Fontana City Council
February 10, 2026

As documented in the CE Justification, the Project is an allowable use under the General Plan and Zoning designations and therefore has been evaluated as such in the General Plan EIR. According to the City of Fontana General Plan Land Use Map, the Project Site has a designation of Multi Family High Residential (R-MFH), which allows a residential density of 39.1 to 50 dwelling units per acre.1 According to the City of Fontana Zoning District Map, the Project Site has a designation of Multi-Family High Density Residential (R-5), which allows a residential density of 39.1 to 50 dwelling units per acre. The Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 (General Plan) provides that the R-5 designation is intended to strengthen the opportunity for higher density multifamily development and encourage the development of residential units within walking distance of public transportation.
2 Permitted uses within the R-5 designation include, but are not limited to, multiple family with commercial uses/mixed uses, and limited retail uses such as: a bicycle shop, a bookstore, a clothing store, a convenience store, banks, and a pharmacy.3 The Project provides for all these uses on currently vacant land that has no value for biological resources and is currently surrounded predominantly by residential and commercial uses.

Comment Letter 1 -Lozeau Drury LLP Letter Dated October 27, 2025 General Response to Comment Letter 1
The Lozeau Drury law firm has submitted comments on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), a nonprofit led by Southern California District Council of Laborers4.

In general, multiple comments provided by Lozeau Drury assert that the technical analyses supporting the CEQA Exemption improperly evaluated the Project’s potential environmental impacts. Per the discussion below, these claims are without merit. As documented here, in the CE Justification, and the studies prepared in support of the Memo, the City has appropriately found the Project exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332.

The analytic documents provided by the commenter are acknowledged. However, these analytic documents and supporting remarks at most present evidence a “difference of opinion”. The City’s factual determination that the Project satisfies the criteria for application of a categorical exemption must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence. (San Francisco Beautiful v.

City and County of San Francisco (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1021 (“San Francisco Beautiful”); Banker’s Hill, Hillcrest, Park West Community Preservation Group v. City of San Diego (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 249. 267-269 [substantial evidence test governs review of city’s determination that project falls within the Infill Development exemption].) 1 City of Fontana, City of Fontana General Plan Land Use Map, https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/44297, accessed October 28, 2024.
2 City of Fontana, Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035, November 13, 2018. 3 City of Fontana, Zoning And Development Code, accessed January 06, 2025 4 https://www.dailyjournal.com/article/379577-union-linked-group-challenges-project-s-ceqa-exemption Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Substantial evidence includes “facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts, and expert opinion supported by facts” and is “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15384.) Substantial evidence does not include “[a]rgument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate, or evidence of social or economic impacts ….” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21082.2, subd. (c); CEQA Guidelines, § 15384.)
In applying this substantial evidence standard, the City does not need to “weigh conflicting evidence,” “determine who has the better argument,” nor will a court set City’s the agency’s decision “on the ground that an opposite conclusion would have been equally or more reasonable.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 393.) The City “is the finder of fact,” and courts “must indulge all reasonable inferences from the evidence that would support the agency’s determinations and resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the agency’s decision.” (Save Our Peninsula Com. v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 117.) The City’s decision that a project is categorically exempt is to be affirmed unless “there is no basis in the record for its determination that the project was exempt from CEQA.” (World Bus. Academy v. Cal. State Lands Commn. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 476, 496.)
In Banker’s Hill Hillcrest Park West Community Preservation Ground v. City of San Diego, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th 249, the Court expressly considered the standard of review that applies to the question of whether the Infill Development Exemption applies, by its own terms, to a project. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15332, subd. (d); Banker's Hill, at pp. 268-269.) The Court held that the Infill Development Exemption “requires the agency to determine that ‘[a]pproval of the project would not result in a significant effect to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Thus, the [exemption] calls for the agency to make a definitive finding, at the preliminary review stage, as to whether or not there will be a significant environmental effect. The use of this language leads us to conclude that the fair argument standard does not apply.” (Ibid.) Accordingly, use of the Infill Development Exemption does not depend on whether a project may have a significant effect, but instead depends on if it will have a significant effect. The Court concluded “[w]e inquire whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the City's finding that the Project will not have a significant effect. If we locate substantial evidence in the record to support that conclusion, we will uphold the City's determination, even if other evidence arguably supports a different conclusion.” (Ibid.)
If substantial evidence in the record supports the agency’s exemption determination, “the burden then shifts to the challenging party to produce evidence showing that one of the exceptions to the exemption applies.” (San Francisco Beautiful, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 1023.) To satisfy that burden “a party challenging an agency’s exemption decision must produce substantial evidence that the project has the potential for a [significant] adverse environmental impact.” (Association for Protection of Environmental Values in Ukiah v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 728.) Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Accordingly, despite the disagreements expressed by the commenter, and as documented here, in the CE Justification, and in the studies prepared in support of the Memo, substantial evidence supports the City’s findings that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332. As so no additional environmental review is required.

The Lozeau Drury letter was submitted with three exhibits, each of which is a letter prepared by different individuals or organizations. The Lozeau Drury letter and each of the comments within the three exhibits has been numbered and responses are provided herein by letter/comment number.

Comment 1-1
This is an introductory comment stating the law firm is providing comments on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and does not provide any CEQA-related comments.

Response to Comment 1-1
The comment is noted for the record and no response is required.

Comment 1-2
This comment states that SAFER maintains the Project does not qualify for the Infill Exemption because substantial evidence shows the Project will have significant adverse impacts related to biological resources and air quality and therefore the City cannot rely on the Exemption.

Response to Comment 1-2
A Categorical Exemption Justification and supporting technical documents were prepared to evaluate the Project’s consistency with the requirements for a Class 32 CE. The memorandum evaluated whether any of the exceptions to categorical exemptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to the Project.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 states that a Class 32 CE applies when:
f) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
g) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
h) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. i) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

j) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 lists the following exceptions to categorical exemptions:
a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.
b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR. e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

As more specifically addressed below, the CE Justification and supporting analyses, as well as this Memo, document that the Project meets all criteria shown above to qualify for an Infill Exemption and no significant impacts that could not be mitigated to levels of less than significant were identified; the City has made the determination that an Infill Exemption is the appropriate CEQA document to use in approval of the project.

Comment 1-3
This comment states that SAFER’s review of the Project was assisted by wildlife ecologist Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.; air quality experts Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D., and Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., from the environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”); and indoor air quality expert Francis Offermann, P.E., C.I.H. Dr. Smallwood. Their credentials and comments are submitted as Exhibits A, B, and C attached to SAFER’s letter.

Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Response to Comment 1-3
The comment is noted for the record and no response is required. Responses to the referenced comments are provided in subsequent responses.

Comment 1-4
This comment reiterates that the Project does not qualify for an Exemption and that preparation of an Initial Study is required.

Response to Comment 1-4
Refer to Response to Comment 1-2 and additional justification provided in subsequent responses to comments.

Comment 1-5
Comment presents overview of the Project.

Response to Comment 1-5
The comment is noted for the record and no response is required.

Comment 1-6
Commenter summarizes its view of the legal standards that apply when conducting environmental review of a project pursuant to CEQA and reiterates its opinion that the Project does not meet the legal standards for a categorical exemption.

Response to Comment 1-6
See general response to Comment Letter 1 - Lozeau Drury LLP Letter Dated October 27, 2025 above.

Comment 1-7
This comment provides an overview of CEQA Guidelines related to categorical exemptions.

Response to Comment 1-7
Comment does not identify any specific deficiencies or errors in CE Justification for the Project.

The comment is noted for the record and no response is required.

Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Comment 1-8
This comment states that the Project does not qualify for the CEQA Guidelines section 15332 Infill Exemption because the Project site has value as habitat for several special-status species, and the Project will have significant adverse impacts related to air quality.

Response to Comment 1-8
Based on findings of the experts who prepared Project-specific technical reports in support of the CE Justification, the Project site has no value as habitat for several special-status species, and the Project will not have significant adverse impacts related to air quality.

Comment 1-9
The commenter states that SAFER’s experts concluded that the Project site serves as habitat for multiple special-status species and that the City failed to adequately analyze the Project’s significant adverse impacts on wildlife.

Response to Comment 1-9
The Project’s potential to serve as habitat for special-status species were evaluated in an update to the Biological Resources Assessment Letter Report prepared for the Project December 4, 2024.

Additionally, a General Biological Resources Assessment was prepared on January 3, 2026 by Jennigs Environmental, a biological resources consultant with over 12 years of professional experience working for public and private clients throughout Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Mr. Jennings found that, based on a literature review and personal observations made on the Project site and in the immediate vicinity of the Project site, no State and/or federally-listed threatened or endangered species are documented/or expected to occur within the Project site (Refer to Appendix D of the January 3, 2026 report). Additionally, no plant species with the CNPS California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1 or 2 were observed on-site or documented to occur onsite in the relevant databases. No other sensitive species were observed within the project area or buffer area. The Project Site is highly disturbed. The habitat on-site is ruderal/disturbed vegetation with gravel surfaces (Refer to photos in Appendix B of January 3, 2026 report). The site offers no suitable habitat for any sensitive species or listed species. The Assessment concludes no further surveys for sensitive species are required and that because the proposed Project is within Fontana and subject to the City of Fontana General Plan Update 2015-2035 and the Fontana General Plan Draft (June 8, 2018) & Final Environmental Impact Report (August 10, 2018), Mitigation Measure BIO-3 of the Draft EIR applies as a Condition of Project Approval. As recommended in the 2025 Biological Resources Assessment prepared in accordance with the General Plan’s adopted Condition of Approval (Mitigation Measure BIO-3), nesting bird surveys shall be implemented prior to construction if construction occurs during the period of February 1 through September 15.

Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Comment 1-10
The commenter states that Noriko Smallwood visited the site and found special-status species during August 15 and August 10, 2025 surveys.

Response to Comment 1-10
The comment conflates observation of species on the Project site with the occupation of the site by these species. Upon review of Dr. Smallwood’s letter, while Mr. Jennings does not doubt that these observations occurred, it does not alter the fact that the Project site is not suitable to host these species for nesting, roosting, or breeding as the comment suggests. Specifically, all of the species listed are airborne and were observed flying over the site or simply landing on the site. As noted in the General Biological Assessment prepared on January 3, 2025, the Project site does not contain suitable habitat for these species.

Comment 1-11
Comment states that the City failed to complete any wildlife surveys and has no basis for determining whether the site provides habitat.

Response to Comment 1-11
See Response to Comment 1-9. As noted in the General Biological Assessment prepared on January 3, 2025, the Project site does not contain suitable habitat for these species and thus no wildlife surveys are justified. Further, CEQA Guidelines section 15332 does not require wildlife surveys, it only queries whether a project site has value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. As the Project site does not provide such habitat, that is the end of the CEQA Guidelines section 15332 inquiry with regard to endangered, rare or threatened species.

Comment 1-12
This comment states that by failing to conduct any wildlife surveys of the Project site, or disclose the site’s existing conditions, including the fact that the site contains at least eight special-status species, the CE Memo inadequately described the Project’s “environmental setting” and thereby insufficiently analyzed the Project’s biological impacts.

Response to Comment 1-12
See Responses to Comments 1-9, 1-10, and 1-11.

Comment 1-13
The commenter states that the City’s desktop review of biological wildlife species was incomplete and inadequate. Specifically, commenter asserts that “desktop review was distorted to minimize Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

the chances of the occurrence of special-status species” and that “137 special-status wildlife species are known to occur close enough to the Project site to warrant analysis of their occurrence potential.”
Response to Comment 1-13
A comprehensive desktop review was performed in conjunction with two separate Project site visits on December 3, 2024, and December 22, 2025. The results of which were provided to the City to make a determination on the suitability for the site to host any sensitive species. Both reports concluded that the Project site does not contain suitable habitat for these species (Refer to Appendix D of January 3, 2026 report).

