances and energy efficient boilers
and heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) systems; and water-efficient landscaping. The
project would also be required to incorporate renewable energy features such as photovoltaic
solar panels. As outlined in the most recent Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for
single-family residential uses, the project would utilize renewable energy by installing solar
photovoltaic panels in accordance with the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.
In addition to on-site energy use, the proposed project would result in transportation energy use
associated with vehicle trips generated by new residents as they travel to- and from- home. With
regard to transportation energy use, the proposed project would not have control over fuel
consumption factors such as vehicle type(s), engine efficiency, vehicle miles traveled, etc. for new
residents. However, due to CARB’s increasing vehicle efficiency standards it is assumed the long-
term transportation fuel consumption from residents would steadily decline over time and
ensure that vehicle fuel consumption is not wasteful or inefficient.
The proposed project would be subject to all relevant provisions of the most recent update of
the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen Code. Compliance with these
standards would ensure that the building energy use associated with the proposed project would
not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Therefore, operational impacts 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. State and local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency
include CPUC’s Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, California Building Energy Efficiency Standards,
and CALGreen standards. Compliance with Title 24 and CALGreen standards would ensure the
project incorporates energy-efficient windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, as well
as water-efficient fixtures into the construction of the homes.
At the local level, Fontana’s Building and Safety Division enforces the applicable requirements of
the Title 24 and CALGreen Code. On November 13, 2018, the City approved the General Plan
Update 2015-2035. The General Plan Update included goals and policies that would promote
energy conservation and efficiency. Table 6: City of Fontana General Plan Consistency discusses
project consistency with relevant policies and actions in the General Plan.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 60
Table 6: City of Fontana General Plan Consistency
Goal Policy Project Consistency
Goal 5: Fontana is an Inland Empire leader in
energy-efficient energy development and retrofits.
Promote energy-efficient
development in Fontana.
The project would comply with the most
current version of the Title 24 and
CalGreen code and would use water
conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings,
outdoor potable water use in landscape
areas, and would recycle and/or salvage
for reused a minimum of 65% of the
nonhazardous construction waste.
Meet state energy-efficiency
goals for new construction
Goal 6: Green Building techniques are used in new
development and retrofits.
Promote green building
through guidelines, awards
and nonfinancial incentives.
Source: City of Fontana, 2018 General Plan Sustainability and Resilience Element, November 2018.
Compliance with State and local energy efficiency requirements would ensure the project would
not conflict with or obstruct any plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the
proposed project would result in less than significant impacts.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 61
VII. Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
GEOLOGY AND SOILS:
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life
or property?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 62
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
The analysis and findings throughout this section are based on the Field Infiltration Test Results
prepared by ZS Engineering (July 9, 2020), provided as Appendix D of this IS/MND.
Discussion
a)i) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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. Seismically induced ground rupture is defined as the physical
displacement of surface deposits in response to an earthquake’s seismic waves. Ground rupture
is most likely along active faults, and typically occurs during earthquakes of magnitude five or
higher. Ground rupture only affects the area immediately adjacent to a fault.
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of
surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The act’s main purpose is to prevent the
construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The act
requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zones, around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. If an active
fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and
must be set back from the fault (typically 50 feet).
No known active or potentially active faults have been mapped within the project area and the
area is not located in a Fault Rupture Hazard Zone as established by the Alquist-Priolo Act. The
project site is located approximately 5 miles south of the Cucamonga section of the Sierra Madre
Fault Zone and 6 miles southwest of the San Bernardino Valley section of the San Jacinto Fault
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 63
Zone, which are the nearest fault zones to the project site.18 As the project site is not located
within a fault zone, project implementation would not expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault and impacts would be
less than significant.
a)ii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact. Seismic shaking activity and intensity is dependent on the distance
from the fault and earthquake epicenter. The geologic structure of the entire Southern California
area is dominated by the northwestern-trending faults associated with the San Andreas Fault
system. Faults such as the San Jacinto and San Andreas are major faults in this system and are
known to be active. The nearest fault to the project site is the Cucamonga segment of the Sierra
Madre Fault, located approximately 5 miles to the north, which may result in strong
groundshaking at the project site.19 The Cucamonga fault has a capability of generating an
earthquake of a 6.0 to 7.0 magnitude on the Richter Scale and a probability for a major rupture
to occur once every 600-700 years.20
Development of the project would include construction of 53 new single-family detached homes
and associated infrastructure and the proposed project would be required to comply with seismic
safety provisions of the California Building Code (CBC).21 Therefore, the project would not directly
or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking
and the impact would be less than significant.
a)iii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
Less than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively
cohesion-less soils lose shear strength during strong ground motions. The factors controlling
liquefaction are the presence of loose granular soils prone to liquefaction combined with
saturation of those soils due to shallow groundwater and ground shaking.
18 California Department of Conservation, n.d., EQ Zapp: California Hazards Zone Application.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp, accessed December 17, 2020; US Geological
Survey, n.d., Interactive Fault Map website, https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-
hazards/hazards, accessed December 17, 2020.
19 City of Fontana General Plan Environmental Impact Report, p. 5.5-4.
20 Southern California Earthquake Data Center, https://scedc.caltech.edu/earthquake/cucamonga.html
accessed May 12, 2021.
21 California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 64
The project site is not mapped within a zone of potentially liquefiable soils by the Department of
Conservation or by the County of San Bernardino.22 Project construction would comply with the
latest CBC standards, as required by Fontana Municipal Code Section 5-61. Implementation of
CBC standards would include provisions for seismic building designs. Therefore, impacts
associated with liquefaction would be less than significant.
a)iv) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
Less than Significant Impact. A landslide is generally defined as the downward and outward
movement of loosened rock or earth down a hillside or slope. Landslides can occur either very
suddenly or slowly, and frequently accompany other natural hazards such as earthquakes, floods,
or wildfires. Landslides can also be induced by the undercutting of slopes during construction,
improper artificial compaction, or saturation from sprinkler systems or broken water pipes.
According to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), there have been no reported
historical occurrences of landslides in the City and landslides are not a major concern in the City.23
The project site is relatively flat, and there are no areas of landslide susceptibility on the project
site.24 Therefore, impacts relative to landslides would be less than significant.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than Significant Impact. Grading and construction of the project could expose large amounts
of soil and could result in soil erosion if effective erosion control measures are not used. Best
management practices (BMPs) for erosion control are required under National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act.
NPDES requirements for construction projects disturbing 1 acre or more in area are set forth in
the Construction General Permit issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water
Board Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ). Furthermore, the project’s land clearing, grading, and
construction activities would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rules 403 and 403.2 regulating
fugitive dust emissions. Impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
22 US Geological Survey, n.d. Interactive Fault Map website, https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-
hazards/hazards, accessed December 17 2020; County of San Bernardino, 2019, County Wide Plan Draft
Environmental Impact Report, Figure 5-6.3.
23 City of Fontana, 2017. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan
24 County of San Bernardino, 2019, County Wide Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, Figure 5-6.3
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 65
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the project site is not located in an area
identified as being susceptible to liquefaction or landslides. Impacts would be less than
significant.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, creating substantial direct or indirect risks
to life or property?
Less than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are those that undergo volume changes as moisture
content fluctuates, swelling substantially when wet or shrinking when dry. Expansive soils contain
significant amounts of clay particles that swell considerably when wetted and shrink when dried.
Foundations constructed on these soils are subjected to large uplifting forces caused by swelling.
Soil expansion can damage structures by cracking foundations, causing settlement, and distorting
structural elements.
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service web soil survey, surface soils within the
project site have been mapped as Tujunga gravelly loam sand (0 to 9 percent slopes), which is
considered to have a low shrink-swell potential.25 Therefore, with the project’s adherence to CBC
design considerations impacts relative to expansive soils would be less than significant.
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. There is a former septic system located within the project site located on the west
side of the existing residence, which would be removed in accordance with City regulations. The
proposed project would connect to the existing sewer system operated by the Inland Empire
Utilities Agency (IEUA). Septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would not be
used. There would be no impact.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located within the
San Gabriel Valley, which generally consists of alluvial fans extending southward from the San
Gabriel Mountains to the north and San Bernardino Mountains to the east. As indicated in the
Field Infiltration Test Results, the project site contains silty sand with a gravel size of up to 1 inch
for depths ranging from 2 to 10 feet, and then followed by sandy gravel of 2 inches for depths
ranging from 10 to 15 feet. The subsurface features of the alluvial fans are related to erosion of
the surrounding hills and mountains, resulting in the deposition of deep layers of alluvial
25 US Department of Agriculture, 2019, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Custom Soil Resources Report for
San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California.
https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 66
deposits.26 Although younger fan deposits do not have the potential to contain significant
paleontological resources, in older deposits the potential for resources is high, particularly near
1-15 and I-210 and in the southwestern areas of the city.27 The project site is located in an area
where there is the potential for paleontological resources to be present.
General Plan policies provide an ongoing program to ensure proper identification, evaluation,
and recovery and/or protection of potentially important paleontological resources that may be
disturbed during future development activities. For instance, the project shall retain a qualified
paleontologist to conduct a pre-construction field survey of any project site that is underlain by
older alluvium.28 In addition, Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which provides a protocol for the
inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources, would reduce potentially significant impacts
to such resources to a less than significant level. Therefore, this impact would be less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures
GEO-1: Paleontological Resources Inadvertent Discovery
If subsurface fossils are discovered during earth-moving activities associated with the
proposed project, a qualified paleontologist (defined as a paleontologist who meets the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for paleontology) or
qualified designee shall divert these activities temporarily around the fossil site until the
remains have been recovered, a rock sample has then been collected to process to allow
for the recovery of smaller fossil remains, if warranted, and construction has been
allowed to proceed through the site by a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee. If
a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee is not present when fossil remains are
uncovered by earth- moving activities, these activities shall be stopped, and a qualified
paleontologist or qualified designee shall be called to the site immediately to recover the
remains.
All recovered fossils shall be prepared, identified, and curated for documentation in the
summary report and transferred to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino
County Museum). A paleontological resources summary report shall be submitted to City
of Fontana. Collected specimens shall be transferred with a copy of the report to San
Bernardino County Museum.
26 Pinnacle Environmental, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 2020
27 City of Fontana, General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2018, pg. 5.4-8.
28 City of Fontana, General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2018.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 67
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS:
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
The analysis and findings throughout this section are based on the CalEEMod modeling analysis
prepared by Michael Baker International (July 25, 2023), provided as Appendix A of this IS/MND.
Global Climate Change
California is a substantial contributor of global greenhouse gases (GHGs), emitting over 418
million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year.29 Methane (CH4) is also an
important GHG that potentially contributes to global climate change. GHGs are global in their
effect, which is to increase the earth’s ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. As primary GHGs
have a long lifetime in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well-mixed, their
impact on the atmosphere is mostly independent of the point of emission. Every nation emits
GHGs and as a result makes an incremental cumulative contribution to global climate change;
therefore, global cooperation will be required to reduce the rate of GHG emissions enough to
slow or stop the human-caused increase in average global temperatures and associated changes
in climatic conditions.
The impact of human activities on global climate change is apparent in the observational record.
Air trapped by ice has been extracted from core samples taken from polar ice sheets to determine
the global atmospheric variation of CO2, CH4, and nitrous oxide (N2O) from before the start of
industrialization (approximately 1750), to over 650,000 years ago. For that period, it was found
that CO2 concentrations ranged from 180 to 300 ppm. For the period from approximately 1750
to the present, global CO2 concentrations increased from a pre-industrialization period
concentration of 280 to 379 ppm in 2005, with the 2005 value far exceeding the upper end of the
29 California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2020,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/inventory/2000-2020_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf,
accessed July 25, 2023.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 68
pre-industrial period range. As of July 2023, the highest monthly average concentration of CO2 in
the atmosphere was recorded at 422 ppm.30
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories
of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. It concluded that
a stabilization of GHGs at 400 to 450 ppm carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)31 concentration is
required to keep global mean warming below 2 degrees Celsius (ºC), which in turn is assumed to
be necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories
of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. It concluded that
a stabilization of GHGs at 400 to 450 ppm carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)32 concentration is
required to keep global mean warming below 2 degrees Celsius (ᵒC), which in turn is assumed to
be necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.
State
Various Statewide and local initiatives to reduce the State’s contribution to GHG emissions have
raised awareness that, even though the various contributors to and consequences of global
climate change are not yet fully understood, global climate change is under way, and there is a
real potential for severe adverse environmental, social, and economic effects in the long term.
Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006). California passed the
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32; California Health and Safety Code
Division 25.5, Sections 38500 - 38599). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market
mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a cap on
Statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that Statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990
levels by 2020. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used
to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if
the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
30 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Carbon Dioxide Concentration at Mauna Loa Observatory, The Keeling
Curve, https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/, accessed July 24, 2023.
31 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) – A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse
gases based upon their global warming potential.
32 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) – A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse
gases based upon their global warming potential.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 69
should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB
32.
Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order S-3-05 set forth a series of target dates by which
Statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
Senate Bill 32. Signed into law on September 2016, SB 32 codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target
in Executive Order B-30-15 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). The bill authorizes CARB to
adopt an interim GHG emissions level target to be achieved by 2030.
CARB Scoping Plan. On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan
(Scoping Plan), which functions as a roadmap to achieve GHG reductions in California required
by AB 32 through subsequently enacted regulations. The Scoping Plan contains the main
strategies California will implement to reduce GHG emissions by 174 million metric tons (MT), or
approximately 30 percent, from the State’s projected 2020 emissions level of 596 million MTCO2e
under a business as usual (BAU)33 scenario. This is a reduction of 42 million MTCO2e, or almost
ten percent, from 2002 to 2004 average emissions, but requires the reductions in the face of
population and economic growth through 2020.
The Scoping Plan calculates 2020 BAU emissions as the emissions that would be expected to
occur in the absence of any GHG reduction measures. The 2020 BAU emissions estimate was
derived by projecting emissions from a past baseline year using growth factors specific to each
of the different economic sectors (e.g., transportation, electrical power, commercial and
residential, industrial, etc.). CARB used three-year average emissions, by sector, for 2002 to 2004
to forecast emissions to 2020. The measures described in the Scoping Plan are intended to reduce
the projected 2020 BAU to 1990 levels, as required by AB 32.
AB 32 requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan at least once every five years. CARB adopted the
first major update to the Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The updated Scoping Plan identifies the
actions California has already taken to reduce GHG emissions and focuses on areas where further
reductions could be achieved to help meet the 2020 target established by AB 32. The Scoping
Plan update also looks beyond 2020 toward the 2050 goal, established in Executive Order S-3-05,
33 “Business as Usual” refers to emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of GHG reductions; refer
to http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/bau.htm. Note that there is significant controversy as to what
BAU means. In determining the GHG 2020 limit, CARB used the above as the “definition.” It is broad enough to
allow for design features to be counted as reductions.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 70
and observes that “a mid-term statewide emission limit will ensure that the State stays on course
to meet our long-term goal.”
On January 20, 2017, CARB released the proposed Second Update to the Scoping Plan, which
identifies the State’s post-2020 reduction strategy. The Second Update was finalized in
November 2017 and approved on December 14, 2017, and reflects the 2030 target of a 40
percent reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. The
2017 Scoping Plan Update establishes a new Statewide emissions limit of 260 million MTCO2e for
the year 2030, which corresponds to a 40 percent decrease in 1990 levels by 2030.
On December 15, 2022, CARB released the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality
(2022 Scoping Plan), which identifies the strategies achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier.
The 2022 Scoping Plan contains the GHG reductions, technology, and clean energy mandated by
statutes. The 2022 Scoping Plan was developed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 through a
substantial reduction in fossil fuel dependence, while at the same time increasing deployment of
efficient non-combustion technologies and distribution of clean energy. The plan would also
reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) and would include mechanical CO2
capture and sequestration actions, as well as emissions and sequestration from natural and
working lands and nature-based strategies. Under 2022 Scoping Plan, by 2045, California aims to
cut GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels, reduce smog-forming air pollution by 71
percent, reduce the demand for liquid petroleum by 94 percent compared to current usage,
improve health and welfare, and create millions of new jobs. This plan also builds upon current
and previous environmental justice efforts to integrate environmental justice directly into the
plan, to ensure that all communities can reap the benefits of this transformational plan.
Title 24, Part 6. The California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential
Buildings, Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and commonly referred to
as “Title 24,” were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s
energy consumption. Part 6 of Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building
components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration
and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2022 Title
24 standards took effect on January 1, 2023.
Title 24, Part 11. The California Green Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11), commonly
referred to as CALGreen, is a Statewide mandatory construction code developed and adopted by
the California Building Standards Commission and the Department of Housing and Community
Development. CALGreen also provides voluntary tiers and measures that local governments may
adopt that encourage or require additional measures in five green building topical areas. The
most recent update to the CALGreen Code went into effect on January 1, 2023.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 71
Regional
2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. On September 3,
2020, the Regional Council of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
formally adopted the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments – Connect SoCal (2020-2045
RTP/SCS). The SCS portion of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS highlights strategies for the region to reach
the regional target of reducing GHGs from autos and light-duty trucks by eight percent per capita
by 2020, and 19 percent by 2035 (compared to 2005 levels). Specially, these strategies are to:
▪ Focus growth near destinations and mobility options;
▪ Promote diverse housing choices;
▪ Leverage technology innovations;
▪ Support implementation of sustainability policies; and
▪ Promote a green region.
Furthermore, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS discusses a variety of land use tools to help achieve the
State-mandated reductions in GHG emissions through reduced per capita vehicle miles traveled
(VMT). Some of these tools include center focused placemaking by focusing on priority growth
areas, job centers, transit priority areas, as well as high quality transit areas and green regions.
Local
City of Fontana General Plan Update 2015-2035. The General Plan contains goals, policies, and
actions that are designed to reduce GHG emissions. Specifically, the Community Mobility and
Circulation Element, and the Sustainability and Resilience Element, includes these goals and
policies. The Community Mobility and Circulation Element supports programs that improve travel
by cars and trucks and provides guidance on expanding the options for transit and active
transportation. The Sustainability and Resilience Element focuses on resource efficiency and
planning for climate change.
Community Mobility and Circulation Element
Goal 7 The City of Fontana participates in shaping regional transportation policies to
reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.
Policy 7.3 Participate in the efforts of Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) to coordinate transportation planning and services that support
greenhouse gas reductions.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 72
Action E Reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with transportation by reducing
vehicle miles traveled and per-mile emissions through use of vehicle technologies
to meet the City’s goals of greenhouse gas reductions by 2035.
Sustainability and Resilience Element
Goal 3 Renewable sources of energy, including solar and wind, and other energy-
conservation strategies are available to city households and businesses.
Policy Promote renewable energy programs for government, Fontana businesses, and
Fontana residences.
Action C Ensure that appropriate zoning and design standard regulations are in place as
needed to provide for domestic solar and wind installations.
Goal 5 Green building techniques are used in new development and retrofits.
Policy Promote green building through guidelines, awards and nonfinancial incentives.
Action A Establish a residential “cool roofs” program to reduce air conditioning costs and
urban heat island effect.
Goal 6 Fontana is a leader energy-efficient development and retrofits.
Policy Promote-energy efficient development in Fontana.
Action A Provide incentives for energy-efficient residential and non-residential
construction.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 was adopted to assist lead agencies in determining the
significance of the impacts of GHG emissions and gives lead agencies the discretion to determine
whether to assess those emissions quantitatively or qualitatively. This section recommends
certain factors to be considered in the determination of significance (i.e., the extent to which a
project may increase or reduce GHG emissions compared to the existing environment; whether
the project exceeds an applicable significance threshold; and the extent to which the project
complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a plan for the reduction or
mitigation of GHGs). The amendments do not establish a threshold of significance; rather, lead
agencies are granted discretion to establish significance thresholds for their respective
jurisdictions, including looking to thresholds developed by other public agencies or suggested by
other experts, such as the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), so long
as any threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.7(c)). The California Natural Resources Agency has also clarified that the CEQA Guidelines
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 73
amendments focus on the effects of GHG emissions as cumulative impacts, and therefore GHG
emissions should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impact
analyses (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3)).34,35 A project’s incremental contribution to a
cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with
an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements to avoid or
substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area of the project.36
The City has not adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing impacts related to GHG
emissions, nor has the SCAQMD, CARB, or any other state or regional agency adopted a numerical
significance threshold for assessing GHG emissions that is applicable to the project. Since there
is no applicable adopted or accepted threshold for GHG emissions, the methodology for
evaluating the project’s impacts related to GHG emissions focuses on its consistency with
statewide, regional, and local plans adopted for the purpose of reducing and/or mitigating GHG
emissions. This evaluation of consistency with such plans is the sole basis for determining the
significance of the project’s GHG-related impacts on the environment.
Notwithstanding, for informational purposes, the analysis also calculates the amount of GHG
emissions that would be attributable to the project using recommended air quality models, as
described below. The primary purpose of quantifying the project’s GHG emissions is to satisfy
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a), which calls for a good-faith effort to describe and
calculate emissions. The estimated emissions inventory is also used to determine if there would
be a reduction in the project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions as a result of
compliance with regulations and requirements that address the reduction or mitigation of GHG
emissions. However, the significance of the project’s GHG emissions impacts is not based on the
amount of GHG emissions resulting from the project.
Discussion
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. Project-related GHG emissions include emissions from direct and
indirect sources. The proposed project would result in direct and indirect emissions of CO2, N2O,
and CH4, and would not result in other GHGs in quantities that would facilitate a meaningful
34 California Natural Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, pp. 11-13, 14, 16,
December 2009, https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/Final_Statement_of_Reasons.pdf,
accessed January 19, 2021.
35 State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Transmittal of the Governor’s Office of Planning
and Research’s Proposed SB97 CEQA Guidelines Amendments to the Natural Resources Agency, April 13, 2009,
https://planning.lacity.org/eir/CrossroadsHwd/deir/files/references/C01.pdf, accessed January 19, 2021.
36 14 CCR Section 15064(h)(3).
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 74
analysis. Therefore, this analysis focuses on these three forms of GHG emissions. Direct project-
related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile
sources, while indirect sources include emissions from electricity consumption, water demand,
and solid waste generation. Operational GHG estimations are based on energy emissions from
natural gas usage and automobile emissions.
The California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1.1 (CalEEMod) was used to estimate
emissions based on project-specific land use data. Table 7, Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
presents the estimated CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions associated with the proposed project; refer
to Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, for the CalEEMod outputs.
Direct Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases
▪ Construction Emissions. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized
over the lifetime of the project (assumed to be 30 years), then added to the operational
emissions.37 As shown in Table 7, the proposed project would result in 17.77 metric tons
of CO2 equivalent per year (MTCO2e/yr) when amortized over 30 years (or a total of 533
MTCO2e in 30 years).
▪ Area Source. The project would directly result in 0.91 MTCO2e/yr from area source
emissions; refer to Table 7.
▪ Mobile Source. According to the Fontana 53 Focused Traffic Study prepared by TJW
Engineering, Inc. on June 19, 2023, the proposed project is projected to generate a total
of 491 daily trips. As shown in Table 7, the project would directly result in 516 MTCO2e/yr
of mobile source-generated GHG emissions.
▪ Refrigerants. Refrigerants are substances used in equipment for air conditioning and
refrigeration. Most of the refrigerants used today are HFCs or blends thereof, which can
have high GWP values. All equipment that uses refrigerants has a charge size (i.e.,
quantity of refrigerant the equipment contains), and an operational refrigerant leak rate,
and each refrigerant has a GWP that is specific to that refrigerant. CalEEMod quantifies
refrigerant emissions from leaks during regular operation and routine servicing over the
equipment lifetime, and then derives average annual emissions from the lifetime
estimate. The proposed project would result in 0.12 MTCO2e/yr of GHG emissions from
refrigerants; refer to Table 7.
37 The project lifetime is based on the standard 30-year assumption of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (South Coast Air Quality Management District, Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse
Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, October 2008).