The Desktop review and subsequent surveys were not distorted to minimize the chances of species occurrence. The original desktop review contained all species within a 5-mile radius. Given the developed nature of the surrounding land uses, 5 miles is considered an over estimation. Typically, a 1-mile radius is sufficient for a site location consistent with the Project site. However, the additional radius was included to make the analysis conservative and included all relevant species.

The commentor’s claim that 137 special status species of wildlife occur close to the Project site is incorrect, as they commenter relies on unreliable public, not scientific, databases to offer this occurrence data. Additionally, an analysis of the potential occurrence was provided in Table 1 of Attachment C in the December 2024 report and again in Table 2 of Appendix D in the December 2025 report. Both tables provide review of the special status species within the listed US Geological Survey Quadrangles and compares the habitat requirement to suitability of the site. All special status species were determined to have a negative occurrence potential.

Comment 1-14
The commenter reiterates that SAFER’s biologist determined the site serves as habitat for specialstatus species and at least eight were identified on site; further the commenter claims that CEQA review is needed to appropriately assess and reduce the Project’s impacts on the wildlife community.

Response to Comment 1-14
See Responses to Comments 1-9, 1-10, 1-11 and 1-12 above. The Project has been adequately evaluated to determine that, per CEQA Guidelines section 15332(h) the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

Comment 1-15
Comment reiterates Project will significantly affect wildlife species and states impacts will also include bird-window collision mortality.

Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Response to Comment 1-15
CEQA Guidelines section 15332 does not require analysis potential impacts to wildlife species, it only queries whether a project site has value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

As the Project site does not provide such habitat, that is the end of the CEQA Guidelines section 15332 inquiry with regard to endangered, rare or threatened species.

Regardless, the following responses are provided for informational purposes:

As documented in the Biological Resources Assessment Letter Report prepared for the Project December 4, 2024 and the General Biological Resources Assessment was prepared on January 3, 2026, the Project Site is highly disturbed. The habitat on-site is ruderal/disturbed vegetation with gravel surfaces. The site offers no suitable habitat for any sensitive species or listed species.

Therefore, no further surveys are required. The northerly portion of the site was previously developed and contains gravel and concrete, imported soils, and is routinely mowed and disked per fire code. The minimal amount of ruderal vegetation that is present on site does not support any sensitive species as it offers no habitat for nesting, roosting, or breeding. Simply seeing an airborne species fly over the site does not determine the site’s ability to host said species.

Further, the Project’s buildings are designed to be constructed with exterior building materials consisting of natural stone veneer, expanded mesh, brick veneer, aluminum storefront, and aluminum composite panels. The main color of the buildings will be egret white with the following accent colors; thunder gray, gateway gray, rockwood clay, tricorn black. Final design plans, subject to City approval, can also include a material applied to the outside of a window so as to disrupt the reflection off the outside surface that birds perceive as a continuation of their environment, thus minimizing bird-window collisions to the extent feasible. The California Building Code provisions concerning bird-window collisions that include glazing with visual markers (films, etching, frits, using patterns (e.g., vertical lines 1/8" wide with 4" spacing or 2 x 2 inch dots) and avoiding highly reflective or transparent glass that could be required at final review.

Comment 1-16
Commenter’s biologist finds that Project’s long-term effects on bird species include loss of reproductive capacity, nesting sites, fledglings, and birds that must be addressed in an MND or EIR.

Response to Comment 1-16
See Response to Comment 1-14
Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Comment 1-17
Commenter’s biologist finds the Project site provides wildlife with stopover opportunities and the Project would deprive wildlife during migration and dispersal as well as wildlife movement.

Response to Comment 1-17
CEQA Guidelines section 15332 does not require analysis potential impacts to wildlife species, it only queries whether a project site has value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

As the Project site does not provide such habitat, that is the end of the CEQA Guidelines section 15332 inquiry with regard to endangered, rare or threatened species.

Regardless, the following responses is provided for informational purposes:

As mentioned previously, the Project site is a ruderal site with non-native vegetation and large amounts of disturbance. Additionally, the site is not mapped within a designated area for wildlife movement as mapped by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). According to Center for Biological Diversity October 2003 Principles of Wildlife Corridor Design, wildlife movement corridors, also called dispersal corridors or landscape linkages as opposed to linear habitats, are linear features whose primary wildlife function is to connect at least two significant habitat areas. The conditions on site do not support the uses described in the comment as it is within a mostly developed area of Fontana. Furthermore, the proposed Project will have landscaping associated with the project. This landscaping could be used by wildlife post construction.

The commenter states that a certain number of birds would be impacted by the Project, however, that calculation is incorrect and flawed. The commenter’s opinion regarding the number of birds suggested is based on flawed analysis (see discussed above) as to the Project site’s ability to host said species. The commenter has incorrectly evaluated the site, which does not support high quality habitat as presumed in the commenter. Instead, as discussed above, the Project site contains no such habitat. Therefore, the Project site will not affect the species listed in the comment.

Comment 1-18
Commenter states that the Project would add glass windows and thereby expose birds to window collisions.

Response to Comment 1-18
See Response to Comments 1-17. Further, see Response to 1A-21 of the Comment Letter, which explains that commenter’s studies of bird window collisions are flawed and contain multiple points of biases. Additionally, the Commenter provides that they have personally researched these kinds of impacts, but provides no published documentation to determine the efficacy of the studies.

Therefore, the data presented in this section and comment cannot be relied upon as the Commentator provides no substation of the claims made.

Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Comment 1-19
Commenter’s biologist suggest mitigation measures that should be implemented by the City to reduce significant impacts to biological resources.

Response to Comment 1-19
CEQA Guidelines section 15332 does not require analysis potential impacts to wildlife species, it only queries whether a project site has value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

As the Project site does not provide such habitat, that is the end of the CEQA Guidelines section 15332 inquiry with regard to endangered, rare or threatened species. See also Response to Comment 1-9.

Comment 1-20
Air quality experts from SWAPE conclude that air quality impacts have not been adequately addressed and the Project may have significant adverse health risk impacts related to construction impacts.

Response to Comment 1-20
A Construction HRA was conducted, dated January 21, 2026. The Project uses Tier 4 Final construction equipment during all phases of construction. This is a project element that has always been part of the Project’s design. The Construction HRA analysis shows that none of the existing sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the Project would be exposed to a cancer risk in excess of 10 in a million from diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from the construction of the project.

The analysis shows that the cumulative cancer risk over the entire duration of construction, ~13 months (1.1 years) at the closest sensitive receptor would be a maximum of 2.25 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD maximum incremental cancer risk (MICR) threshold of 10 in a million. Impacts are considered to be less than significant. No additional emissions reductions are required.

The construction health risk impacts for non-cancer related impacts are less than 1.0; therefore, they are also considered to be less significant. No additional emissions reductions are required.

Comment 1-21
The commenter states that air quality impacts to human health risks related to diesel particulate matter were not addressed in a Health Risk Assessment and that the CE is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirements.

Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Response to Comment 1-21
A Construction HRA was performed. See response to comment 1-20 above.

Comment 1-22
Commenter states that its consultant, SWAPE, conducted a preliminary HRA which concluded that nearby sensitive receptors would be impacted with Diesel Particulate Emissions (DPM) emissions in excess of SCAQMD thresholds, such that further CEQA analysis should be prepared.

Response to Comment 1-22
The screening-level risk assessment analysis performed by SWAPE and detailed in Exhibit B of the comment letter is flawed, as the analysis is based on a construction duration of 422 days and not the actual construction duration of 285 working days. SWAPE analyzed the impacts based on a 7-day work week and not a 5-day work week; therefore, the exposure calculation would be overestimated by approximately 48 percent. Additionally, the exposure frequency used in the SWAPE calculation was 350 days a year, whereas the actual construction days of exposure would be 260 days, as the construction will be 5 days a week and not 7 days a week. Therefore, as the SWAPE screening analysis is based on flawed/incorrect data assumptions, the resulting health risk calculations are also not accurate and result in an over-estimation of construction-related health risk.

As discussed in response to comment 1-20 above, the January 21, 2026 Construction HRA includes the use of Tier 4 Final construction equipment, a project element that has always been part of the project’s design. With the use of this equipment, emissions from construction-related DPM will have a less than significant impact on the closest sensitive receptors. No additional analysis is warranted or required.

Comment 1-23
The commenter asserts that the certified industrial hygienist, Francis Offermann, P.E., C.I.H., has reviewed the Project and concluded that the Project will expose future residents to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, particularly emissions of formaldehyde.

Response to Comment 1-23
A review of Mr. Offerman’s comment letter (discussed in more detail in the responses to comments below) confirm that his “review” of the Project was limited to his observation that the Project “consists of residential and commercial spaces.” (See Comment 1C-6.) Indeed Mr. Offerman’s comment does not reference any materials concerning the Project.

As such, Mr. Offerman’s comments, as summarized by Lozeau Drury, constitutes only speculation as they are not based on any information regarding the Project. CEQA does not require speculation, Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

nor does such speculation constitute substantial evidence. (CEQA Guidelines §15145; see Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376 [no purpose can be served by requiring a CEQA document to engage in sheer speculation as to future environmental consequences].). The City is not required to accept Mr. Offermann’s “expert” opinion because it lacks an adequate factual foundation with regard to the actual plans for construction or operation of the Project. (See e.g. Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1422 [letter from engineering professor about groundwater and erosion impacts was not substantial evidence because it was based on inadequate foundation of specific information about project].)
Further, Commenter’s claims regarding potential impacts to future residents do not concern CEQA. As reflected in Association for Protection etc. Values v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 734, under CEQA, lead agencies need only consider whether a project will affect the environment of persons in general, not whether a project will affect particular persons. In that case, the court determined that there was no evidence that construction of the proposed project “would adversely affect the environment of persons in general” but rather impacts “only a few of the neighbors…” (Id, see also Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357, 376 [“The possibility of significant adverse environmental impact is not raised simply because of individualized complaints regarding the aesthetic merit of a project.

Under CEQA, the question is whether a project will affect the environment of persons in general, not whether a project will affect particular persons”].) Accordingly, Commenter’s claims about potential impacts to the Project residents (which, as detailed above, are only unsupported speculation) do not constitute a claim about a potential impact under CEQA, as they do not concern the environment of persons in general.

Furthermore, the project will be constructed in compliance with all City regulations pertaining to use of materials and Title 24 requirements. SCAQMD does not require any analyses of indoor air pollutants from building materials for CEQA analyses. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) under the California Health & Safety Code (title 17, sections 93120 – 93120.12) has Formaldehyde emission standards for three types of composite wood products (i.e., panels):
hardwood plywood (HWPW), particleboard (PB), and medium density fiberboard (including thin MDF). CARB Requires use of composite wood products that comply with emission standards in all finished goods5. The Project will be required to comply with these CARB standards; therefore, indoor air quality-related health risks are anticipated to be less than significant. No further analysis is required.

Comment 1-24
Commenter’s air quality specialist prescribed a methodology for estimating the Project’s formaldehyde emissions and states that an EIR or MND with mitigation measures must be imposed.
5 Source: https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/comparisontable.pdf Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Response to Comment 1-24
See Response to Comments 1-23. There is no requirement in CEQA for the City to carry out an analysis of related to Mr. Offerman’s speculation regarding potential impacts – of any kind - to Project residents as, under CEQA, lead agencies need only consider whether a project will affect the environment of persons in general, not whether a project will affect particular persons.

As stated above, the Project will be constructed in compliance with all City regulations pertaining to use of materials and Title 24 requirements. SCAQMD does not require any analyses of indoor air pollutants from building materials for CEQA analyses. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) under the California Health & Safety Code (title 17, sections 93120 – 93120.12) has Formaldehyde emission standards for three types of composite wood products (i.e., panels):
hardwood plywood (HWPW), particleboard (PB), and medium density fiberboard (including thin MDF). CARB Requires use of composite wood products that comply with emission standards in all finished goods6. The Project will be required to comply with these CARB standards; therefore, indoor air quality-related health risks are anticipated to be less than significant. No further analysis is required.

Comment 1-25
Commenter states the Commenter’s air quality specialist shows evidence that the Project will exceed SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds and that an “unstudied, potentially significant environmental effect” exists.

Response to Comment 1-25
See Response to Comments 1-20 through 22.

Comment 1-26
Commenter states that the City’s failure to address the Project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court’s decision in Cal. Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 (“CBIA”). The Court held in CBIA that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. (Id. at 800-01.) The commenter asserts that, to the extent that a project may exacerbate existing environmental conditions at or near a project site, those effects would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA.

Response to Comment 1-26
See Response to Comment 1-23
6 Source: https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/comparisontable.pdf Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Case law confirms that CEQA does not consider potential impacts to project residents. For example, courts have applied this rule when considering claims of potential impacts to indoor air quality, parking, historic resources, and transportation. (See, e.g., San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356 [Court rejected indoor air quality reports and letters, because, while they suggest that particular individuals may have adverse reactions to mold, they do not demonstrate an adverse impact to the environment of persons in general]; Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 786 [rejecting claim that parking issue showed an adverse impact on the environmental of persons in general]; Martin v. City and County of San Francisco (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 392 [rejecting claim that historic property issue showed an adverse impact on the environmental of persons in general]; and San Diego Citizenry Group v.

County of San Diego (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1[rejecting claim that roadway issue showed an adverse impact on the environmental of persons in general].) Commenter cites to California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 387 for its statement that CEQA can consider impacts on residents.

But Commenter fails to disclose that the case does not discuss the scope of residents a project would need to impact before it would potentially have an impact on the environment in general.

Indeed, nothing in CBIA v. BAAQMD disapproves, or even distinguishes, the holdings of Association for Protection, Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government, San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates or any of the other cases cited above; all of which hold that CEQA does not require a lead agency to consider whether a project will affect a few persons, as it concerns only potential impacts of a project to the environment of persons in general. Commenter cannot and has not shown that any heavily regulated composite wood that might be used in the Project would pose a health risk to Project residents, nor can it show that the residents comprise the environment of persons in general.

Comment 1-27
The commenter states there is presumably little to no formaldehyde emissions at the site and reiterates that there is currently the Project will start emitting formaldehyde at levels potentially significant direct and cumulative health risk.

Response to Comment 1-27
See Response to Comments 1-23 and 1-24.

Comment 1-28
The Commenter states that CEQA expressly includes a project’s effects on human beings as an effect on the environment and since the Project’s future residents are human beings, their health and safety must be subjected to CEQA.

Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Response to Comment 1-28
See Response to Comment 1-26.

Comment 1-29
The Commenter states that the Project will have significant effects on indoor air quality and health risks by emitting formaldehyde that will expose future residents to cancer risks exceeding SCAQMD’s significance threshold for cancer risk and therefore does not qualify for the Infill Exemption. Further CEQA review is necessary before approval.

Response to Comment 1-29
See Response to Comment 1-20 through 28.

Comment 1-30
Commenter states that CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 precludes the application of the CEQA Guideline section 15332 exemption because the “close proximity of a project site to sensitive receptors is an unusual circumstance” and because the Project will have significant adverse impacts related to biological resources and air quality which constitutes an unusual circumstance.

Response to Comment 1-30
The City has approved 14 other projects approved pursuant to an Infill Exemption and located near sensitive receptors such as single-family homes. These include the following; five of which were approved in 2025:
• MCN24-0080 – 24 Multi-family (MF) units (2025)
• MCN24-0055 – 8 MF units (2025)
• MCN22-064 – 10 MF units
• MCN22-000165 – 13 MF units (2025)
• MCN24-0047 – 12 MF units (2025
• MCN24-0074 – 30 MF units (2025)
• MCN22-000136 – 18 MF units
• MCN22-000010 – 109 MF units
• MCN23-000008 – 5 MF units
• MCN21-000029 – 72 MF units
• MCN21-000093 – 22 MF units
• MCN22-000020 – 30 MF units
• MCN22-000124 – 66 MF units
• MCN21-000106 – 46 MF units
Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

This confirms that, contrary to Commenter’s assertion the Project does not present an unusual circumstance. Therefore, according to Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1105, and IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development v. City of Irvine (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 100,133, whether this Project presents unusual circumstances is a factual inquiry subject to the substantial evidence standard of review. (Berkeley Hillside, at p. 1114; IBC Business Owners, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 132.) This highly deferential standard requires that courts “resolv[e] all evidentiary conflicts in the agency’s favor and indulg[e] in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the agency’s finding.” (Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v. State ex rel. 14th Dist. Ag. Assn., supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.) Indeed, the unusual circumstances exception applies only when both (1) unusual circumstances exist and (2) a significant impact results due to those unusual circumstances. (Berkeley Hillside, at p. 1105.) This is a two-prong test which asks: (1) whether the project presents unusual circumstances, and (2) whether there is a reasonable possibility that a significant environmental impact will result from those unusual circumstances. (Ibid.)
It is settled law that the City’s factual determination as to whether the project presents unusual circumstances is reviewed under the highly deferential substantial evidence standard. (Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at pp. 1114-1115; World Bus. Academy v. Cal. State Lands Commn., supra, 24 Cal.App.5th at pp. 498-499.) “[U]nusual circumstances are those that (i) differ from the general circumstances of the projects covered by the particular categorical exemption and (ii) create an environmental risk that does not exist for the general class of exempt projects.” (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Westlands Water District (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 832, 869, internal quotations omitted.) “[W]hether a circumstance is ‘unusual’ is judged relative to the typical circumstances related to an otherwise typically exempt project.” (San Francisco Beautiful, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 1024, citing Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 801, emphasis omitted.) An unusual circumstance is “some feature of the project that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class.” (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1381, internal quotations omitted.) Here, although Commenter cites to itsretained expert’s comments about the location of the Project, the City has substantial evidence supporting its approval of the Project based on a finding that that the Project present typical circumstances related to otherwise typically exempt projects in the City. (See San Francisco Beautiful, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 1024.) The highly deferential standard of review that applies here requires that courts “resolv[e] all evidentiary conflicts in the [City’s] favor and indulg[e] in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the agency’s finding.” (Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v. State ex rel. 14th Dist. Ag. Assn., supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.) As such, while Commenter may believe the location of the Project should preclude the use of the Infill Development Exemption, substantial evidence confirms that the City applied the Infill Development Exemption to at least 14 other similarly situated projects and thus, appropriately, found no “unusual circumstance” here.

Further, as noted in the CE Justification Memo, the Project would not result in any significant effects on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The Project Site is vacant and Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

undeveloped, located in an urbanized and built out area of the City that borders existing residential and commercial uses.

The Project Site is not located within a sensitive resource area and no site-specific environmental constraints, such as biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, or hazards and hazardous materials exist on-site. Technical analyses regarding biological resources, transportation, air quality, and noise have been prepared and summarized in this memorandum to substantiate the project’s less than significant effects on the environment. Additionally, the Project is a permitted use under the site’s R-5 Multi-Family High Density Residential designation zone.

Therefore, no unusual circumstances are present that could result in any significant project effects on the environment. CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 (c) has no application to the Project.

Comment 1-31
Comment reiterates that substantial evidence exists that the Project will have significant impacts related to biological resources and air quality.

Response to Comment 1-31
Refer to Responses above.

Comment 1-32
This conclusory comment states that the City cannot rely of the CEQA Infill Exemption because SAFER provides substantial evidence of significant impacts related to biological resources, air quality, and indoor air quality.

Response to Comment 1-32
Refer to Responses above.

Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Comment Letter 1A – Exhibit A to Lozeau Drury Letter
This letter dated August 28, 2025 was prepared by Shawn Smallwood, PhD and addresses biological resources impacts associated with the Project.

Comment 1A-1
The commenter addresses concerns that the proposed Class-32 CEQA Categorical Exemption and the Exemption under AB 130 would be inappropriate, because the site is habitat for multiple special-status species, and there has been no analysis of potential impacts to wildlife due to habitat loss, interference with wildlife movement in the region and bird-window collision mortality. The comment further includes Dr. Smallwood’s qualifications as a biologist.

Response to Comment 1A-1
Comment noted. Comment is introductory, does not address specifics of CEQA-related concerns and does not require a response.

Comment 1A-2
The Commenter provides his opinion as to CEQA’s requirements with regard to the protection of wildlife species.

Response to Comment 1A-2
Comment noted. Comment does not present any comments specific to the Project. No further comment is required.

Comment 1A-3
Comment states that the site was surveyed and a summary of Commenter’s site visit follows.

Response to Comment 1A-3
Comment noted. No response required to introductory comment.

Comment 1A-4
Comment provides an introduction to two surveys the commenter states were conducted at the Project site by Noriko Smallwood, wildlife biologist, during August 2025.

Response to Comment 1A-4
Comment noted. No response required to introductory comment.

Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Comment 1A-5
The Commenter states the weather conditions at the site during the two August 2025 surveys.

Response to Comment 1A-5
Comment noted. No response required.

Comment 1A-6
The Commenter states that vegetation found at the site during the August 15, 2025 survey included eucalyptus, willow, rosemary, and other ornamental plants and trees along the western and northern borders; Commenter provides two photos of the site.

Response to Comment 1A-6
The types of vegetation cited by commenter are not what was found by the Jenning Environmental biologists in December 2024 and December 2025. The habitat on-site consists of disturbed ruderal vegetation and bare gravel ground. The northern portion of the site was previously developed and the structure was removed. Additionally, the site is also being maintained through weed abatement (mowing or weed whacking) as evidenced by the minimal amount of vegetation on-site and dried broken plant parts. Plant species observed on site are; tumbleweed (Salsola tragus), lemon gum (Corymbia citriodora), telegraphweed (Heterotheca grandiflora), spelt wheat (Triticum spelta), puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), Mediterranean mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), golden crownbead (Verbesina encelioides), and flatspine burragweed (Ambrosia acanthicarpa).

Comment 1A-7
The comment lists a number of species allegedly found at or adjacent to the site by Ms. Smallwood and provides photographs of these species, stating these photographs were taken at the Project site.

Comment also includes sonigrams of canon bat and possible western red bat detected allegedly at the site.

Response to Comment 1A-7
While the photos submitted by the commenter show some of the species that were documented on site, Jennings Environmental has advised that the photos do not show these species actively using the Project site for any nesting, roosting, or breeding. An airborne species may fly over a site at any time, but that does not constitute the occupation of the site by that species. Simply seeing a species fly over the site does not indicate habitat suitability or occupation of the site.

The Comment also includes a sonigram, and states that a species of bat was heard. No evidence of any species of bats was not found during either site visit conducted by Jennings Environmental; indeed, the site does not contain suitable habitat for these species. There are no dense tree canopies, Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

forested areas, or riparian areas on-site or within the project vicinity (1 mile). Additionally, the Project will be required to follow all previously adopted Conditions of Approval (Mitigation Measures) that were approved as part of the City’s approval of its General Plan 2015-2035 Draft and Final EIR, including pre-construction survey for bats prior to removing any trees within the City. .