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 75
Table 7: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants CO2e
Metric Tons/year1
Direct Emissions
Construction (amortized over 30 years) 17.67 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 17.77
Area Source 0.91 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 0.91
Mobile Source 507.00 0.03 0.03 0.91 516.00
Refrigerants - - - 0.12 0.12
Total Direct Emissions2 525.58 0.04 0.04 1.03 534.80
Indirect Emissions
Energy 185.00 0.01 <0.01 0.00 186.00
Solid Waste 1.14 0.11 0.00 0.00 3.99
Water Demand 20.70 0.07 <0.01 0.00 23.10
Total Indirect Emissions2 206.84 0.19 0.01 0.00 213.09
Total Project-Related Emissions2 747.89 MTCO2e/year
Notes:
1. Emissions calculated using California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2022.1.1 (CalEEMod) computer model.
2. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.
Source: Air Quality and GHG Emissions Analysis prepared by Michael Baker International (July 25, 2023). Refer to Appendix A for detailed
model input/output data.
Indirect Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases
▪ Energy Consumption. Energy consumption emissions were calculated using CalEEMod
and project-specific land use data. Southern California Edison (SCE) would provide
electricity to the project site. The project would indirectly result in 186 MTCO2e/year due
to energy consumption; refer to Table 7.
▪ Solid Waste. Solid waste associated with operations of the proposed project would result
in 3.99 MTCO2e/year; refer to Table 7.
▪ Water Demand. The project operations would result in a demand of approximately
12,806,385 gallons of water per year. Emissions from indirect energy impacts due to
water supply would result in 23.10 MTCO2e/year; refer to Table 7.
Total Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases
As shown in Table 7, the total amount of project-related GHG emissions from direct and indirect
sources combined would total 747.89 MTCO2e/yr. Therefore, the project would not generate
greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment. Refer also to Impact VIII.b), below, for the project’s GHG plans, policies and
regulations consistency analysis. Impacts would be less than significant.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 76
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.
Consistency with Applicable GHG Plans, Policies, or Regulations
2022 Scoping Plan Consistency
As stated above, the goal to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (Executive Order S-3-
05) was codified by the California Legislature as AB 32. In 2008, CARB approved a Scoping Plan as
required by AB 32. The Scoping Plan has a range of GHG reduction actions which include direct
regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives,
voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system, and an AB 32
implementation fee to fund the program. The 2022 Scoping Plan identifies reduction measures
necessary to achieve the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier. Actions that reduce GHG
emissions are identified for each AB 32 inventory sector. It is expected that these measures or
similar actions to reduce GHG emissions will be adopted subsequently as required to achieve
Statewide GHG emissions targets.
Table 8, Project Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan, summarizes the project’s consistency
with applicable policies and measures of the 2022 Scoping Plan. As summarized, the project
would not conflict with any of the provisions of the 2022 Scoping Plan and the project would be
consistent with or exceed reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan.
Table 8: Project Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan
Actions and Strategies Project Consistency Analysis
Smart Growth / Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT)
Reduce VMT per capita to 25% below
2019 levels by 2030, and 30% below
2019 levels by 2045
Consistent. The project would require each dwelling unit to install a listed raceway
to accommodate a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit. The raceway shall
originate at the main service or subpanel and shall terminate into a listed cabinet,
box, or other enclosure in close proximity to the proposed location of an EV
charger in accordance with the 2022 Title 24 standards and CALGreen Code,
which would promote alternative mode of transportation to reduce VMT.
Additionally, the project would be in close proximity to public transportation stops.
As such, the project would be consistent with this action.
New Residential and Commercial Buildings
All electric appliances beginning 2026
(residential) and 2029 (commercial),
contributing to 6 million heat pumps
installed statewide by 2030
Consistent. The project is expected to consist of natural gas heating and/or
cooking on-site. The City of Fontana has not adopted an ordinance or program
limiting the use of natural gas for on-site cooking and/or heating. However, if
adopted, the project would comply with the applicable goals or policies limiting the
use of natural gas equipment in the future. Furthermore, the project would install
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 77
Actions and Strategies Project Consistency Analysis
high efficiency lighting and appliances in accordance with the 2022 Title 24 and
CALGreen Code. As such, the project would be consistent with this action.
Construction Equipment
Achieve 25% of energy demand
electrified by 2030 and 75% electrified by
2045
Consistent. The City of Fontana has not adopted an ordinance or program
requiring electricity-powered construction equipment. However, if adopted, the
project would comply with the applicable goals or policies requiring the use of
electric construction equipment in the future. As such, the project would be
consistent with this action.
Non-combustion Methane Emissions
Divert 75% of organic waste from landfills
by 2025
Consistent. SB 1383 establishes targets to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the
level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and
a 75 percent reduction by 2025. The law establishes an additional target that not
less than 20 percent of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human
consumption by 2025. The project would comply with local and regional
regulations and recycle or compost 75 percent of waste by 2025 pursuant to SB
1383. As such, the project would be consistent with this action.
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan, November 16, 2022.
2020-2045 RTP/SCS
On September 3, 2020, the Regional Council of SCAG formally adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.
The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS includes performance goals that were adopted to help focus future
investments on the best-performing projects; and different strategies to preserve, maintain, and
optimize the performance of the existing transportation system. Five key SCS strategies are
included in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS to help the region meet its regional VMT and GHG reduction
goals, as required by the State. Table 9¸ Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, details the
project’s consistency with these five strategies. As shown, the proposed project would be
consistent with the GHG emission reduction strategies contained in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 78
Table 9: Project Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
Sustainable Communities Strategy Applicable Land
Use Tools Project Consistency Analysis
Leverage Technology Innovations
Promote low emission technologies such as neighborhood
electric vehicles, shared rides hailing, car sharing, bike sharing
and scooters by providing supportive and safe infrastructure
such as dedicated lanes, charging and parking/drop-off space
Improve access to services through technology—such as
telework and telemedicine as well as other incentives such as a
“mobility wallet,” an app-based system for storing transit and
other multi-modal payments
Identify ways to incorporate “micro-power grids” in
communities, for example solar energy, hydrogen fuel cell
power storage and power generation
HQTA, TPAs,
NMA, Livable
Corridors.
Consistent. The project would be required
to comply with all applicable Title 24
Standards and CALGreen Code at the time
of construction, including installation of
rooftop solar panels per Title 24 Standards
and installation of a raceway to
accommodate future electric vehicle
charging per CALGreen Code. Therefore,
the project would be consistent with this
strategy.
Support Implementation of Sustainability Policies
Pursue funding opportunities to support local sustainable
development implementation projects that reduce greenhouse
gas emissions
Support statewide legislation that reduces barriers to new
construction and that incentivizes development near transit
corridors and stations
Support local jurisdictions in the establishment of Enhanced
Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs), Community
Revitalization and Investment Authorities (CRIAs), or other tax
increment or value capture tools to finance sustainable
infrastructure and development projects, including parks and
open space
Work with local jurisdictions/communities to identify
opportunities and assess barriers to implement sustainability
strategies
Enhance partnerships with other planning organizations to
promote resources and best practices in the SCAG region
Continue to support long range planning efforts by local
jurisdictions
Provide educational opportunities to local decisions makers and
staff on new tools, best practices and policies related to
implementing the Sustainable Communities Strategy
Center Focused
Placemaking,
Priority Growth
Areas (PGA), Job
Centers, High
Quality Transit
Areas (HQTAs),
Transit Priority
Areas (TPA),
Neighborhood
Mobility Areas
(NMAs), Livable
Corridors,
Spheres of
Influence (SOIs),
Green Region,
Urban Greening.
Consistent. While this strategy focuses on
regional and Citywide sustainability efforts,
the project itself would implement project-
specific sustainability strategies and would
be required to comply with the most recent
version of Title 24 Standards and
CALGreen Code. Therefore, the project
would be consistent with this reduction
strategy.
Promote a Green Region
Support development of local climate adaptation and hazard
mitigation plans, as well as project implementation that improves
community resiliency to climate change and natural hazards
Support local policies for renewable energy production, reduction
Green Region,
Urban
Greening,
Greenbelts and
Community
Consistent. The project would be required
to comply with all applicable Title 24
Standards and CALGreen Code measures,
which would help reduce energy
consumption and GHG emissions.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 79
Sustainable Communities Strategy Applicable Land
Use Tools Project Consistency Analysis
of urban heat islands and carbon sequestration
Integrate local food production into the regional landscape
Promote more resource efficient development focused on
conservation, recycling and reclamation
Preserve, enhance and restore regional wildlife connectivity
Reduce consumption of resource areas, including agricultural
land
Identify ways to improve access to public park space
Separators. Therefore, the project would support climate
change resilience and local policies for
efficient development that reduces energy
consumption and GHG emissions. The
project would be consistent with this
strategy.
Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy – Connect SoCal, September
3, 2020.
In summary, the project would not generate GHG emissions that would directly or indirectly have
a significant impact on the environment. In addition, the project would be consistent with
applicable plans, policies, regulations, and GHG reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2022
Scoping Plan, 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, and General Plan; refer to Section D.VI, Energy. Therefore, the
project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted
for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs, and impacts would be less than significant.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 80
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
or excessive noise for people residing or working
in the project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 81
The analysis and findings throughout this section are based on the Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment prepared by Pinnacle Environmental, Inc. (May 27, 2020) and the Phase II
Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Pinnacle Environmental, Inc. (July 8, 2020). The
documents are provided as Appendix E1 and E2 of this IS/MND, respectively.
Discussion
The project site was undeveloped from at least 1938 to 1945 and was utilized as agricultural land.
The site was initially developed in 1945 with a dwelling and outbuildings located in the southeast
corner of the project site. Most of the neighboring properties were also developed by the 1990s
and 2000s with residential structures. Prior to the 1990s, most of the neighboring properties
were agricultural and rural residential land. No dry cleaners, gasoline stations, major landfills,
military bases, manufacturing facilities, or heavy industrial businesses are known to have existed
at the project site.
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. The project proposes the construction of 53 single-family detached
homes and associated infrastructure. Due to the nature of the proposed use, the project would
increase the transport, use, and disposal of small quantities of various hazardous and potentially
hazardous materials such as gasoline, diesel fuel, petroleum-based products, degreasers,
solvents, fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides; these substances may also be used for routine
maintenance and landscaping during operation. The transport, use, and disposal of these and
other similar hazardous and potentially hazardous materials is controlled by federal and state
regulations. As such, the project would not result in the transport, use, or disposal, of these
material in volumes or quantities that could pose a hazard to the public or the environment.
Therefore, impacts associated with the transport and use of potentially hazardous materials are
considered less than significant.
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Project construction would involve
limited use of toxic or hazardous substances that are typical for construction-related activities
(e.g., oil, fuel for vehicles and construction equipment, hydraulic fluids, solvents). There is a
possibility of accidental release of these substances. Such incidents are expected to involve small
volumes and low concentrations and the contractor is required to employ standard cleanup and
safety procedures to minimize the potential for public exposure from accidental releases of such
substances into the environment.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 82
According to the Phase I ESA, the project site was formerly used for agricultural purposes. As
established by the Phase II ESA, the majority of the property does not contain arsenic or
organochlorine pesticide concentrations of environmental concern. However, soil samples from
the project site contained concentrations of lead, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE), and
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). DDE and DDT were present in soils below their respective
levels of environmental concern. Lead was encountered in concentrations above its
Environmental Screening Level (ESL). This concentration was encountered next to existing
storage sheds located at the southeastern portion of the project (refer to Figure 1, Sample
Locations, of Appendix E1). Although this occurrence is not anticipated to be widespread
throughout the project site, additional testing of this specific area is recommended as concluded
in the Phase II ESA. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would adhere to this
recommendation in requiring additional testing of soils for lead contaminants and for removal
and remediation protocol of lead contaminant soils, if encountered.
The project would also involve demolition of the existing single-story residence located at the
southeastern portion of the project. Because the existing residence pre-dates the banning and
use of lead-based paints (LBPs), it is therefore possible that the residence may contain lead-based
paints (LBPs) and asbestos containing materials (ACMs). Therefore, implementation of Mitigation
Measure HAZ-2 and HAZ-3 would ensure the proper inspections and removal of LBPs and ACMs
are performed prior to demolition.