Comment 1A-8
Dr. Smallwood’s comment states that he fit nonlinear regression models to Noriko Smallwood’s cumulative numbers of vertebrate species detected with time into her daytime surveys to predict the number of species that she would have detected with longer surveys or perhaps with additional biologists available to assist her. The type of model is a logistic growth model, which reaches an asymptote that corresponds with the theoretical maximum number of vertebrate wildlife species that could have been detected during the survey. The species that Ms. Smallwood did and did not detect on 15 and 19 August 2025 composed only a fraction of the species that would occur at the project site over the period of a year or longer.

Response to Comment 1A-8
The comment conflates data with actual observations on the Project site. The graph included with this Comment indicate that it can be applied to any site, with any conditions, under normal circumstances. Jenning Environmental has reviewed this claim and concludes that it is false, and a prime example of causation without correlation. The Comment does not provide the input data or the relevant information to support the model. Therefore, there is no support for the veracity of the claims made based on the model. Jenning Environmental has opinion that, based on 12 years of experience with studying wildlife a single model cannot be applied all of the various types of habitats present with the City, within the County, or within the State. Each site with the City must be evaluated based on current conditions and suitability for sensitive species. The data presented in this Comment lacks a factual foundation upon which to reach any conclusion regarding the Project site.

Comment 1A-9
Commenter states that species detected on-site during the August 2025 surveys compose only a fraction of the species that would occur over a period a year or longer on the Project site, and therefore more survey efforts are required to detect all species.

Response to Comment 1A-9
See Response to Comment 1A-8.

Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Comment 1A-10
Commenter states that at least a year’s worth of surveys are needed to accurately report number of vertebrate species occurring at the Project Site and discusses use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely make use of the site over the longer term.

Response to Comment 1A-10
See Response to Comment 1A-8.

Comment 1A-11
The Commenter provides additional modeled predictions of species that Commenter opines would be found if additional surveys, including diurnal, were conducted.

Response to Comment 1A-11
See Response to Comment 1A-8.

Comment 1A-12
The Commenter opines as to CEQA’s requirements for characterizing the environmental setting of a project and asserts that these steps were not taken when the City conducted environmental review of the Project.

Response to Comment 1A-12
See Responses to Comments1-9 through 1-11.

Comment 1A-13
The comment states that a project’s analysis should be informed by which biological species are known to occur at the proposed project site, which special-status species are likely to occur, as well as the limitations of the survey effort directed to the site, and that surveys were not conducted for the Project site.

Response to Comment 1A-13
See Response to 1A-12.

Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Comment 1A-14
The Commenter opines as to the purpose of desktop reviews to inform the field survey and asserts that no desktop review was performed for the Project site.

Response to Comment 1A-14
See Response to 1A-12.

Comment 1A-15
The Commenter asserts that, based on their database review and site visits, a number of species will occur near the project site, as listed in Table 2.

Response to Comment 1A-15
The commenter again conflates the database occurrences with the occupation of the site. Jennings Environmental has reviewed this Comment and notes that the broad search, up to 30 miles away from the Project site, that is recommended by commenter presents an inaccurate picture of the potential for species to occur on-site. Additionally, the data presented in Comment 1A-15 Table 2 is from public observation databases (eBird and iNaturalist). Because these databases are based on the self-certification of public observations, they cannot be relied upon to make provide accurate information. Instead, biological experts reference the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the US Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) Species Occurrence GIS Layer. Both are databases from scientific sources, and the occurrence data is verified prior to publishing. A record of the CNDDB and USFWS Species Occurrence GIS Layer is provided in Table 2 of Appendix D of the Biological Assessment performed by Jennings Environmental.

Further, Dr. Smallwood does not provide explain the suitable habitat elements for each species listed in Comment 1A-15 Table 2, and as such, the data presented does not address the site’s actual suitability to host these species. As noted in the Table 2 of Appendix D of the Biological Assessment performed by Jennings Environmental, the Project site does not contain suitable habitat for any sensitive species.

Comment 1A-16
The Commenter states that evidence is overwhelming that the Project Site provides habitat to multiple special-status species of wildlife and therefore a fair argument can be made that an EIR is needed.

Response to Comment 1A-16
See Response to Comment 1A-15.

Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Comment 1A-17
The comment is an introduction to types of impacts likely to result from the Project and asserts that none of these were analyzed by the City.

Response to Comment 1A-17
Comment noted. No response required to introductory comment.

Comment 1A-18
The commenter provides an inference of the Project’s productive capacity from nest densities, and predicts the loss of nest sites and nest attempts per year that were not provided in the City’s analysis. The commenter states that they estimated a loss at the Project site that would represent an unmitigated significant impact.

Response to Comment 1A-18
Jenning Environmental has reviewed the Comment and concludes that the data is inaccurate because the estimate used was for a grassland bordering a woodland in a different county. The Project site is within San Bernardino County and in a largely developed area. The Project site does not contain grassland habitat and is not boarded by a woodland. Additionally, the information in the Comment does not explain how the estimate was obtained. It simply asserts that this was the number that was used. Additionally, Jenning Environmental notes that the Commenter does not explain how that number in the Comment was calculated and what the scientific literature supports the conclusion. Without this information, there is no substantial evidence to support Commenter’s estimate. As stated in the 2026 General Biological Assessment, there is no suitable habitat for any sensitive species.

Comment 1A-19
The Commenter states that most of the birds found on-site are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act and therefore an unmitigated significant impact would occur.

Response to Comment 1A-19
See Response to Comment 1-9.

Comment 1A-20
The Commenter states that the Project Site provides wildlife with stopover opportunities during migration or dispersal of young, and concludes that the City did not disclose impacts to wildlife movement in the region.

Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Response to Comment 1A-20
As discussed above, the Project site is a ruderal site with non-native vegetation and large amounts of disturbance. Additionally, the site is not mapped within a designated area for wildlife movement as mapped by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). According to Center for Biological Diversity October 2003 Principles of Wildlife Corridor Design, wildlife movement corridors, also called dispersal corridors or landscape linkages as opposed to linear habitats, are linear features whose primary wildlife function is to connect at least two significant habitat areas.

As such, conditions on site do not support the uses described in the comment as it is within a mostly developed area of Fontana.

Comment 1A-21
The commenter describes the aerosphere as an essential part of avian habitat and asserts that the Project would introduce glass windows into the aerosphere. Commenter provides data related to avian window collisions. The commenter then concludes that there is ample evidence to support his prediction that the Project would result in many collision fatalities of birds.

Response to Comment 1A-21
The Commenter stated a certain number of birds would be impacted by the project, however, that calculation is incorrect and flawed. The comment states that the amount of birds presumed to be on the Project site is based on the window square footage of the Project, which was not provided and therefore could not have be accurately calculated by the commenter. As noted in Response to Comment 1A-21, the studies of bird window collisions are flawed and contain multiple points of biases. Additionally, while the commentator states that he has personally researched these kinds of impacts, he provides no published documentation to determine the efficacy of such studies.

Therefore, there is no substantial evidence to support the data or claims presented in Comment.

See also Response to Comment 1-16.

Comment 1A-22
The Commenter estimates the number and extent of structural glass on the Project’s buildings and then predicts Project-related bird collision deaths. The comment states that many such birds are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act.

Response to Comment 1A-22
See Response to Comment 1A-21.

Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Comment 1A-23
The Commenter asserts that due to the Project’s impacts to wildlife species, a Class 32 CEQA Categorical Exemption is inappropriate and an EIR should be prepared.

Response to Comment 1A-23
See Response to Comments 1A-6 through 1A-22.

Comment 1A-24
Commenter provides recommended mitigation to require preconstruction surveys for nesting birds.

Response to Comment 1A-24
Pre-construction surveys are a pre-existing, City-wide, requirement of the General Plan and will be conducted in accordance with appropriate methods as described in the General Plan EIR (refer to Response to Comment 1-9).

Comment 1A-25
Commenter recommend compensatory mitigation to mitigate for loss of habitat.

Response to Comment 1A-25
Compensatory mitigation is only required when impacting habitat of a listed species. Since, as discussed above, no listed species were observed on the Project site, and none are expected to occur, no mitigation is required.

Comment 1A-26
Commenter provides recommended mitigation to require Project to adhere to available Bird Safe Guidelines.

Response to Comment 1A-26
See Response to Comment 1A-21.

Comment 1A-27
Commenter provides recommended mitigation to require Project to fund wildlife rehabilitation facilities.

Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Response to Comment 1A-27
Compensatory mitigation is only required when impacting habitat of a listed species. Since no listed species were observed on the Project site, and none are expected to occur, no mitigation is required.

Comment 1A-28
Commenter provides a recommendation that the Project provide native landscaping.

Response to Comment 1A-28
Landscaping will be in compliance with the General Plan and the City of Fontana’s Landscape Ordinance (ORDINANCE NO. 1734).

Comment Letter 1B - Exhibit B to Lozeau Drury Letter
This letter was prepared by SWAPE September 26, 2025 and addresses air quality and health risk impacts.

Comment 1B-1
The Commenter states that a review of Categorical Exemption Memorandum was conducted and they conclude the proposed Project does not qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption.

Response to Comment 1B-1
Comment noted.

Comment 1B-2
Commenter states that the air quality analysis is insufficient and therefore the Project may not qualify for a Categorical Exemption. A full CEQA analysis should be prepared due to the lack of diesel particulate matter evaluation and because Commenter (SWAPE’s) analysis indicates potentially significant health risk impact. SWAPE’s analysis and findings are provided in subsequent comments.

Response to Comment 1B-2
Subsequent to the October 2025 Categorical Exemption Memorandum, the City’s consultants prepared a Health Risk Assessment, dated January 21, 2026. Based on the findings of the HRA, there is no basis for further environmental review.

Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Comment 1B-3
The Commenter cites a 2018 Supreme Court Case that amended CEQA, stating the agencies must make a “reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences”.

Response to Comment 1B-3
A Health Risk Assessment was prepared, dated January 21, 2026. Please see Responses to Comments 1-20 through 22.

Comment 1B-4
SWAPE conducted a screening-level risk assessment using AERSCREEN, an air quality dispersion model which indicated that construction of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact. A full CEQA analysis should therefore be prepared to include a refined HRA, as recommended by the U.S. EPA. If the refined analysis similarly reaches a determination of significant impact, then mitigation measures should be incorporated, as described in our “Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions” section.

Response to Comment 1B-4
The screening-level risk assessment analysis performed by SWAPE and detailed in Exhibit B of the comment letter is flawed as the analysis is based on a construction duration of 422 days and not the actual construction duration of 285 working days. SWAPE analyzed the impacts based on a 7-day work week and not a 5-day work week; therefore, the exposure calculation would be overestimated by approximately 48 percent. Additionally, the exposure frequency used in the SWAPE calculation was 350 days a year, whereas the actual construction days of exposure would be 260 days, as the construction will be 5 days a week and not 7 days a week.

As discussed in response to comment 1-20 above, the January 21, 2026 Construction HRA included the use of Tier 4 Final construction equipment, a project element that has always been part of the project’s design. Construction-related DPM emissions will have a less than significant impact on the closest sensitive receptors. No additional analysis is warranted or required.

Comment 1B-5
Because SWAPE’s modeling efforts show that the Project may result in a significant health risk impact, the commenter offers several Mitigation Measures to reduce DPM emissions.

Response to Comment 1B-5
As stated above in Responses to Comments 1-20 through 22, the Project uses Tier 4 Final construction equipment for all phases of construction. Construction-related DPM emissions will Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

have a less than significant impact on the closest sensitive receptors. No additional emissions reduction measures such as those listed in Comment 1B-5 would be required to reduce emissions.

Comment 1B-6
The Commenter states that a full CEQA analysis should be prepared to include mitigation measures as well as an updated health risk analysis.

Response to Comment 1B-6
See Response to Comment 1B-2.

Comment 1B-7
SWAPE provides a Disclaimer stating that their professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented.

Response to Comment 1B-7
Comment noted; no comment is made related to the Categorical Exemption Justification and no further response is required.

Comment Letter 1C – Exhibit C to Lozeau Drury Letter
This letter dated September 24, 2025 was prepared by INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING and addresses Indoor Air Quality (IAQ).

Comment 1C-1
The Commenter states that Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other businesses, as well as occupants of homes who on average sped approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this being spent at home.

Response to Comment 1C-1
Comment noted. The Comment is general and does not concern the Project, nor provide any information as to how the Comment is specifically relevant to the Project. No further response is required.

Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Comment 1C-2
The Commenter states that indoor air pollutant levels are elevated “because many of the materials and products used indoors contain 1C-1 1C-2 2 of 20 and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.

Response to Comment 1C-2
Comment noted. The Comment is general and does not concern the Project, nor provide any information as to how the Comment is specifically relevant to the Project. No further response is required.

Comment 1C-3
The Commenter summarizes a California New Home Study (CNHS) that measured air contaminants are identified formaldehyde as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by Proposition 65.Several data concerning indoor formaldehyde emissions is provided
Response to Comment 1C-3
Comment noted. The Comment is general and does not concern the Project, nor provide any information as to how the Comment is specifically relevant to the Project. No further response is required.

Comment 1C-4
Reference is made to the January 2009 California Air Resources Board’s adoption of airborne toxics control measures (ACTMs) to reduce formaldehyde emissions.

Response to Comment 1C-4
Comment noted. The Comment is general and does not concern the Project, nor provide any information as to how the Comment is specifically relevant to the Project. No further response is required.

Comment 1C-5
The Commenter summarizes a study that measured formaldehyde ATCM materials in home build tin 2007 and 2009.

Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Response to Comment 1C-5
Comment noted. The Comment is general and does not concern the Project, nor provide any information as to how the Comment is specifically relevant to the Project. No further response is required.

Comment 1C-6
The Commenter states that because the Proposed Project includes residential uses. Residents will have continuous exposure resulting in significant cancer risks.

Response to Comment 1C-6
Comment noted. The Comment is general and does not concern the Project, nor provide any information as to how the Comment is specifically relevant to the Project. No further response is required. See also Responses to Comment 1-20 through 1-21.

Comment 1C-7
The cancer risks of future residents are speculated to be similar to those concentrations provided in Comment 1C-5.

Response to Comment 1C-7
Comment noted. The Comment is general and does not concern the Project, nor provide any information as to how the Comment is specifically relevant to the Project. No further response is required. See also Responses to Comment 1-20 through 1-21.

Comment 1C-8
The cancer risks of future users of commercial spaces is speculated to be similar to those concentrations provided in Comment 1C-5. Commenter projects potential risks of employees.

Response to Comment 1C-8
Comment noted. The Comment is general and does not concern the Project, nor provide any information as to how the Comment is specifically relevant to the Project. No further response is required. See also Responses to Comment 1-20 through 1-21.

Comment 1C-9
Commenter notes that “the average outdoor air concentration of formaldehyde in California is 3 ppb, or 3.7 µg/m3 , (California Air Resources Board, 2004), and thus represents an average preexisting background airborne cancer risk of 1.85 per million. Thus, the indoor air formaldehyde Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

exposures describe above exacerbate this pre-existing risk resulting from outdoor air formaldehyde exposures”.

Response to Comment 1C-9
Comment noted. The Comment is general and does not concern the Project, nor provide any information as to how the Comment is specifically relevant to the Project. No further response is required. See also Responses to Comment 1-20 through 1-21.

Comment 1C-10
Comment identifies the SCAQMD’s Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (“MATES V”) which identifies an existing cancer risk at the Project site of 511 per million due to the site’s elevated ambient air contaminant concentrations, which are due to the area’s high levels of vehicle traffic.

These impacts would further exacerbate the pre-existing cancer risk to the building occupants, which result from exposure to formaldehyde in both indoor and outdoor air.

Response to Comment 1C-10
Please see Responses to Comments 1-20 through 23.

As determined in the California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 369 (CBIA) case the California Supreme Court determined that CEQA does not generally require an impact analysis of the existing environmental conditions on the future residents of a proposed project and generally only requires an analysis of the proposed project’s impact on the environment. However, the CBIA case also stated that when a proposed project brings development and people into an area already subject to specific hazards and the new development/people exacerbate the existing hazards, then CEQA requires an analysis of the hazards and the proposed project’s effect in terms of increasing the risks related to those hazards. Regarding air quality hazards, TACs are defined as substances that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or in serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. As such, if a proposed project would not exacerbate pre-existing hazards (e.g., TAC health risks) then an analysis of those hazards and the proposed project’s effect on increasing those hazards is not required.

As discussed in response to comment 1-20 above, the January 21, 2026 Construction HRA uses Tier 4 Final construction equipment, a project element that has always been a part of the project’s design. Emissions from construction-related DPM will have a less than significant impact on the closest sensitive receptors.

Furthermore, the project will be constructed in compliance with all City regulations pertaining to the use of materials and Title 24 requirements. SCAQMD does not require any analyses of indoor air pollutants from building materials for CEQA analyses. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) under the California Health & Safety Code (title 17, sections 93120 – 93120.12) has Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Formaldehyde emission standards for three types of composite wood products (i.e., panels):
hardwood plywood (HWPW), particleboard (PB), and medium density fiberboard (including thin MDF). CARB Requires use of composite wood products that comply with emission standards in all finished goods7. The Project will be required to comply with these CARB standards; therefore, indoor air quality-related health risks are anticipated to be less than significant. No further analysis is required.

Comment 1C-11
Comment provides his opinion regarding cancer risk information associated with formaldehyde emissions associated with use of various composite wood products.

Response to Comment 1C-11
Comment noted. The Comment is general and does not concern the Project, nor provide any information as to how the Comment is specifically relevant to the Project. No further response is required. See also Responses to Comment 1-20 through 1-21.

Comment 1C-12
The Commenter suggests a method of determining whether indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of building materials/furnishings exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. The formaldehyde emissions assessment suggested is presented in Comment 1C-13.

Response to Comment 1C-12
Comment noted. The Comment is general and does not concern the Project, nor provide any information as to how the Comment is specifically relevant to the Project. No further response is required. See also Responses to Comment 1-20 through 1-21.

Comment 1C-13
The comment describes a formaldehyde emissions assessment that is suggested for use in the environmental review under CEQA.

Response to Comment 1C-13
See Responses to Comments 1-23 and 1-26.
7 Source: https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/comparisontable.pdf Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Comment 1C-14
The Commenter suggests an alternative to the above-described assessment is to sample building material or furnishings to a laboratory for testing; method of testing is then described. Mitigating formaldehyde emissions is suggested.

Response to Comment 1C-14
Comment noted. The Comment is general and does not concern the Project, nor provide any information as to how the Comment is specifically relevant to the Project. No further response is required. See also Responses to Comments 1-20, 1-21, 1-23 and 1-26.

Comment 1C-15
The Commenter suggests that during the design phase, the builder select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates to ensure materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from off-gassing of formaldehyde.

Response to Comment 1C-15
Comment noted. The Comment is general and does not concern the Project, nor provide any information as to how the Comment is specifically relevant to the Project.

Comment 1C-16
Comment is related to finding of the California New Home Study (CNHS) regarding outdoor air ventilation influencing indoor concentrations of air contaminants.

Response to Comment 1C-16
Comment noted. The Comment is general and does not concern the Project, nor provide any information as to how the Comment is specifically relevant to the Project.

Comment 1C-17
The Commenter disagrees with the noise measurement methodology employed in the NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use Noise Impact Analysis (Ganddini Group, 2025) as it does not allow for assessing noise levels for purposes of selecting the appropriate STC for windows.

Response to Comment 1C-17
See Responses to Comments 1-23 and 1-26.

Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Comment 1C-18
The Commenter suggests an air quality analysis be conducted to determine concentrations of PM2.5 in the indoor and outdoor air inhaled by people. Commenter states their experience shows that based on the projected high traffic levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.

Response to Comment 1C-18
As detailed on pages 17 through 19 of the CE Justification Memo, the air quality analysis shows that neither the construction or the operational emissions of PM2.5 would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds; therefore, emissions reduction measures, such as installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems would not be required to meet SCAQMD thresholds. SCAQMD does not require any analyses of indoor air pollutants as part of the CEQA process and the commenter provided no analysis to show that there would be any impact to future occupants of the project from PM2.5 emissions. No additional analysis is warranted or required.

Comment 1C-19
Recommended mitigation measures for the suggested impacts related to indoor formaldehyde concentrations, outdoor air ventilation, and PM2.5 are provided.

Response to Comment 1C-19
See Responses to Comments 1-20, 1-21, 1-23 and 1-26.

Comment 1C-20
Recommended mitigation measures for the suggested impacts related to outdoor air ventilation are provided.

Response to Comment 1C-20
See Response to Comment 1C-18 above.

Comment 1C-21
Recommended mitigation measures for the suggested impacts related to outdoor air concentrations are PM2.5 are provided.

Mr. Salvador Quintanilla
January 23, 2026

Response to Comment 1C-21
See Response to Comment 1C-18 above.

Lilburn Corporation Conclusion
As detailed above, based the CE Justification Memo as well as expert review of the Appeal and supporting comment letters, substantial evidence supports the City’s determination that the Project is categorically exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15332.

The Appeal and its supporting comment letters provide: 1) no new information regard significant impacts; 2) no evidence to support the need to conduct additional environmental analysis beyond the confirm General Biological Resources Assessment and Health Risk Assessment that were prepared in December 2025 (neither of which identified any new information that was not already disclosed in the CE Justification Memo); and 3) no substantial evidence supporting the preparation of additional environmental review.

If you should have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to give us a call.

Sincerely,
Cheryl A. Tubbs
Vice President
CEQA Class 32
Categorical Exemption Memorandum
To: Salvador Quintanilla, City of Fontana Planning Department From: Cheryl Tubbs, Lilburn Corporation
Date: January 23, 2026
Subject: Apartment and Retail Mixed Use Project – CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption Memorandum
This memorandum provides environmental analysis for the Apartment and Retail Mixed Use Project (the Project) at Sultana Avenue and Foothill Boulevard proposed by Dynamic Truck Sales (Applicant). The intent of the analysis is to document whether the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the Class 32 Categorical Exemption (CE) set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. This memorandum provides an introduction, project description, and evaluation of the Project’s consistency with the requirements for a Class 32 CE.

This memorandum further evaluates whether any of the exceptions to categorical exemptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to the Project.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 states that a Class 32 CE applies when:
a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 lists the following exceptions to categorical exemptions:
a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.
b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.

Apartment and Retail Mixed Use Project
January 23, 2026

c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR. e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The proposed mixed-use Project is located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Sultana Avenue (the Project Site). The Project Site is within the Multiple-Family High Density Residential (R-5) zoning district as shown on the City’s Zoning District Map, and the Project Site has a designation of Multi Family High Residential (R-MFH) on the General Plan Land Use Map.

The Assessor’s Parcel Numbers are 1110-331-25 and 1110-331-13, and the site totals 3.5 gross acres (refer to Figure 1, Regional Vicinity, and Figure 2 Site Location). Regional access to the Project Site is provided via Historic Route 66. Local access to the Project Site is provided via Sultana Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. The Proposed Project will provide pedestrian access to the northerly adjacent Pacific Electric Trail.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Project Site is currently undeveloped and vacant. Various shrubs, trees, and rock and dirt mounds are located on-site. Power poles exist on-site located along Sultana Avenue and directly on the Project Site.