During project operations, limited amounts of toxic or hazardous substances are also expected
to be used for routine maintenance that are typical of residential land uses (e.g., paints, cleaning
supplies, fuel, pesticides and herbicides for landscaping); however, the use of substantial
amounts of such substances is not anticipated. The level of risk associated with the accidental
release of any such hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the anticipated
small volume and/or low concentration of hazardous materials. Use of these substances is
expected to be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to
the handling, storage, and disposal of toxic and/or hazardous substances to protect human
health and safety and to maintain a low risk of exposure to the general public relative to
accidental releases of such substances. Impacts would be less than significant.
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?
Less than Significant Impact. The nearest school, West Randall Elementary School (15620 Randall
Ave., Fontana, CA 92335), is located approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the project site.
During project operations, limited amounts of toxic or hazardous substances are expected to be
used for routine maintenance that are typical of residential land uses (e.g., paints, cleaning
supplies, fuel, pesticides and herbicides for landscaping); however, the use of substantial
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 83
amounts of such substances is not anticipated. This precludes the possibility of creating a
significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident
conditions. This would be a less than significant impact.
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The project site is not included on a hazardous site list compiled pursuant to California
Government Code section 65962.5.38 Further information from the Cortese List is discussed in
the Phase I ESA, available in Appendix E1 of this IS/MND, and states that the nearest location
with the potential to be included on the Cortese list is 2,200 feet northwest of the project.
Therefore, there would be no impact.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in
the project area?
No Impact. The nearest airport to the project site, Ontario International Airport, is located
approximately 6.75 miles to the southwest. However, the project site is not within the Airport
Influence Area.39 The project would not have the potential to affect air traffic patterns, including
an increase in traffic levels or a change in flight path location that results in a substantial safety
risk. Implementation of the proposed project would not introduce a safety hazard associated
with airport operations. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City adopted a LHMP in 2017 to prepare for emergency
evacuations and respond to all types of hazards.40 The City has adopted an Emergency Operations
Plan (EOP).41 No revisions to the adopted EOP would be required as a result of the project. In
addition, primary access to all major roads would be maintained during construction. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
38 California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources, accessed December 14, 2020,
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist
39 Ontario International Airport, 2015, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Policy Map 2-1,
https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/policy-map-2-1.pdf.
40 City of Fontana, 2017. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan
41 City of Fontana, n.d. Ready Fontana Guide, accessed December 21, 2020,
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29672
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 84
During project construction, the contractor would be required to maintain adequate emergency
access for emergency vehicles as required by the City. The project involves the construction of
single-family residential units and does not include any land uses or off-site improvements that
would impair implementation or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan.
Therefore, this would be a less than significant impact.
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less Than Significant Impact. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
developed Fire Hazard Severity Zones for both State Responsibility Areas and Local Responsibility
Areas. The project site is located in a Local Responsibility Area. The project site is located in an
area determined by the Fontana LHMP as Non-Wildland/Non-Urban.42 and is surrounded on all
sides by residential development. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures
to a significant risk from wildland fires. Additionally, the project would include required fire
suppression design features (e.g., fire-resistant building materials, smoke detection and fire
alarm systems, and fuel modification/brush clearance) identified in the CBC. Therefore, this
would be a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
HAZ-1: Soil Sampling/Lead-Based Analysis
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a lead-based analysis (LBA) shall be performed for
the Section 6 soils sample locations (as identified on Figure 1, Sample Locations of the
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment) and shall include; 1) a soluble threshold limit
concentrations (STLC) analysis of the shallow composite soil sample; 2) deeper soil
samples (e.g., 6 to 12”) to assess the depth of impact, and 3) individual soil samples of
shallow Section 6 composite samples to assess whether a specific location may have a
higher concentration of lead. If concentrations are concluded as hazardous beyond
established thresholds for lead-based contaminants, the project applicant shall submit
documentation as proof, to the City Engineer, that lead-based contaminated soils have
been excavated and disposed of at a licensed treatment facility with confirmation
sampling in showing that all remaining LBC soil concentrations at Section 6 are below the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) and/or
Department of Toxic Substances Control modified Screening Levels (DTSC-SLs), as
applicable.
42 City of Fontana, 2017, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Figure 4-6.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 85
HAZ-2: Lead-Based Paint Inspection
Prior to demolition of the on-site residence, an inspection shall be performed by a
federally certified LBP inspector/assessor to identify areas of potential worker exposure
during demolition. Should any LBP be identified, such painted surfaces at a minimum shall
be required to be included in an approved interim control (a.k.a. Operations and
Maintenance) program and complied with during demolition.
HAZ-3: Asbestos-Containing Material Inspection
Prior to any demolition, renovation, or any other activity that may disturb ACM-
containing materials, either an inspection shall be performed by a federally certified ACM
inspector/assessor to identify areas of potential worker exposure during demolition, or
the affected materials shall be handled according to regulation as asbestos-containing.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 86
X. Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY:
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 87
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
The analysis and findings throughout this section are based on the Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment prepared by Pinnacle Environmental Inc. (May 27, 2020) and the Water Quality
Management Plan prepared by S.D. Engineering and Associates (August 10, 2020). These
documents are provided as Appendix E1 and F of this IS/MND, respectively.
Discussion
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Section
13000 et seq. of the California Water Code) and the federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendment of 1972 (also referred to as the Clean Water Act) require comprehensive water
quality control plans to be developed for all waters within the State of California. The project site
is located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Impacts
related to water quality would fall under two general categories: short-term construction-related
impacts and long-term operational impacts.
Construction Impacts
Construction of the proposed project would involve clearing, soil stockpiling, grading, paving,
utility installation, and landscaping activities, which would result in the generation of potential
water quality pollutants such as silt, debris, chemicals, paints, and other solvents with the
potential to adversely affect water quality. As such, short-term water quality impacts have the
potential to occur during project construction in the absence of any protective or avoidance
measures.
To minimize water quality impacts during construction, construction activities would be required
to comply with a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) consistent with the General
Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activity (Construction Activity
General Permit). To obtain coverage, the project applicant is required to submit a Notice of Intent
prior to construction activities and develop and implement an SWPPP and monitoring plan.
The SWPPP identifies erosion-control and sediment-control BMPs that would meet or exceed
measures required by the Construction Activity General Permit to control potential construction-
related pollutants. Erosion-control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 88
controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized. These requirements would
ensure that potential project impacts related to soil erosion, siltation, and sedimentation remain
less than significant and avoid violations to any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements.
Operational Impacts
The project would result in an increase of impervious surfaces which would increase stormwater
runoff; however, this runoff would be captured and conveyed to the storm drain system through
a curb/gutter. The project would be required to implement a Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP), pursuant to the requirements of the City’s NPDES permit. The WQMP is a post-
construction management program that ensures the ongoing protection of the watershed basin
by requiring structural and programmatic controls. The WQMP identifies structural controls
(including a contained, on-site wastewater treatment plant) and programmatic controls to
minimize, prevent, and/or otherwise appropriately treat stormwater runoff flows before they are
discharged from the site. Mandatory compliance with the WQMP would ensure that the project
does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during long-term
operation.
The WQMP would identify structural and programmatic controls as well as BMPs to minimize,
prevent, and/or otherwise appropriately treat stormwater runoff flows before they are
discharged. Mandatory compliance with the WQMP BMPs would ensure that the project does
not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during long-term operation.
Therefore, water quality impacts associated with long-term operation of the project would be
less than significant and no mitigation is required.
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. Water for the project would be provided by Fontana Water
Company (FWC). According to FWC’s most recent Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), FWC
provides water to approximately 52 square miles, which includes the majority of the City as well
as parts of the Cities of Rialto and Rancho Cucamonga in addition to unincorporated areas of San
Bernardino County.43 FWC’s water supply sources include groundwater, local surface water, and
imported surface water.44 Therefore, a portion of the project’s water supplies would include
groundwater supplies.
The project’s construction-related activities are not anticipated to have a significant impact on
groundwater supplies because these impacts are short term and do not consist of water-
43 Fontana Water Company, 2016, Urban Water Management Plan, Figure 3-1, 2017.
44 Fontana Water Company, 2016, Urban Water Management Plan, p 6-1.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 89
intensive activities that could, ultimately, draw down supplies of groundwater. FWC has sufficient
water supply to meet existing and projected demands, which includes the project’s operational
water demand.45 Therefore, the project would not have a significant impact on groundwater
supply.
The project site is underlain by the Chino Basin, which is fully adjudicated and managed by the
Chino Basin Watermaster. Stormwater capture and infiltration occurs at 18 recharge basins in
the Chino Basin. The project would not interfere with groundwater recharge activities associated
with these facilities such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table, as the project is not located in one of the Chino Basin’s 18 groundwater
recharge areas.46
A WQMP was prepared for the project and identifies the major proposed site design and low-
impact development (LID) BMPs and other anticipated water quality features that impact site
planning. The WQMP specifically identifies all BMPs incorporated into the final site design and
establishes targets for post-development hydrology based on performance criteria specified in
the MS4 permit. These targets include runoff volume for water quality control (referred to as LID
design capture volume) and runoff volume, time of concentration, and peak runoff for protection
of any downstream water body segments with hydrologic conditions of concern. Stormwater
would be collected from impervious areas and directed to the underground infiltration chamber
for both stormwater filtration and recharge opportunities. Thus, the reduction in permeable
surfaces which would occur as a result of project implementation would not substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.
c)i) 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 result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are no natural drainage courses located on-site and the site
is relatively flat. Because the proposed project would involve the exposure of large areas of soil
during project construction, the appropriate soil erosion and control techniques would be
employed in conformance with the Construction BMP Handbook.47
45 Fontana Water Company, 2016, Urban Water Management Plan, Tables 6-1 and 6-2.
46 Chino Basin Watermaster, 2019, Maximum Benefit Annual Report, Figure 2-4: Chino Basin Recharge Basins.
47 California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) develops and publishes four Best Management Practices
(BMP) Handbooks including the Construction BMP Handbook, which is considered the industry standard in
construction BMPs for stormwater quality.
https://www.casqa.org/resources/bmp-handbooks
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 90
The proposed project would include the development of a storm drainage system consistent with
City requirements and California Storm Water Quality Association (CASQA) New Development
BMP Handbook SD-13 to convey stormwater runoff to the mainline storm drain system.
Stormwater management practices as required under Fontana Municipal Code, Section 28-111
would further reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, the proposed on-
site underground detention/infiltration chamber would limit the release of stormwater from the
site, thereby minimizing the potential for flooding to occur on-site or off-site. Due to the site’s
storm drain system design and the implementation of the BMPs, impacts would be less than
significant.
c)ii) 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 substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site does not include any streams or rivers that could
be altered by the proposed project. In addition, the proposed on-site underground
detention/infiltration chamber would limit the release of stormwater from the site, thereby
minimizing the potential for flooding to occur on-site or off-site. Therefore, impacts would be
less than significant.
c)iii) 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 create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site does not include any streams or rivers that could
be altered by the project. Additionally, on-site stormwater runoff associated with the project
would be minimized, treated, and/or directed as required by state and local laws and regulations,
which includes the required adherence to an SWPPP and WQMP. As discussed above under
Impact X.a), the project would not be a substantial source of polluted runoff. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.
c)iv) 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 impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is relatively flat. The proposed project would
include the development of a storm drainage system consistent with City requirements to convey
stormwater runoff to the mainline storm drain system, as required under Fontana Municipal
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 91
Code Section 28-111. This would ensure the proposed on-site catch basin would limit the release
of stormwater from the site, thereby minimizing the potential for impediment or redirecting
flood flows. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants
due to project inundation?
No Impact. The project site is located approximately 42 miles from the Pacific Ocean. Given the
distance from the coast, the potential for the project site to be inundated by a tsunami is
negligible. There are no enclosed water bodies (e.g., lakes or reservoirs) that could subject to
seiche. No steep slopes are located in the project vicinity; therefore, the risk of mudflow is also
negligible. In addition, the project is not located within a flood hazard area as identified by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).48 Therefore, no impacts associated with the
risk of pollutant release due to inundation are anticipated to occur.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control
plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. No potable groundwater wells are proposed as part of the project.
The proposed project would be served with potable water by the FWC. Domestic water from this
service provider is supplied via the groundwater from multiple sources. This includes the Chino
Groundwater Basin, the Rialto Groundwater Basin, the Lytle Groundwater Basin, and the No
Man’s Land Groundwater Basin. These sources provide the City with most of its water needs,
with room for expansion. All municipal water entities that exceed their safe yield incur a
groundwater replenishment ligation, which is used to recharge the groundwater basin with State
Water Project. Thus, the project’s demand for domestic water service would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan.
Although the project would result in additional impervious surfaces on-site, the project would
not interfere with groundwater recharge because measurements conducted 1.25 miles northeast
of the project site reported a depth to groundwater at approximately 200 to 275 feet below the
surface.49 This would tend to limit recharge under existing conditions. In addition, stormwater
would be collected from impervious areas and directed via curb and gutter to the underground
infiltration chamber for both stormwater filtration and recharge opportunities. Therefore, the
proposed project would not significantly impact local groundwater recharge. Impacts would be
less than significant.
48 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2008, Flood Map 06071C8654H.
49 Pinnacle Environmental Inc. 2020, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, p. 11-12.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 92
XI. Land Use and Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
LAND USE AND PLANNING:
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The physical division of an established community is typically associated with
construction of a linear feature, such as a major highway or railroad tracks, or removal of a means
of access, such as a local road or bridge, which would impair mobility within an existing
community or between a community and an outlying area.
The proposed project consists of the construction of a gated community with 53 single-family
detached residential units and associated infrastructure and improvements, including private
roads, sidewalks, landscaping, utilities, a park, and parking. The project site is surrounded by
existing residences.
The proposed project does not propose construction of any roadway, flood control channel, or
other structure that would physically divide any portion of the community. In addition, the
proposed project is consistent with the surrounding land uses and would not divide an
established community. Therefore, there would be no impact.
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 discussed above, the proposed project seeks to develop 53
single-family detached residential units on the project site. In order to develop the site as a
residential community, the project would require the approval of the following:
▪ General Plan Amendment No. 20-015. The project includes a proposal to change the
General Plan land use designation from Single Family Residential (R-SF) to Medium
Density Residential (R-M).
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 93
▪ Zone Change No. 20-015. The project includes a proposal to change the zoning
designation from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Medium Density Residential (R-2).
▪ Tentative Tract Map No. 20358 (TTM20-006) is a request to subdivide 9 gross acres into
53 single-family residential lots with private internal streets, street lighting, sewer, water,
and perimeter block wall, and for the City to vacate 400 square feet of public roadway for
the public good.
▪ Design Review No. 20-028. The project is required to submit plans to the City to determine
that the project meets the City’s design guidelines.
The proposed residential development is consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment
and Zone Change with approval by the City Council. Furthermore, the project-level review of the
project includes a site design review for compliance with site-specific development standards, as
outlined in the Fontana Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Fontana Zoning and Development Code and
other applicable ordinances. Following the approval of the above actions, the proposed project
would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation, nor would it result in negative
environmental effects as a result as evidenced by policy reviews assessed throughout this Initial
Study. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 94
XII. Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
MINERAL RESOURCES:
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or
other land use plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the General Plan Conservation, Open Space, Parks
and Trails Element (Chapter 7), the most significant mineral resources in the city are sand and
gravel deposits in the alluvial fan that extends southward from the base of the San Gabriel
foothills. Historical uses of the project site have not included mineral extraction, nor does the
project site currently support mineral extraction. In addition, the project does not propose any
mineral extraction activities. The project proposes land use changes to support the subsequent
construction of a residential community in a location surrounded by existing residential uses.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state, and the impact would
be less than significant.
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. According to the General Plan Conservation, Open Space, Parks
and Trail Element, the project site has not been identified as a locally important mineral resource
recovery site in the General Plan. Furthermore, there are no mineral resource recovery sites on
or near the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of
availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site, and the impact would be less
than significant.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 95
XIII. Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
NOISE:
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air
and is characterized by both its amplitude and frequency (or pitch). The human ear does not hear
all frequencies equally. In particular, the ear de-emphasizes low and very high frequencies. To
better approximate the sensitivity of human hearing, the A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) has
been developed. On this scale, the human range of hearing extends from approximately three
dBA to around 140 dBA.
Noise is generally defined as unwanted or excessive sound, which can vary in intensity by over
one million times within the range of human hearing; therefore, a logarithmic scale, known as
the decibel scale (dB), is used to quantify sound intensity. Noise can be generated by a number
of sources, including mobile sources such as automobiles, trucks, and airplanes, and stationary
sources such as construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations. Noise generated by
mobile sources typically attenuates (is reduced) at a rate between 3 dBA and 4.5 dBA per
doubling of distance. The rate depends on the ground surface and the number or type of objects
between the noise source and the receiver. Hard and flat surfaces, such as concrete or asphalt,
have an attenuation rate of 3 dBA per doubling of distance. Soft surfaces, such as uneven or
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 96
vegetated terrain, have an attenuation rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise
generated by stationary sources typically attenuates at a rate between 6 dBA and about 7.5 dBA
per doubling of distance.
There are several metrics used to characterize community noise exposure, which fluctuate
constantly over time. One such metric, the equivalent sound level (Leq), represents a constant
sound that, over the specified period, has the same sound energy as the time-varying sound.
Noise exposure over a longer period is often evaluated based on the day-night sound level (Ldn).
This is a measure of 24-hour noise levels that incorporates a 10 dBA penalty for sounds occurring
between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The penalty is intended to reflect the increased human
sensitivity to noises occurring during nighttime hours, particularly at times when people are
sleeping and there are lower ambient noise conditions. Typical Ldn noise levels for light- and
medium-density residential areas range from 55 dBA to 65 dBA.
It is difficult to specify noise levels that are generally acceptable to everyone; noise that is
considered a nuisance to one person may be unnoticed by another. Standards may be based on
documented complaints in response to documented noise levels or based on studies of the ability
of people to sleep, talk, or work under various noise conditions.
Federal Regulations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Noise Effects Handbook – A Desk Reference to Health and
Welfare Effects of Noise. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offers guidelines for
community noise exposure in the Noise Effects Handbook – A Desk Reference to Health and
Welfare Effects of Noise. These guidelines consider occupational noise exposure as well as noise
exposure in homes. The EPA recognizes an exterior noise level of 55 dB Ldn as a general goal to
protect the public from hearing loss, activity interference, sleep disturbance, and annoyance. The
EPA and other Federal agencies have adopted suggested land use compatibility guidelines that
indicate that residential noise exposures of 55 to 65 dB Ldn are acceptable. However, the EPA
notes that these levels are not regulatory goals, but are levels defined by a negotiated scientific
consensus, without concern for economic and technological feasibility or the needs and desires
of any particular community.
State Regulations
State Office of Planning and Research Noise Element Guidelines. The State Office of Planning and
Research Noise Element Guidelines include recommended exterior and interior noise level
standards for local jurisdictions to identify and prevent the creation of incompatible land uses
due to noise. The Noise Element Guidelines contain a land use compatibility table that describes
the compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of the
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Table 10, Land Use Compatibility for Community
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 97
Noise Environments, presents guidelines for determining acceptable and unacceptable
community noise exposure limits for various land use categories. The guidelines also present
adjustment factors that may be used to arrive at noise acceptability standards that reflect the
noise control goals of the community, the particular community’s sensitivity to noise, and the
community’s assessment of the relative importance of noise pollution.
Table 10: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments
Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL, dBA)
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential – Low Density, Single-Family, Duplex, Mobile
Homes 50 – 60 55 – 70 70 – 75 75 – 85
Residential – Multiple Family 50 – 65 60 – 70 70 – 75 70 – 85
Transient Lodging - Motel, Hotels 50 – 65 60 – 70 70 – 80 80 – 85
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 50 – 70 60 – 70 70 – 80 80 – 85
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters NA 50 – 70 NA 65 – 85
Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports NA 50 – 75 NA 70 – 85
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50 – 70 NA 67.5 – 75 72.5 – 85
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation,
Cemeteries 50 – 70 NA 70 – 80 80 – 85
Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional 50 – 70 67.5 – 77.5 75 – 85 NA
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50 – 75 70 – 80 75 – 85 NA
Notes: NA = Not Applicable; Ldn = Day/Night Average; CNEL = community noise equivalent level; dBA = A-weighted decibels
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 systems or air
conditioning will normally suffice.
Normally Unacceptable - New Construction or development should 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: Office of Planning and Research, 2017 General Plan Guidelines, Appendix D: Noise Element Guidelines, 2017.
The Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual prepared by the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) identifies various vibration damage criteria for different
building classes. As the nearest structures to project construction are residences, the
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 98
architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations at older residential structures of 0.3
inch-per-second peak particle velocity (PPV) is utilized.50
Local
City of Fontana General Plan Update 2015-2035. The purpose of the City of Fontana General Plan
Noise and Safety Element is to identify potential noise problems in the community and provide
an integrated approach to regulating noise.
Goal 8 The City of Fontana protects sensitive land uses from excessive noise by diligent
planning through 2035.
Policy 8.1 New sensitive land uses shall be prohibited in incompatible areas.
Policy 8.2 Noise-tolerant land uses shall be guided into areas irrevocably committed to land
uses that are noise producing, such as transportation corridors.
Policy 8.3 Where sensitive uses are to be placed along transportation routes, mitigation shall
be provided to ensure compliance with state-mandated noise levels.
Policy 8.4 Noise spillover or encroachment from commercial, industrial, and education land
uses shall be minimized in adjoining residential neighborhoods or noise-sensitive
uses.
Goal 9 The City of Fontana provides a diverse and efficiently operated ground
transportation system that generates the minimum feasible noise on residents
through 2035.
Policy 9.1 All noise sections of the State Motor Vehicle Code shall be enforced.
Policy 9.2 Roads shall be maintained such that the paving is in good condition and free from
cracks, bumps, and potholes.
Policy 9.3 Noise-mitigation measures shall be included in the design of new roadway
projects in the city.
Goal 10 City of Fontana residents are protected from the negative effects of “spillover”
noise.
50 California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Table
19, April 2020.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 99
Policy 10.1 Residential land uses and areas identified as noise-sensitive shall be protected from
excessive noise from non-transportation sources, including industrial, commercial,
and residential activities and equipment.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
Chapter 18, Article II. Section 18-63. – Prohibited Noises
(b) The following acts, which create loud, excessive, impulsive or intrusive sound or noise that
annoys or disturbs persons of ordinary sensibilities from a distance of 50 feet or more from the
edge of the property, structure or unit in which the source is located, are declared to be in
violation of this article.
Section 18-63(b)(7) 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.
Section 18-63(b)(8) 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.
Chapter 30, Article V. Division 6, Sec. 30-469. – Noise
(a) No use shall create or cause to be created any sound that exceeds the ambient noise standards
outlined in Table 11, Noise Standards.
(b) No use shall create or cause creation of noise from a portable electronic device such as a car
stereo, portable radio and/or cassette/compact disc player or similar device which exceeds the
ambient noise standards outlined in Table 11.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 100
Table 11: Noise Standards
Location of Measurement
(All Residential Zoning Districts)
Maximum Allowable
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Interior 45 dB 45 dB
Exterior 65 dB 65 dB
Source: Fontana Municipal Code, Chapter 30, Article V. Division 6, Sec. 30-182. - Noise
Chapter 30, Article V. Division 6, Sec. 40-470. - Vibration
No use shall create or cause to be created any activity that causes a vibration that can be felt
beyond the property line with or without the aid of an instrument.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Stationary Sources
The project area is located within an urbanized area. The primary sources of stationary noise in
the project vicinity are urban-related activities (i.e., mechanical equipment, commercial uses,
parking areas, and pedestrians). The noise associated with these sources may represent a single-
event noise occurrence, short term, or long term/continuous noise.