According to the City of Fontana General Plan Land Use Map, the Project Site has a designation of Multi Family High Residential (R-MFH), which allows a residential density of 39.1 to 50 dwelling units per acre.1 According to the City of Fontana Zoning District Map, the Project Site has a designation of Multi-Family High Density Residential (R-5), which allows a residential density of

39.1 to 50 dwelling units per acre. The Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 (General Plan) provides that the R-5 designation is intended to strengthen the opportunity for higher density multi-family development and encourage the development of residential units within walking distance of public transportation.
2 Permitted uses within the R-5 designation
include, but are not limited to, multiple family with commercial uses/mixed uses, and limited retail uses such as: a bicycle shop, a bookstore, a clothing store, a convenience store, banks, and a pharmacy.
3 1 City of Fontana, City of Fontana General Plan Land Use Map, https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/44297, accessed October 28, 2024. 2 City of Fontana, Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035, November 13, 2018. 3 City of Fontana, Zoning And Development Code, accessed January 06, 2025

LILBURN
C O R P O R A T I O N FIGURE 1

SULTANA AND FOOTHILL MIXED USE
City of Fontana, California Mile
0 1.5

PROJECT SITE

REGIONAL VICINITY

LILBURN
C O R P O R A T I O N FIGURE 2

SULTANA AND FOOTHILL MIXED USE
City of Fontana, California Feet
0 400

PROJECT SITE

VICINITY MAP
Sultana Av
e
Foothill Blvd
`
Apartment and Retail Mixed Use Project
January 23, 2026

Based on the City of Fontana Zoning District Map (Zoning Map), the site is zoned Multiple-Family High Density Residential (R-5).4 According to the City of Fontana Form Based Code Districts Map, the Project Site is located not within a designated district. 5 According to Fontana Municipal Code
(FMC) Section 30-423, the R-5 zoning district “is the most intense multiple-family residential zoning district and it provides space for high density residential transit-oriented development commonly found in an urban environment, especially along existing and/or anticipated future bus routes. Permitted uses include multi-story apartments and mixed-use developments.” Surrounding uses predominantly consist of residential and commercial uses as described below. • North: The Pacific Electric Trail bounds the northern boundary of the site. Single-family residences are located further to the north beyond the Pacific Electric Trail. These uses are designated and zoned Recreational Facilities (P-PF) and Medium Density Residential (M-2).
• East: vacant land, Pacific Electric Trail, and Medium Density Residential exists along the eastern project boundary. These uses are designated/zoned M-2, and Recreational Facilities (P-PF).
• South: Foothill Boulevard exists along the southern project boundary. Commercial uses are located to the south of the site. These uses are designated and zoned as General Commercial (C-2).
• West: Sultana Avenue exists along the western project boundary. Vacant land is adjacent to the Project Site to the west and is zoned and designated as R-3 and R-5.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Lot Merger to construct a five-story mixed use complex with 163 residential units plus an additional 41 ADU units and commercial units on the first floor. It will be a contemporary style complex (total 204 units) with a parking structure. Additionally, there will be five commercial retail units. The first floor is proposed to have five 1,000 square-foot retail units and 277 parking spaces, and the second floor through fifth floor are proposed to have apartment units of 1,000 square-feet and 800 square-feet throughout all four floors (see Figure 3). Parking spaces include 247 parking for residential units and 30 parking spaces for commercial. Various residential amenities, such as pool, spa, and fitness center will be located on the various floors. Specifically, these amenities would include a pool and spa on the first floor, a fitness center on the third floor, a recreation center on the fourth floor, and a sitting area with BBQ, trellis, and firepit on the roof top deck.

Architecture
The five-story apartment complex would be a maximum of 55 feet in height; refer to Figure 4, Building Elevations. The building would be constructed with exterior building materials consisting of natural stone veneer, expanded mesh, brick veneer, aluminum storefront, and aluminum 4 City of Fontana, City of Fontana Zoning District Map, https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30623/Zoning-District-Map, accessed July 31, 2024. 5 City of Fontana, Form Based Code Districts, https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/32043/All-FormBased-Code-Districts, January 06, 2025.

LILBURN

C O R P O R AT I O N
FI
G
U
RE
3 SULTANA AND FOOTHILL MIXED USE
City of Fontana, California SITE PLAN

LILBURN

C O R P O R AT I O N
FI
G
U
RE
4 SULTANA AND FOOTHILL MIXED USE
City of Fontana, California

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
Apartment and Retail Mixed Use Project
January 23, 2026

composite panels. The main color of the buildings will be egret white with the following accent colors; thunder gray, gateway gray, rockwood clay, tricorn black.

Parking
The five-story mixed use complex would provide a total of 277 parking stalls for passenger vehicles. Passenger vehicle parking would be located, both covered and uncovered, along the northern, eastern, and western perimeter Passenger vehicle parking stalls will include Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible stalls. The first floor of the proposed Project will include a parking garage with 277 parking spaces. No parking spaces are required for the ADUs when the project is within 0.5 miles of a bus stop.

Vehicular access to the site would be provided via one gated driveway at Sultana Avenue which would be accessible for residents only. The main driveway will be at Foothill Boulevard which would be accessible for both residents and delivery vehicles (loading zone at commercial uses).

Landscaping
Landscaped areas are proposed along the site and building perimeters and scattered throughout the parking areas. A variety of drought tolerant trees, shrubs, and groundcover would be planted throughout the Project Site and includes the building and site perimeter, roof top patio and pool deck. In total, the project would provide 22,383 square feet of landscaped areas (32.6%).

The Proposed Project would be gated and secured with concrete masonry unit walls and six-foot wrought iron fencing along the northern, southern, eastern and western boundaries.

CONSTRUCTION
Construction activities are anticipated to occur in a single phase over a period of approximately 13 months. Approximately 1.03 acres of the Project Site will be paved. No materials will be imported or exported.

DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS
The Proposed Project will require City discretionary approvals, including approvals for:

1. A Conditional Use Permit

2. A Lot Merger application

3. Design Review
CLASS 32 EXEMPTION CRITERIA ANALYSIS
Criterion (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

General Plan Consistency
Based on the City of Fontana’s General Plan, the Project Site is designated Multiple-Family High Residential (R-MFH). The R-MFH designation is the highest-density residential category in the Apartment and Retail Mixed Use Project
January 23, 2026

City of Fontana, allowing up to 50 dwelling units per acre. Multiple-family developments should be designed with connections to adjacent developments. They should be facing the street and have parking, which is mostly out of view. Additionally, there should be improvements to pedestrian walkways to enhance walking connections to retail. The Proposed Project is a MixedUse complex which the City of Fontana encourages to create a vibrant destination. Goal 4, found in chapter 15 of the General Plan, is to have mixed-use developments be compact, walkable, and located at key locations. These key locations will be along corridors which can be served by future public transit as well as intersections containing neighborhood retail and diverse housing.

The project proposes to develop an approximately 151,589-square foot building on a 3.5-grossacre site and thus, would result in a 5.0 floor area ratio (FAR). Currently, the R-MFH designation does not have a FAR limit. Additionally, the Proposed project will have 163 units with an additional 41 units. According to section 30-467 of Fontana’s Municipal Code, multi-family dwelling structures can have Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) up to a quantity equal to 25 percent of the multi-family dwelling units (25 percent of the 163 units is 41). Therefore, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the R-MFH designation.

Table 1, General Plan Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design Element Project Consistency Analysis, evaluates the project’s consistency with applicable General Plan land use goals and policies. As detailed, the project would be consistent with the applicable General Plan land use goals and policies.

Table 1
General Plan Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design Element Project Consistency Analysis Applicable General Plan Land Use Goals and Policies Project Consistency Analysis Goal 2: Fontana development patterns support a high quality of life and economic prosperity.

Promote interconnected neighborhoods with appropriate
transitions between lower-intensity and higher-intensity land uses.

Consistent. Existing residential uses are located to the north, with commercial and industrial uses to the south. The
proposed mixed use apartment complex with retail would
provide a transition between industrial uses to the south to residential uses the north.

Goal 5: New Housing developments provide walkable neighborhoods with mixed-use amenities and connections to citywide destinations.

Support regulations that promote creation of compact and walkable urban village-style design in new developments.

Consistent. This mixed-use complex will provide apartment units, retail units and various residential amenities, such as pool, spa, and fitness center.

Goal 7: Public and private development meets high design standards.

Support high-quality development in design standards and in land use decisions.

Consistent. The main color of the proposed project will be egret white with the following accent colors; thunder gray, gateway gray, rockwood clay, tricorn black. The five-story mixed-use complex would be a maximum of 55 feet in height; refer to figure 4. Additionally, the proposed development would comply with all applicable FMC development standards and would revitalize the existing vacant property with a welldesigned development.

Source: City of Fontana, Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2045, Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design Element, updated July, 2023.

Apartment and Retail Mixed Use Project
January 23, 2026

Zoning Code Consistency
Based on the City’s Zoning Map the site is zoned R-5 (Multiple-Family High Density Residential), and has a designation of Multiple-Family High Residential. Both allow for up to 50 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The Proposed Project is 3.5 acres thus the maximum amount of units for the project is 175. The Project Proposes to develop 163 units with 41 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). The project is 3.5 acres thus 50 du/ac would result in 163 units. Additionally, according to section 30-467 of Fontana’s Municipal Code, multi-family dwelling structures can have Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) up to a quantity equal to 25 percent of the multi-family dwelling units.

Therefore, the project is consistent with the R-5 zone.

Development within the Multiple-Family High Density Residential zone is required to comply with permitted uses in FMC Section 30-445, Uses permitted and development standards in FMC Section 30-445, Residential development standards in R-4 and R-5 zoning districts. As detailed in FMC Section 30-446, Uses permitted, the following uses permitted in the Transitional District include, but are not limited to, multiple-family dwelling, accessory dwelling units, commercial vehicle parking and oversized vehicle parking.

Section 30-454 of Fontana’s Municipal Code discusses setbacks and standards for Mixed use developments. The height of the Proposed Project will be 55 feet, which is the maximum height for a Mixed-Use development in the R-5 zone. The maximum lot coverage for the R-5 zone is 70 percent. However, the mixed-use will have a coverage of 54.8 percent. The Proposed Project will have a floor area ratio (FAR) of 5.0 which is the maximum for the R-5 zone. Furthermore, the R-5 zone requires at least 25 percent of the project to be open space (combined total of private and common open space). The proposed project will provide 27.7 percent of open space (combined total of private and common open space). Additionally, Section 30-448 of the Municipal Code discusses setbacks for Multiple-family developments. The required setback for the Corner Lot, Side Building is 5-foot while for the Corner Lot, Side Parking it is 10-foot. The Proposed Project will provide a setback of 5-foot for the side building as well as a setback of 10-foot for the side parking.

Section 30-451 of Fontana’s Municipal Code states that developments consisting of 201 units to 204 units must provide recreational facilities: Indoor gym/fitness facility, tot-lot with multiple play equipment, spa and pool, barbecue facility equipped with grill, picnic benches, etc, as well as an additional facility. The Proposed Project will provide a spa and pool, a fitness center, a recreation center as well as a barbeque facility. Additionally, section 30-452 of the Municipal Code states that mixed-use developments in the R-4 and R-5 zones, containing retail commercial and a residential component, are required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). A limited amount of business and professional office uses may be allowed and shall not exceed ten percent of the total commercial square footage. In reviewing the CUP, substantiated written findings shall be made that the site design and use or combination of uses is compatible with mass transit. The Proposed Project is a mixed-use development in the R-5 zone, thus it will obtain a CUP.