Mobile Sources
Vehicle-related mobile noise is the most common source of noise in the site vicinity. The majority
of existing noise in the project area is generated from vehicle sources along Poplar Avenue,
Orchid Avenue, and Catawba Avenue.
Noise Measurements
In order to quantify existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site, three noise
measurements were taken on January 14, 2021; refer to Table 12, Noise Measurements. The
noise measurement sites were representative of typical existing noise exposure within and
immediately adjacent to the project site. Ten-minute measurements were taken, between 10:00
a.m. and 11:00 a.m. Short-term (Leq) measurements are considered representative of the noise
levels throughout the day.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 101
Table 12: Noise Measurements
Site
No. Location Leq
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
Peak
(dBA) Time
1 Athol Street cul-de-sac. 58.4 45.2 77.5 112.0 10:05 a.m.
2 Hibiscus Street and Catawba Avenue intersection. 59.8 46.2 82.3 104.5 10:37 a.m.
Source: Michael Baker International, January 14, 2021.
Meteorological conditions were clear skies, warm temperatures, with strong wind speeds (0 to
15 miles per hour), and low humidity. Noise monitoring equipment used for the ambient noise
survey consisted of a Brüel & Kjær Hand-held Analyzer Type 2250 equipped with a Type 4189
pre-polarized microphone. The monitoring equipment complies with applicable requirements of
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for sound level meters. The results of the field
measurements are included in Appendix G, Noise Data.
Discussion
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 Impacts
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase
of construction (e.g., demolition, grading, paving, building construction, and architectural
coatings). Noise generated by construction equipment, including graders and concrete saws, can
reach high levels. During construction, exterior noise levels could affect residential
neighborhoods in the vicinity of the construction site. Specifically, project construction could
occur as close as approximately five feet from existing residential uses along Orchid Avenue and
Athol Street.
Construction activities would occur over approximately 10 months and would include demolition,
grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coatings. Typical noise levels generated
by project construction equipment are shown in Table 13, Maximum Noise Levels Generated by
Construction Equipment.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 102
Table 13: Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment
Type of Equipment Acoustical Use Factor1 Lmax at 5 Feet (dBA) Lmax at 50 Feet (dBA)
Concrete Mixer Truck 40 99 79
Backhoe 40 98 78
Excavator 40 101 81
Grader 40 105 85
Paver 50 97 77
Roller 20 100 80
Scrapers 40 105 85
Tractor 40 104 84
Water Truck 40 100 80
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Lmax = Maximum Sound Level
1. Acoustical Use Factor (percent): Estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest
condition) during a construction operation.
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), January 2006.
As shown in Table 13, construction-generated noise levels would range from 97 dBA to 105 dBA
at the nearest sensitive receptors located approximately five feet away from construction
activities. It should be noted that the noise levels identified in Table 13 are maximum sound levels
(Lmax), which are the highest individual sound occurring at an individual time period. Operating
cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power
operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of
acoustical disturbance would be due to random incidents, which would last less than one minute
(such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts).
Additionally, construction would occur across the entire project site and would not be localized
to this sensitive receptor distance. Further, the City’s Noise Ordinance does not have specific
construction noise limits. In addition, all construction activities would comply with the City’s
Municipal Code which limits construction to 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 cases of
emergency. Therefore, noise impacts from short-term construction activities would be less than
significant.
Operational Impacts
Mobile Noise
Future development generated by the proposed project would result in additional traffic on
adjacent roadways, thereby increasing vehicular noise in the vicinity of existing and proposed
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 103
land uses. According to the Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance,
a doubling of traffic volumes would result in a 3 dB increase in traffic noise levels, which is barely
detectable by the human ear.51 Based on traffic data provided by the City of Fontana, the
proposed project is projected to generate a total of approximately 491 trips per day.52 As shown
in Table 14, Existing and Project Traffic Volumes, existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes in
the vicinity of the proposed project ranges from approximately 2,304 to 4,167 vehicles per day.
As such, the project’s trip generation (approximately 491 trips per day) would not double existing
traffic volumes and an increase in traffic noise along local roadways would be imperceptible.
Therefore, project-related traffic noise would be less than significant.
Table 14: Existing and Project Traffic Volumes
Segment Existing1 Project2
Doubling of
Traffic
Volumes?
Daily Trips
Catawba Avenue (Merrill Avenue to Valley Boulevard) 3,854 491 No
Catawba Avenue/Hawthorne Avenue Intersection 4,167 491 No
Poplar Avenue/Hibiscus Street Intersection 2,304 491 No
Poplar Avenue/Pine Avenue Intersection 2,391 491 No
Notes:
1. Existing Daily Trips are expressed as average daily traffic (ADT) along each segment.
2. Project Daily Trips are measured in total trips per day generated by the proposed project.
Source:
1. Traffic data provided by the City of Fontana via email on February 22, 2021 and March 9, 2021.
Stationary Noise Impacts
Stationary noise sources associated with the project would include those typical of suburban
areas (e.g., mechanical equipment, dogs/pets, landscaping activities, weekly garbage collection,
cars parking, etc.). These noise sources are typically intermittent and short in duration and would
be comparable to existing sources of noise experienced at surrounding residential uses. Further,
all stationary noise activities would be required to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance and
the California Building Code requirements pertaining to noise attenuation.
51 U.S. Department of Transportation, Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance,
updated August 24, 2017,
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide02.cfm,
accessed on January 25, 2021.
52 Traffic data provided by the City of Fontana via email on February 22, 2021.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 104
Mechanical Equipment
The project would include heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units located at the
exterior of the proposed single-family homes on the ground level. Typically, mechanical
equipment noise is 55 dBA at 50 feet from the source.53 The closest potential distance between
on-site HVAC units and the nearest sensitive receptor (a residence to the north of the project
site, along Orchid Avenue), would be approximately 30 feet. At this distance, HVAC noise levels
would approximately 59 dBA assuming no attenuation from intervening structures, walls, sound
propagation, etc. However, the project’s proposed six (6) foot perimeter block wall would
separate the proposed project site and the nearest sensitive receptors, which would result in a
noise level reduction of at least 10 dBA.54 Therefore, exterior HVAC noise levels would be reduced
to approximately 49 dBA at the nearest sensitive receptors. Further, interior HVAC noise levels
would be approximately 29 dBA assuming a 20-dBA outdoor-indoor noise attenuation rate.55
Therefore, HVAC noise levels would not exceed the City’s exterior (i.e., 65 dBA) or interior (i.e.,
45 dBA) residential noise standards. Therefore, this would be a less than significant impact.
Parking Areas
Traffic associated with parking areas is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community
noise standards, which are based on a time-averaged scale such as the CNEL scale. However, the
instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up and
car pass-bys may be an annoyance to adjacent noise-sensitive receptors. Estimates of the
maximum noise levels associated with some parking lot activities are presented in Table 15,
Typical Noise Levels Generated by Parking Areas.
Table 15: Typical Noise Levels Generated by Parking Areas
Noise Source Maximum Noise Levels
at 50 Feet from Source
Car door slamming 61 dBA Leq
Car starting 60 dBA Leq
Car idling 53 dBA Leq
Source: Kariel, H. G., Noise in Rural Recreational Environments, Canadian Acoustics 19(5), 3-10, 1991.
53 Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden, Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700
Measurement Values, July 6, 2010.
54 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Synthesis of Highway Practice 87, Highway Noise
Barriers, December 1981, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_87.pdf, accessed January
25, 2021.
55 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Noise Guidebook, March 2009, page 14.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 105
The project would provide 106 garage parking spaces and 106 driveway parking spaces. Impacts
associated with the garage parking spaces would be considered minimal since the parking area
would be enclosed within a structure. The proposed driveway parking spaces would be located
further than 50 feet from the nearest sensitive receptors. As such, noise levels associated with
driveway parking spaces would range from approximately 53 to 61 dBA; refer to Table 15.
However, an approximate 6-foot-high masonry wall would separate the proposed project site
and the nearest sensitive receptors, which would result in a noise level reduction of at least 10
dBA.56 Therefore, noise levels associated with driveway parking spaces would be reduced to
approximately 43 to 51 dBA at the nearest sensitive receptors. As depicted in Table 15, ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity range from 58.4 to 59.8 dBA. Therefore, noise levels associated
with driveway parking spaces would not exceed ambient noise levels. Additionally, the proposed
parking activities would not result in substantially greater noise levels than currently exist in the
vicinity. Further, parking lot noise are instantaneous noise levels compared to noise standards in
the CNEL scale, which are averaged over time. As a result, actual noise levels over time resulting
from parking lot activities would be far lower than what is identified in Table 15. 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 With Mitigation Incorporated. Project construction can generate
varying degrees of groundborne vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the
construction equipment used. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that
spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect
on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction site often varies depending on soil type,
ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from
vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling
sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels.
Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures.
The Caltrans’ Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual identifies various vibration
damage criteria for different building classes. This evaluation uses the Caltrans architectural
damage criterion for continuous vibrations at older residential structures of 0.3 inch-per-second
PPV. As the nearest structures to project construction are residences, this threshold is considered
appropriate. The types of construction vibration impact include human annoyance and building
damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the
56 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Synthesis of Highway Practice 87, Highway Noise
Barriers, December 1981, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_87.pdf, accessed January
25, 2021.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 106
threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic
or structural.
The highest degree of groundborne vibration would be generated during the paving construction
phase due to the operation of a vibratory roller. Based on the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) data, vibration velocities from vibratory roller operations would be 0.293 inch-per-second
PPV at 20 feet from the source of activity.57 As such, structures located greater than 20 feet from
vibratory roller operations would not experience groundborne vibration above the Caltrans
significance threshold (i.e., 0.3 inch-per-second PPV). All residential structures surrounding the
project site would be located further than 20 feet from vibratory roller operations with the
exception of residential structures located along Poplar Avenue and Athol Street (APNs 0233-
122-62, 0233-321-07, 0233-321-06, 0233-321-05, 0233-381-04, and 0233-381-03). Vibration
velocities from vibratory roller operations within 20 feet of these structures would exceed the
Caltrans significance threshold. Therefore, groundborne vibration generated from vibratory
roller operations would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would
be required to reduce vibration impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure NOI-
1 would require the use of a static (non-vibratory) roller, as an alternative to vibratory rollers,
within 20 feet of the residential structures to ensure vibration levels would not exceed the 0.3
inch-per-second PPV significance threshold. Thus, impacts would be less than significant with
implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The nearest airport to the project site is the Ontario International Airport located
approximately seven miles to the southwest. Additionally, the project site is not located within
the vicinity of a private airstrip or related facilities. Therefore, project implementation would not
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with
aircraft. No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures
NOI-1: Paving Control Plan
Prior to the initiation of construction, the project applicant shall prepare a paving control
plan to ensure that the paving process does not result in damage to nearby residential
structures. The paving control plan shall be subject to the Building and Safety
Department’s approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. To reduce groundborne
57 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 107
vibration levels, the paving control plan shall stipulate that static (non-vibratory) rollers
shall be used as an alternative to vibratory rollers within 20 feet of residential structures
located along Poplar Avenue and Athol Street (APNs 0233-122-62, 0233-321-07, 0233-
321-06, 0233-321-05, 0233-381-04, and 0233-381-03). Vibratory roller operations shall
be prohibited within 20 feet of APNs 0233-122-62, 0233-321-07, 0233-321-06, 0233-321-
05, 0233-381-04, and 0233-381-03.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 108
XIV. Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
POPULATION AND HOUSING:
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion
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 to change the General Plan land use
designation of the project site from Single-Family Residential (R-SF) to Medium-Density
Residential (R-M) and proposes to change the zoning designation of the project site from
Single-Family Residential (R-1) to Medium-Density Residential (R-2).
The project proposes a density of 6.0 du/ac, which is consistent with Medium-Density
Residential (R-2) zoning, which would be the applicable zoning of the site once the Zone
Change is approved. The R-2 zoning allows for single-family detached housing up to 7.6 du/ac
and single-family attached or multi-family housing up to 12 du/ac. The proposed project
would include 53 single-family detached residential units on a project site of 9.2 acres. The
most recent data from the California Department of Finance estimates that there are 4.12
persons per household in the City of Fontana.58 Therefore, the population would increase by
approximately 218 move-in residents resulting from development of the proposed project.