Therefore, the proposed mixed-use project is consistent with the zoning code.

As analyzed, the Project would be consistent with the Multiple-Family High Density Residential land use designation.

Apartment and Retail Mixed Use Project
January 23, 2026

Criterion (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

The Project Site is approximately 3.5 gross acres in size and is located within the City of Fontana.

The site is surrounded by urban uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial uses. As such, the project would meet Criterion (b) requirements.

Criterion (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

This analysis is based on the Biological Resources Assessment Letter Report for the MCN23- 0101 Project (Biological Technical Report), prepared by Jennings Environmental, dated December 4, 2024; refer to Appendix A, Biological Technical Report. The habitat on-site consists of disturbed ruderal vegetation and bare gravel ground. The northern portion of the site was previously developed, and the structure was removed. Additionally, the Project Site is also being maintained through weed abatement (mowing or weed whacking) as evidenced by the minimal amount of vegetation on-site and dried broken plant parts.

Results
Habitat and Wildlife
The habitat on-site consists of disturbed ruderal vegetation and bare gravel ground. The northern portion of the site was previously developed and the structure was removed. Additionally, the site is also being maintained through weed abatement (mowing or weed whacking) as evidenced by the minimal amount of vegetation on-site and dried broken plant parts. Plant species observed on site are; tumbleweed (Salsola tragus), lemon gum (Corymbia citriodora), telegraphweed (Heterotheca grandiflora), spelt wheat (Triticum spelta), puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), Mediterranean mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), golden crownbead (Verbesina encelioides), and flatspine burragweed (Ambrosia acanthicarpa). None of these plants are documented as rare using the CNPS California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1 or 2.

Animal species observed or otherwise detected on or in the vicinity of the project site during the surveys included; mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), common raven (Corvus corax), whitecrowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), American pipit (Anthus rubescens), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), anna’ s hummingbird (Calypte anna), and Cassin’s kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans).

The Project site is located within a largely developed portion of the City of Fontana. As mentioned above the site is continually maintained and portions were previously developed. As such the site offers no habitat for any endangered, rare or threatened species.

Designated Critical Habitat
The Project Site is not located within or adjacent to any USFWS-designated Critical habitat. No further action is required.

Apartment and Retail Mixed Use Project
January 23, 2026

Overall, given the highly disturbed nature of the Project Site and lack of suitable habitat for specialstatus species, the Project Site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.

Criterion (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

TRAFFIC
In September 2013, Senate Bill 743 became effective, which identifies vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate CEQA transportation metric for the purposes of CEQA. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) published the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory), dated December 2018, to provide advice and recommendations, which agencies and other entities may use at their discretion. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(3), the Technical Advisory identifies screening thresholds that may be utilized by lead agencies to screen out VMT impacts using project size, maps, transit availability, and provision of affordable housing.

Below is a summary of the VMT Screening Assessment Proposed 204-Unit Apartment and Retail prepared by K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc and dated December 2, 2024; refer to Appendix B, VMT Screening Assessment.

The City has adopted CEQA thresholds under VMT pursuant to SB 743. For SB 743 compliance the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority’s SB 743 Implementation Study provides options for both VMT analysis methodologies and VMT screening. Based on the City’s guidelines, the following screening criteria apply:
• Low VMT Area Screening. Residential and office projects located within a low VMTgenerating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition, other employment-related and mixed-use land use projects may qualify for the use of screening if the project can reasonably be expected to generate VMT per resident, per worker, or per service population that is similar to the existing land uses in the low VMT area. For this screening in the SBCTA area, the SBTAM travel forecasting model was used to measure VMT performance for City of Fontana and for individual traffic analysis zones (TAZs). TAZs are geographic polygons similar to Census block groups used to represent areas of homogenous travel behavior.

Total daily VMT per service population plus employment was estimated for each TAZ. This presumption may not be appropriate if the project land uses would alter the existing built environment in such a way as to increase the rate or length of vehicle trips. Based on the SBCTA Screening Tool Low VMT map, the project is located within a Low VMT area. The project has met the Low VMT Screening criterion.

In conclusion, the Proposed Project is screened out from a project-level VMT assessment by meeting the Low VMT area screening criteria. The project can be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact.

Apartment and Retail Mixed Use Project
January 23, 2026

NOISE
A Noise Impact Analysis dated January 2, 2025, was prepared for the Proposed Project by Ganddini Group, Inc. (Appendix C). The findings are summarized herein.

Project Construction
On-Site Equipment
Construction noise is regulated within City of Fontana Municipal Code Section 18-63(b)(7) which prohibits construction activities outside the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM on weekdays and 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturdays. However, neither the City of Fontana General Plan or Municipal Code establish numeric maximum acceptable construction source noise levels at potentially affected receivers, which would allow for a quantified determination of whether the Project could result in a substantial temporary or periodic noise increase under CEQA. Therefore, a numerical construction noise threshold based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is used for analysis of daytime construction impacts, as discussed below.

According to the FTA, local noise ordinances are typically not very useful in evaluating construction noise. They usually relate to nuisance and hours of allowed activity, and sometimes specify limits in terms of maximum levels, but are generally not practical for assessing the impact of a construction project. Project construction noise criteria should account for the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land use. Due to the lack of standardized construction noise thresholds, the FTA provides guidelines that can be considered reasonable criteria for construction noise assessment. The FTA considers a daytime (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) exterior construction noise level of 80 dBA Leq for noise sensitive residential land uses and 85 dBA Leq for commercial uses. In addition, the FTA considers a nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) exterior construction noise level of 70 dBA Leq for noise sensitive residential land uses and 85 dBA Leq for commercial uses.

Construction noise levels are expected to reach up to 68.2 dBA Leq at the nearest existing residential property line to the north, 74.7 dBA Leq at the nearest existing trail property line to the north, 63.6 dBA Leq at the nearest existing park property line to the northeast, 71.4 dBA Leq at the nearest existing residential property line to the northeast, 70.1 dBA Leq at the nearest existing industrial property line to the south, 66.8 dBA Leq at the nearest existing residential property line to the southwest, 68.7 dBA Leq at the nearest existing commercial property line to the southwest,

71.9 dBA Leq at the nearest existing commercial property line to the west, and 71.5 dBA Leq at the nearest existing commercial/public works property line to the northwest of the project site.

Project construction will not occur outside of the hours outlined in the City of Fontana Municipal Code Section 18-63(b)(7) (6:00 PM to 7:00 AM on weekdays and 5:00 PM and 8:00 AM on Saturdays); therefore, the project would not undergo construction activities during the FTA noise sensitive nighttime hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Therefore, the project is not expected to exceed established standards relating to construction noise. The project impact would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.

Apartment and Retail Mixed Use Project
January 23, 2026

Off-Site Vehicle Trips
Construction truck trips would occur throughout the construction period. Foothill Boulevard currently handles approximately 13,175 average daily vehicle trips and Sultana Avenue currently handles approximately 3,210 average daily vehicle trips in the vicinity of the project site. According to CalEEMod data prepared for the proposed project (Lilburn, 2024), the greatest number of construction-related vehicle trips per day would be during building construction at up to 171 vehicle trips per day (148 worker trips and 22.6 vendor trips per day). Given the project site’s proximity to the Interstate 15 freeway and State Route 210 freeways, it is anticipated that vendor and/or haul truck traffic would take the most direct route to the appropriate freeway ramps.

Therefore, the addition of project construction vehicles per day along off-site roadway segments would not be anticipated to result in a doubling of traffic volumes necessary to increase noise levels by 3 dBA. Offsite project generated construction vehicle trips would result in a negligible noise level increase and would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant; no mitigation measures are required.

Project Operational Noise
On-Site Operational Noise Sources
The proposed project is located on a parcel zoned for residential land uses, but it is bordered on three sides with parcels zoned for commercial and industrial land uses. Vacant property immediately east of the project site is also zoned residential. The closest existing noise sensitive land use is located approximately 80 feet northeast of the project site.

Section 30.469 of the City of Fontana Municipal Code prohibits the project from generating onsite noise that exceeds 65 dBA Leq between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM or from exceeding 45 dBA Leq between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM on a property zoned for residential land uses.

Noise levels were determined based on the SoundPLAN acoustical model developed for the project. Noise levels were modeled at existing residential uses. SoundPLAN modeling worksheets are provided in the study. Project operational noise will consist of passenger vehicles coming and leaving and heating and ventilation units (HVAC). A HVAC plan has not yet been developed but they are expected to service individual units. Using a conservative estimate that the HVAC plan will propose 3-ton units outside of each unit with a sound power level of 74 dBA; and assuming that three units are hypothetically located at the northeast corner of the project site, facing the nearest sensitive receptor, the resulting noise level at full operation would be 40 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receptor. HVAC noise associated with the proposed project would not exceed daytime or nighttime stationary noise standards.

Most parking onsite will be located within the proposed building under the proposed residential units. Outdoor parking areas will generate noise associated with vehicles arriving and leaving and occasional conversation and would not contribute substantially to ambient noise levels. The project will not exceed the City’s daytime or nighttime stationary noise standards at nearby residential land uses. The project impact is less than significant; no mitigation is required.

Apartment and Retail Mixed Use Project
January 23, 2026

Off-Site Operational Noise Sources
Project generated mobile vehicle noise is evaluated in light of the City of Fontana’s Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report (June 8, 2018), which establishes noise level criteria of 65 dBA CNEL. The Fontana Forward General Plan 2015- 2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report also utilizes three main categories to determine if a noise impact is substantial, as detailed below. Only audible changes in noise level are considered potentially significant:
• Audible – refers to increases in noise levels that are perceptible to humans, generally refers to a change of 3 dBA or more since this level has been found to be barely.

Roadway noise levels were calculated along Foothill Boulevard and Sultana Avenue in the vicinity of the project site based on the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model methodology. As shown in the VMT Screening Assessment (K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc., December 2, 2024), during operation the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 1,606 net average daily trips with 90 trips during the AM peak-hour and 121 trips during the PM peak-hour. Roadway noise levels were calculated for the following scenarios:
• Existing (without Project): This scenario refers to existing year traffic noise conditions. • Existing Plus Project: This scenario refers to existing year plus project traffic noise conditions
Existing traffic noise levels range between 64.1 and 72.9 dBA CNEL and modeled Existing Plus Project traffic noise levels range between 65.9 and 73.4 dBA CNEL at the right-of-way of the roadway segments. The addition of project trips is not expected to change noise levels in excess of audible threshold of a 3 dB increase at any of the study roadway segments (see Table 2).

Therefore, the project impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Table 2
Increase in Existing Noise Levels Due to Project Generated Vehicle Traffic Distance
from
roadway
centerline
to rightof-way
(feet)2
Modeled Noise Levels (dBA CNEL)1
Roadway Segment
Existing
Without
Project
at rightof-way
Existing
Plus
Project
at rightof-way
Change
in
Noise
Level
Exceeds
Standards3
Increase
of 3 dB
or
More?
Foothill
Boulevard
In the Vicinity
of the Project
Site
66 72.9 73.4 0.50 Yes No
Sultana
Avenue
In the Vicinity
of the Project
Site
40 64.1 65.9 1.76 No No
Notes:
(1) Exterior noise levels calculated 5 feet above pad elevation, perpendicular to subject roadway. (2) Roadway centerline to right-of-way based on Figure 0.2. Hierarchy of Streets in Fontana, from the Community and Mobility and Circulation Element of the Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2025 (2017). (3) Per the City of Fontana exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL for residential zoning districts.