The proposed General Plan Amendment would result in unplanned population growth within
the project area; however, the estimated 218 persons do not constitute a substantial increase
that cannot be supported by existing infrastructure and community services. Furthermore,
the site is surrounded by existing development and would not require the extension of roads
58 California Department of Finance. 2019. E-1 Populations and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the
State.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 109
or infrastructure that would, in turn, accommodate future growth elsewhere. Impacts would
be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The proposed 53-unit residential development would be constructed on both
vacant land and land already developed with one single-family residence with various
outbuildings. Because the project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, there would
be no impact.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 110
XV. Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
i) Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) Schools? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
v) Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion
a)i) 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 fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection and emergency response services for the project
area are provided by the Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD), which is part of the San
Bernardino County Fire Department. The FFPD currently operates six fire stations. The nearest
fire station to the project site is San Bernardino County Fire Station Number 72, located 0.85
miles southwest of the project site at 15380 San Bernardino Avenue.
Implementation of the proposed project would increase the demand for fire protection services
in the project vicinity. However, the project would be developed in accordance with applicable
city, county, and state regulations, codes, and policies pertaining to fire hazard reduction and
protection. The proposed project would be designed and constructed within CBC standards. In
addition, to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the City’s populations, the City has
established a fire/police protection facilities fee that is charged to all new development within
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 111
the City’s boundaries. Continuous fire access roadways and public hydrants are provided
throughout the project site to allow adequate emergency service. The facility fees associated
with the proposed project would help the City provide fire services at the project site and finance
new fire stations and equipment.
In addition, based on the proximity of the project site to existing FFPD facilities and the fact that
the project site is already within the FFPD’s service area, the proposed project would not affect
response times or service ratios, alter or increase the demand for fire protection services, or
require the construction of additional fire facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
a)ii) 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 police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. Police protection for the project area is provided by the Fontana
Police Department (FPD). The FPD operates out of its headquarters located at 17005 Upland
Avenue, approximately 1.6 miles northeast of the project site. Similar to fire protection services,
the project site is already located within the FPD’s service area. The population is expected to
increase by approximately 218 residents. However, this amount is considered minimal in size
with regard to impacting police services and would not require further in-depth analysis of the
project’s impact on police services as would otherwise be required for larger residential
development projects (i.e., Specific Plan). Furthermore, the amount of contribution and payment
of development impact fees would be calculated based on the size and number of residences in
the project and would provide sufficient funding to maintain adequate police services and
facilities throughout the City. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
a)iii) 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 schools?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the boundaries of the Fontana
Unified School District. The nearest elementary school, West Randall Elementary School, is
located approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the project site at 15620 Randall Avenue. The
nearest middle school, Sequoia Middle School, is located approximately 0.9 miles southwest of
the project site at 9452 Hemlock Avenue. The nearest high school, Fontana High School, is located
approximately 0.5 miles southeast of the project site at 9453 Citrus Avenue.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 112
Development of the project would increase the enrollment rate at each of these schools due to
the anticipated population increase of 218 persons. As previously discussed, the project applicant
would be required to pay development fees that would be dispersed to the school district to
offset any potential impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
a)iv) 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 parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project being a small residential in-fill development, would
not result in the need for new or expanded park facilities. The closest existing park to the project
site is Jack Bulik Park at 16581 Filbert Avenue, approximately 0.9 miles southeast of the project
site. In addition, to maintain the quality of life of the City’s populations, the City has established
a Park Development fee that is charged to all new residential development within the City’s
boundaries. According to the City’s most recent fee schedule for new development, for each new
single-family home, a $6,633 fee is charged to maintain existing parks and fund new parks.59
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
a)v) 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 other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. Other public facilities throughout the City would not be adversely
impacted by the project. The project would change the existing land use and zoning designation
and incorporate the project area into the R-2 zone. Upon approval of the General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change, the residential development would be consistent with the local
zoning requirements and City Zoning Maps. The project would result in a nominal population
increase of approximately 218 persons. As such, project buildout is expected to marginally impact
other public facilities. No additional public facilities are required for the project to accommodate
the additional residents. An increase in demand for the City’s existing facilities would be less than
significant and are offset by the payment of development impact fees. Therefore, impacts would
be less than significant.
59 City of Fontana, Development Impact Fees, 2020 Fee Schedule, accessed December 21, 2020,
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/27749/Development-Impact-Fees-063020?bidId=,
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 113
XVI. Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not result in the physical deterioration of parks
or other recreational facilities. The City has 23 neighborhood parks, 12 community parks, and
Martin-Tudor-Jurupa Hills Regional Park, which includes 780 acres of open space. The closest
existing park to the project site is Jack Bulik Park at 16581 Filbert Avenue, approximately 0.9 miles
southeast of the project site. As discussed in Response XVa)iv) above, the City has established a
park development fee of $6,633 per single-family home to maintain existing parks and fund new
parks. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact. The project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 114
XVII. Transportation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
TRANSPORTATION:
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
The analysis and findings throughout this section are based on the Focused Traffic Study prepared
by TJW Engineering (June 19, 2023), provided as Appendix H of this IS/MND and incorporated
herein by reference.
Discussion
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.
Circulation System
Regional access to the project site is provided by I-10 and SR-210, located approximately 1.5 miles
to the south and approximately 3.2 miles to the north of the project site, respectively. Other
facilities that provide regional access to the site include I-15, approximately 4.7 miles west.
Poplar Avenue, which runs along the western edge of the project site, and Catawba Avenue,
which runs along the eastern edge of the project site, are both identified as collector streets.
Randall Avenue, an east-west oriented roadway located approximately 0.25-mile south of the
project site, is identified as a modified secondary highway.60 There are no existing bike lanes in
60 Fontana, General Plan Update, Community Mobility and Circulation Element (Chapter 9), Exhibit 9.2:
Hierarchy of Streets in Fontana.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 115
the project area.61 There are existing sidewalks along all roadways adjacent to the project site
including Poplar Avenue, Catawba Avenue, Orchid Avenue and Athol Street.62
Site Circulation
Access to the residential development would be from just south of Orchid Avenue, which would
be gated and would lead to a private street network that traverses the site and joins the
intersection of Hibiscus Street and Catawba Avenue. The residential development would be
supported by internal private streets.
Project Trip Generation
The City of Fontana has determined that a project-specific traffic analysis is not warranted for
the proposed project because the project would generate less than 50 peak hour trips. However,
as part of the air quality modeling program used to conduct the project’s air quality analysis,
default trip generation estimates were developed for the project. According to the Focused
Traffic Study prepared for the project, the project would generate a total of 36 a.m. peak hour
trips and 49 p.m. peak hour trips, for a total of 491 daily trips. These estimates are considered to
be nominal in terms of additional traffic that would be generated by the proposed project, and it
is not expected that a conflict with circulation policies would result with project implementation.
In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with any applicable traffic and
circulation regulations set forth by the City. With adherence to any relevant circulation
regulations, the project would have a less than significant impact on circulation policies.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 generally requires that
transportation impacts of projects be evaluated based on the vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
attributed to the project. Based on the City of Fontana’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for
Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (October 2020), screening criteria can be
utilized to effectively screen projects from project-level VMT assessment. The guidelines identify
that projects which generate less than 500 net average daily trips would not cause a substantial
increase in the total citywide or regional VMT and are therefore presumed to have a less than
significant impact on VMT. Because the project generates 491 net average daily trips, the project
is presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT and no further VMT analysis is
required.
61 Fontana, General Plan Update, Community Mobility and Circulation Element (Chapter 9), Exhibit 9.3: Mobility.
62 Fontana, General Plan Update, Community Mobility and Circulation Element (Chapter 9), Exhibit 9.4: Sidewalk
Connectivity in Fontana.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 116
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The design features of the proposed project do not incorporate
any hazardous or incompatible features. The internal traffic circulation on the project site would
not include sharp turns, and the drive aisles/fire lanes within the project site have been designed
to be both efficient and safe for vehicular traffic. Specifically, the project would implement the
following public right-of-way improvements and street dedications, which would be required to
obtain a separate Engineering Division permit prior to project approval:
• Improve Orchid Avenue (which borders the project site to the north for approximately
500 linear feet at the northwestern boundary) as part of the project site frontage;
• Half-width dedication of 33 feet along Poplar Avenue; and
• Half-width dedication of 34 feet along Catawba Avenue.
Additionally, the project would not be an incompatible use, nor would it be hazardous due to its
design. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant impact.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located approximately 0.25-mile west of Citrus
Avenue, which is a designated local truck route and can accommodate a large amount of traffic
during an emergency. During project construction, the contractor would be required to maintain
adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles as required by the City. In addition, the
proposed project has been designed with two separate ingress/egress points, one on Orchid
Avenue and the other on Catawba Avenue. On-site circulation has also been designed to allow
for maneuvering of emergency vehicles (e.g., fire trucks) and to allow for emergency access onto
the project via issuance of transponders to the Fire Department for automatic opening of gated
entrances. The nearest fire station to the project site is San Bernardino County Fire Station
Number 72, located 0.85 miles southwest of the project site at 15380 San Bernardino Avenue.
The project does not include any land uses or off-site improvements that would result in
inadequate emergency access. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant impact.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 117
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
TRIBAL CULTURAL 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), or
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
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.
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
The information, analysis, and findings in this section are the result of government-to-
government consultation pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section
21080.3.1(b).
Discussion
a)i) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of
the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 118
Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code
section 5020.1(k)?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The response to D.XVIIIa)i is
combined with the response to D.XVIIIa)ii, below.
a)ii) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of
the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. In December 2020, the City initiated
tribal consultation with interested California Native American tribes consistent with AB 52. The
City sent letters consistent with SB 18 and requested consultation from the following tribes: the
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, the Serrano Nation of Mission
Indians, the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, the Gabrielino/Tongva Nation,
the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission
Indians, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation, and the San Fernando Band of
Mission Indians.
The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation requested consultation. The consultation
for AB 52 and SB 18 occurred on February 23, 2021. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh
Nation was provided with the City’s standard conditions to reduce potential impacts to Tribal
Cultural Resources associated with inadvertent discovery during project construction, as
discussed in Mitigation Measure TCR-1, below. No other tribes responded to the AB 52 or SB 18
requests for consultation.
Mitigation Measures
TCR-1: Tribal Cultural Resource Discovery
Upon discovery of any cultural tribal cultural or archaeological resources, cease
construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed.
All cultural tribal and archaeological resources unearthed by project construction
activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist 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
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 119
preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on other
parts of the project while evaluation takes place.
Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place
is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery
excavation to remove the resource along the subsequent laboratory processing and
analysis. All Tribal Cultural Resources shall be returned to the Tribe. Any historic
archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public,
non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, if such an institution agrees
to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be
offered to the Tribe or a local school or historical society in the area for educational
purposes.
Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction
projects shall be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid
any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and
associated funerary objects shall be taken. Principal personnel shall meet the Secretary
of the Interior standards for archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years’ experience as
a principal investigator working with Native American archaeological sites in southern
California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are
appropriately trained and qualified.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 120
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage, electric
power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion
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.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 121
Water
The water service provider to the project site is the FWC. The proposed project would require
water for residents and the irrigation of landscaped areas. According to water demand
projections included in FWC’s most recent UWMP, a baseline demand of 165 gallons per capita
per day (GPCD) was used to project future water demands from 2025 through 2045. Based on
the anticipated population increase of approximately 218 residents resulting from development
of the proposed project, the water demand associated with the project would be 13,129,050
gallons per year (35,970 gallons per day) or 40.3 acre-feet per year.
Water for the project would be provided by the FWC and would connect to the existing water
main. An expansion of off-site water facilities would not be required to serve the proposed
project and the impact would be less than significant.
Wastewater Treatment
The IEUA provides wastewater treatment service throughout the City. The IEUA currently
operates four regional wastewater treatment facilities: Regional Plant (RP)-1, RP-4, RP-5, and
Carbon Canyon Wastewater Reclamation Facility. The City is located within the RP-1 service area.
According to the IEUA’s most recent UWMP, RP-1 has a rated permitted treatment capacity of
44 million gallons per day and is currently treating an average of 28 million gallons per day, which
is only 65 percent of its capacity.63
The proposed 53 single-family detached homes are estimated to generate a combined total of
12,220 gallons of wastewater per day, based on a wastewater generation rate of 260 gallons per
day per household.64 This wastewater generation amounts to approximately 0.07 percent of RP-
1’s additional 16 million gallons per day surplus, representing a nominal increase in the amount
of wastewater treated daily by the wastewater treatment plant. Therefore, impacts associated
with wastewater treatment requirements and capacity would be less than significant.
Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
The project site is surrounded by residential development. These areas require access to electric
power provided by Southern California Edison (SCE), natural gas provided by Southern California
Gas Company, and telecommunications facilities provided by various companies. Due to the close
proximity of the project site to existing electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications
63 Inland Empire Utilities Agency, 2016, Urban Water Management Plan.
64 Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, n.d., Will Serve Program, Table 1: Loadings for Each Class of Land Use,
accessed January 4, 2021, at https://www.lacsd.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=3531.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 122
facilities, substantial expansion of such utilities would not be required to serve the proposed
project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
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. As discussed above, water for the project would be provided by
the FWC. According to the 2020 UWMP, the FWC has sufficient water supplies to serve the
project. Domestic water supplies from this service provider are reliant on groundwater from the
Chino Groundwater Basin, the Rialto Groundwater Basin, the Lytle Basin, and the No Man’s Land
Basin. The FWC also relies on surface water sourced from Lytle Creek. Based on information in
the 2020 UWMP, the FWC is anticipated to have 51,943 acre-feet of water supply in 2045.65 The
FWC has determined that, with a reduction in demand as a result of water conservation, the
FWC’s single dry year and multiple dry year supplies are adequate to meet projected demands
through 2040.
In addition, based on the 2020 UWMP per capita water usage calculation of 149 gallons per
person per day and a project population increase of approximately 218 additional residents
within the City, the proposed project would result in an operational water demand of 11,855,930
gallons per year or 36.4 acre feet per year.66 As such, the impact would be less than significant.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Impact XIX.a), there are sufficient wastewater
treatment facilities and capacity to service the project. A less than significant impact 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. Implementation of the project is anticipated to generate additional
waste during the temporary, short-term construction phase, as well as the operational phase,
but it would not be expected to result in inadequate landfill capacity. Solid waste service for the
City of Fontana is provided by the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill, located in the northern portion of
the City. According to CalRecycle, the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill has a maximum throughput of
7,500 tons per day, a maximum permitted capacity of approximately 101.3 million cubic yards,
and a remaining capacity of approximately 67.52 million cubic yards. The landfill has an expected
65 San Gabriel Valley Water Company – Fontana Division, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Section 6.9,
Summary of Existing and Planned Sources of Water, pp. 6-27 through 6-29.
66 San Gabriel Valley Water Company – Fontana Division, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Section 5.6, 2020
Compliance Daily Per Capita Water Use, p. 5-4.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 123
operational life through 2033 with the potential for vertical, or downward, expansion.67 For these
reasons, the proposed project’s solid waste disposal needs are anticipated to be met by the Mid-
Valley Sanitary Landfill. The project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure and this would be a less than
significant impact.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. As discussed under Impact XIX.d), the proposed project, as with all other
development in the City, would be required to adhere to City ordinances with respect to waste
reduction and recycling. As a result, the project would comply with all federal, state, and local
regulations regarding solid waste and no impact would occur.
67 CalRecycle, SWIS Facility Detail, Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055), accessed December 18, 2020.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/36-AA-0055/.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 124
XX. Wildfire
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
WILDFIRE:
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion
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. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and
Resource Assessment Program, the project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility
Area (SRA).68 The nearest SRA to the project site is located 4.5 miles north. In addition, as an
68 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Fire and Resource Assessment Program, State
Responsibility Area Viewer, accessed December 18, 2020, https://bof.fire.ca.gov/projects-and-programs/state-
responsibility-area-viewer/, and https://calfire-
forestry.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=73510b7d74ee410fbfd9e73725ddad04.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 125
urbanized area, the project site does not contain lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones. The project site is served by the FFPD, and the nearest fire station to the project site is San
Bernardino County Fire Station Number 72, located 0.85 miles southwest of the project site at
15380 San Bernardino Avenue. Project development would not impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, there would be no impact.
b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
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 stated in Impact XX.a), the project site is not located in or near an SRA and does
not contain lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The project would not
exacerbate wildfire risks or expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Therefore, there would be no impact.
c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power
lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary
or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact. As mentioned in Impact XX.a), the project site is not located in or near an SRA and
does not contain lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The proposed project
would include construction of 53 single-family detached homes and associated infrastructure.
Construction and operation of the proposed project would not increase the risk of fire. Therefore,
there would be no impact.
d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact. As mentioned in Impact XX.a), the project site is not located in or near an SRA and
does not contain lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The project would not
expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or
drainage changes. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 126
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Discussion
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As concluded in Section IV, Biological
Resources, the proposed project would not have the potential to: 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; or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare,
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 127
threatened species. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 (Nesting Bird Surveys)
and BIO-2 (Burrowing Owl Surveys), impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. In
addition, as indicated in Section V, Cultural Resources, all impacts relative to cultural resources
were found to be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
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. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15183, this environmental analysis was conducted to determine if there were any
project-specific effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. No project-specific significant
effects peculiar to the project or its site were identified that could not be mitigated to a less than
significant level. The project would not induce substantial population growth or significant traffic
volumes. The project would contribute to environmental effects in the areas of biological
resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources. However,
these would not be cumulatively considerable, since they are site specific. When considering the
proposed project in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
projects in the vicinity of the project site, the proposed project, with implementation of
mitigation measures incorporated herein, would not have the potential to cause impacts that are
cumulatively considerable. Implementation of mitigation measures at the project-level would
reduce the potential for the incremental effects of the proposed project to be less than
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, current projects, or
probable future projects. Therefore, the project does not have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable.
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. Given the scope and nature of the
proposed project, project implementation would not result in environmental effects, which
would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
Compliance with applicable existing laws and regulations and implementation of recommended
mitigation measures as prescribed in this document would ensure that the project would not
result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant and no additional mitigation measures are required.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 128
This page intentionally left blank
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 129
SECTION E. REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board. 2017. 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.
California Code of Regulations. 2019. Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and
Nonresidential Buildings, Title 24.
California Department of Conservation. 2019. D – EQ Zapp: California Hazards Zone Application.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp. Accessed December 18,
2020.
______. California Geological Survey. 2019. Regional Geologic & Hazards Mapping Program:
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed December 18, 2020.
______. 2000. A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to
Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report. ww3.arb.ca.gov/toxics/asbestos/ofr_2000-
019.pdf.
______. 2014. “Update of Mineral Land Classification for Portland Cement Concrete-Aggregate
in the Temescal Valley Production Area, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties,” Special
Report 231.
______. n.d. California Important Farmland Finder.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF. Accessed December 18, 2020.
California Department of Finance. 2020. Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties,
and the State, 2011-2019 with 2010 Census Benchmark.
http://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/. Accessed December 18,
2020.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, March 7, 2012, Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843 Accessed May
4, 2021.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2019. Fire and Resource Assessment
Program. https://frap.fire.ca.gov/. Accessed December 18, 2020.
______. 2020. Fire and Resource Assessment Program, State Responsibility Area Viewer.
https://bof.fire.ca.gov/projects-and-programs/state-responsibility-area-viewer/.
Accessed December 18, 2020.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 130
California Department of Transportation. 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration
Guidance Manual.
______. 2019. Scenic Highway Mapping System. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-
landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed
January 28, 2020.
California Environmental Protection Agency. 2020. Cortese List Data Resources.
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. Accessed January 29, 2020.
California Public Utilities Commission. 2011. California Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic
Plan. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=4125.
CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). n.d. Solid Waste
Information System. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/36-AA-
0055/. Accessed December 18, 2020.
______. Green Building Materials.
https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/greenbuilding/materials#Material. Accessed December
18, 2020.
Chino Basin Watermaster. 2019. Optimum Basin Management Program, Staff Status Report
2019-1: January to June 2019, 2019.
______. 2017. Maximum Benefit Annual Report.
City of Fontana. 2017. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-
Plan.
______. 2018. City of Fontana General Plan Update 2015-2035.
https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015---2035.
______. 2018. City of Fontana General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact
Report. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-
Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update.
______. 2019. Fontana Traffic Study Guidelines.
______. n.d. Fontana Municipal Code.
______. n.d. Public Services Department Tree Policy Manual.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/836/tree_manual?bidId=.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 131
City of Ontario. 2011. RLA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
County of San Bernardino. 2019. Countywide Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden. 2010. Noise Navigator Sound Level
Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values. July 6, 2010.
Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054).
Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
Historic Aerials. 2019. Project location. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. Accessed
January 28, 2020.
Inland Empire Utilities Agency. 2016. Urban Water Management Plan.
Kariel, H. G. 1991. Noise in Rural Recreational Environments.
Michael Baker International. 2020. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data.
______. 2021. Updated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data.
______. 2023. Updated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data.
______. 2020. Cultural Resources Identification Report.
______. 2021. Updated Cultural Resources Identification Report.
______. 2022. Updated Cultural Resources Identification Report.
______. 2020. Habitat Assessment.
______. 2021. Updated Biological Resources Records Search.
______. 2020. Noise Data.
Pinnacle Environmental, Inc. 2020. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.
______. 2020. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment.
San Gabriel Valley Water Company - Fontana Water Company Division. 2021. 2020 Urban Water
Management Plan. https://www.fontanawater.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/FWC-
2020-UWMP-June-2021-Final.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2023.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 132
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County website. n.d. Loadings for each class of land use.
https://www.lacsd.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=3531. Accessed October
10, 2019.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2015. Application for Leave to File Brief of Amicus
Curiae Brief of San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District in Support of
Defendant and Respondent, County of Fresno and Real Party In Interest and Respondent,
Friant Ranch, L.P. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin,
and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook
______. 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.
______. 2015. Application of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for Leave to File
Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party and Brief of Amicus Curiae. In the
Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women
Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno.
______. 2016. Air Quality Management Plan. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-
plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/final-2016-aqmp.
Southern California Association of Governments. 2016. 2016–2040 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
Southern California Earthquake Data Center
https://scedc.caltech.edu/earthquake/cucamonga.html, Accessed May 12, 2021.
______. 2019. High Quality Transit Corridor (HQTC) mapping website. Accessed December 4,
2019. http://gisdata-scag.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/.
TJW Engineering. 2023. Focused Traffic Study.
US Census Bureau. n.d. San Bernardino County, California.
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?q=San%20Bernardino%20County,%20California
&g=0500000US06071. Accessed April 21, 2020.
US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2019. Soil Map—San
Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2020. Carbon Monoxide Emissions,
https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=10.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 133
US Fish and Wildlife Service. n.d. National Wetlands Inventory.
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. Accessed November 25, 2019.
US Geological Survey. n.d. Interactive Fault Map website. https://www.usgs.gov/natural-
hazards/earthquake-hazards/hazards. Accessed January 28, 2020.
ZS Engineering. 2020. Field Infiltration Test Results.
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 134
This page intentionally left blank
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 135
SECTION F. LIST OF PREPARERS
City of Fontana (Lead Agency)
Planning Division
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Jon Dille, Associate Planner
Michael Baker International (Environmental Analysis)
3536 Concours Street, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91764
Alicia Gonzalez, Department Manager
Elizabeth Meyerhoff, Senior Project Manager
Renee Gleason, Senior Environmental Analyst
David Christie, Environmental Analyst
Nathan Levey, Environmental Analyst
Eddie Torres, INCE, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Noise Specialist
Kevin Oliver, GIS Analyst
Linda Broberg, Document Preparation
Master Case No. 20-073
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 136
This page intentionally left blank