Apartment and Retail Mixed Use Project
January 23, 2026

Groundborne Vibration Impacts
City of Fontana Municipal Code Section 30-543 states that no person shall create or cause to be created any activity which causes a vibration which can be felt beyond the property line of any residentially zoned property with or without the aid of an instrument. Furthermore, the Fontana Forward General Plan 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report also states that, based on the aforementioned portion of the City’s Municipal Code, unless the vibration results in physical damage to local structures, it does not constitute a significant impact. Therefore, in relation to the Environmental Checklist noise issue “b”, the City of Fontana has not established numerical thresholds of significance concerning groundborne vibration. In the absence of City-established numerical thresholds, groundborne vibration impacts are based on guidance from the Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (California Department of Transportation, 2020). Accordingly, the project would result in a significant impact if:
• Groundborne vibration levels generated by the project have the potential to cause architectural damage at nearby buildings by exceeding the following PPV:
o 0.08 in/sec at extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments o 0.10 in/sec at fragile buildings
o 0.25 in/sec at historic and some old buildings
o 0.30 in/sec at older residential structures
o 0.50 in/sec at new residential structures and modern industrial/commercial buildings.
• Groundborne vibration levels generated by the project have the potential to cause severe annoyance to people living or working in nearby buildings by exceeding a PPV of

0.4 in/sec.

Groundborne vibration modeling worksheets are provided within Appendix C. Based on the groundborne vibration modeling, the Caltrans thresholds of 0.3 PPV in/sec for older residential structures and 0.5 PPV in/sec for industrial/commercial buildings will not be exceeded at any of the existing structures surrounding the project site. Furthermore, the use of vibratory rollers and large bulldozers would also not exceed the threshold for annoyance due to vibration (PPV of

0.4 in/sec at offsite residential sensitive uses). Other equipment anticipated to be used during project construction would generate lower PPV. Therefore, groundborne vibration generated by project construction would not exceed the levels necessary to cause architectural damage or annoyance to sensitive receptors.

The most substantial sources of groundborne vibration during post-construction project operations will include the movement of passenger vehicles and trucks on paved and generally smooth surfaces. Loaded trucks generally have a PPV of 0.076 at a distance of 25 feet (Caltrans 2020), which is a substantially lower PPV than that of a vibratory roller (0.210 in/sec PPV at 25 feet). Therefore, groundborne vibration levels generated by project operation would not exceed those modeled for project construction.

Apartment and Retail Mixed Use Project
January 23, 2026

Air Traffic Impacts
The closest airport to the project site is the Ontario International Airport, with airport runways located as close as approximately 7.3 miles southwest of the project site. Per the Fontana Forward General Plan 2015- 2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report Figure 5.10-1, the project site is located well outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for the airport. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with airports. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

AIR QUALITY
This analysis is based on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022 (Mixed-Use CalEEMod outputs refer to Appendix D).

Regulatory Requirements
The Project Site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has jurisdiction over air quality issues and regulations within the SCAB. An evaluation of potential air quality impacts related to the Proposed Project (mixed-use) was prepared. The CalEEMod recommended by the SCAQMD for all general development projects within the SCAB was used to estimate project emissions.

Construction Emissions
The Proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions were screened using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022 prepared in collaboration with the SCAQMD (see Attachment A). CalEEMod was utilized to estimate the on-site and off-site construction emissions. The emissions incorporate Rules 402 and 403 for fugitive dust by default as required during construction. The criteria pollutants screened for include reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrous oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and fine and respirable particulates (PM10 and PM2.5). Two of the analyzed pollutants, ROG and NOx, are ozone precursors.

Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would have the potential to generate air emissions and toxic air contaminant emissions. The resulting emissions generated during construction of the Proposed Project are shown in Table 3 and Table 4 below.

Table 3
Construction Emissions Summer Summary
(Pounds per Day)
Equipment ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2025 Max 3.4 31.7 31.5 0.0 9.3 5.3
2026 Max 74.6 11.2 24.1 0.0 2.5 0.9
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significance No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod 2022 Summer Construction Emissions.

Apartment and Retail Mixed Use Project
January 23, 2026

Table 4
Construction Emissions Winter Summary
(Pounds per Day)
Equipment ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2025 Max 1.2 12.0 22.2 0.0 2.6 0.9
2026 Max 1.7 11.3 21.4 0.0 2.5 0.9
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significance No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod 2022 Winter Construction Emissions.

Notes:

ROG = Reactive Organic Gases NOx = Nitrogen Oxides
CO = Carbon Monoxide SO2 = Sulfur Dioxides PM = Particulate Matter SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
As shown in Table 3 and 4, both summer and winter construction emissions are below SCAQMD thresholds. The Proposed Project does not exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds during construction activities. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.

Operational Emissions
Operational emissions are categorized as energy (generation and distribution of energy to the end use), area (operational use of the project), mobile (vehicle trips), water (generation and distribution of water to the land use), and waste (collecting and hauling waste to the landfill). The Proposed Project will not include the manufacture or production of any products on-site; therefore, no industrial type emissions will be generated. A VMT screening assessment dated December 2, 2024, was prepared for the project by K2 Traffic Engineering Inc. The screening assessment estimated that the Proposed Project would generate 90 trips in the AM peak hour including 25 inbound and 65 outbound trips, 121 trips in the PM peak hour including 74 inbound and 45 outbound trips, and 1,606 daily trips. The Proposed Project’s long-term operational emissions have been calculated and are summarized below in Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7.

Table 5
Summer Operational Emissions Summary
(Pounds Per Day)
Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 6.3 5.2 48.2 0.1 9.5 2.5
Area 6.2 0.1 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Energy 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Totals 12.4 6 60.3 0.1 9.5 2.5
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod 2022 Summer Emissions.

Emissions represent the daily maximum emissions.

Apartment and Retail Mixed Use Project
January 23, 2026

Table 6
Winter Operational Emissions Summary
(Pounds Per Day)
Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 5.8 5.6 41.0 0.1 9.5 2.5
Area 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Energy 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1
Totals 10.9 6.3 41.4 0.1 9.5 2.6
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod 2022 Winter Emissions
Emissions represent the daily maximum emissions.

Table 7
Greenhouse Gas Operational Emissions
(Metric Tons per Year)
Source/Phase CO2 CH4 N20 R1
Mobile 1,788.0 0.1 0.1 3.0
Area 3.6 0.0 0.0 -
Energy 347.0 0.03 0.0 -
Water 12.7 0.3 0.0 -
Waste 14 1.4 0.0 -
Refrigeration - - - 0.3
Total MTCO2e per Year 2,244
SCAQMD Threshold 3,000
Significant No
Source: CalEEMod.2022 Annual Emissions.

Note: Common refrigerant GHGs used in air conditioning and refrigeration equipment; Excludes construction emissions amortization.

Operational emissions are less than significant and would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants. Additionally, the Proposed Project’s Greenhouse Gas emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e threshold of significance.

WATER QUALITY
As part of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established regulations under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to control direct stormwater discharges. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES permitting requirements. The NPDES program regulates industrial pollutant discharges, including those generated during construction activities. The SWRCB works in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water quality. The Project Site is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB. The Santa Ana RWQCB addresses the obligation to implement the CWA by periodically issuing permits for the counties of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino and their incorporated cities, including the City of Fontana.

Apartment and Retail Mixed Use Project
January 23, 2026

On January 29, 2010, the Santa Ana RWQCB issued the San Bernadino County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit (San Bernardino County MS4 Permit) as Order R8-2010- 0036 (NPDES Permit No. CAS618036), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, the County of San Bernardino, and the Incorporated Cities of San Bernardino County within the Santa Ana Region.
6 The City is a co-permittee on the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit and is required to adhere to the CWA requirements.

As the Project Site is greater than one acre in size (i.e., 3.5 gross acres), the proposed development would be required to obtain a NPDES Construction General Permit under Construction Stormwater General Permit Order 2022-0057-DWQ. The Proposed Project would also be subject to the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit requirements, which have been incorporated into FMC Chapter 23, Article 9, Preventing Discharge of Pollutants into Storm Drains. Specifically, FMC Section 23-519, Regulation of Construction and Industrial Dischargers, requires the development and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would include appropriate best management practices (BMPs) that would prevent illegal discharges during construction. BMPs would be installed during construction of the Proposed Project to ensure water quality is not adversely impacted by the project. Additionally, pursuant to FMC Section 23-516, Compliance with Mandated Best Management Practices, operation of the Proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable BMPs imposed by the City.

According to the Preliminary Hydrology-Hydraulics report prepared by HP Engineering, Inc. and dated September 14, 2023 (Appendix E) Hydrology-Hydraulics, and Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Report (Appendix F), the Project Site is currently vacant and has an existing drainage flow pattern from north to the south and will remain the same for the post development condition. The property to the west of the project is an existing plant nursey which is partially improved with its own drainage system, therefore there will be no significant impact to the Project Site. The property to the north is a Railroad Right of Way which has been converted into a pedestrian trail. The South side portion of the Pacific Electric trail is draining into the Project Site which was considered in the calculations and the north side portion of the trail drains to the north and will not have an impact to the Project Site. The property to the east is currently vacant and drains to the south. To the south is Foothill Boulevard with its own drainage system, therefore there will be no significant impact to the Project Site.

The amount of runoff to be retained by the project will adhere to city of Fontana’s water quality management plan (WQMP) policy which states that the post development peak flow rate generated by the development shall be less than or equal to 90% of the pre-development peak flow rate from the site. If there is any increase in storm runoff, it will be retained on-site through an under sidewalk drain into Foothill Boulevard. The existing runoff generally drains from northeast to the southwest and the flow is 7.41 cubic feet per second (cfs). The proposed project will result in the site having a runoff flow of 12.89 cfs. Additionally, it will create a 14,257 C,F decrease in runoff volume.
6 California Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region, Order R8-2010-0036 (NPDES Permit No.

CAS618036),January29,2010,
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders/2010/10_036_sbc_ms4_per mit_01_29_10.pdf, accessed December 20 , 2024.

Apartment and Retail Mixed Use Project
January 23, 2026

The Development of the proposed project will result in a 100-year runoff flow of 12.89 cfs. To generate a flow rate which is less than or equal to 90% of the pre-development flow rate, an infiltration basin will be incorporated. 90% of the of 4.37 cfs. is 3.83 cfs. Therefore, there needs to be a retention of 8.96 cfs for post-development flows. The grated 48”x48” catch basin would have a capacity of 24.88 cfs and would adequately handle the increase runoff from the site. The infiltration basin will provide water runoff treatment before it drains into the City’s storm drainage system, ultimately satisfying the city’s WQMP requirements.

The existing drainage system flows from north to south. With the infiltration basin the flow pattern will start at the north, it will head towards the east and ultimately end in the southeast project site.

Overall, upon compliance with FMC Chapter 23, Article 9, Preventing Discharge of Pollutants into Storm Drains, and implementation of the proposed stormwater drainage system and associated BMPs, project construction and operations would not result in any significant effects relating to water quality.

The following analysis considers whether exceptions to the Class 32 Categorical Exemption apply:

Exception (a) A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project under Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11, if the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.

The project is proposing a categorical exemption under Class 32 and not Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, or

11. Therefore, Exception (a) would not apply to the project.

Exception (b) A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.

For this Exception, that disallows a categorical exemption to be used for a project when the cumulative impact of successive projects “of the same type in the same place over time” has a narrower definition than the broad definition of cumulative impacts as defined and applied elsewhere in CEQA practice. Further in Robinson v. City & County of San Francisco (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 950, 958, the court held that the phrase “in the same place” should be interpreted to refer to the area where the environmental impact will occur and that the affected area will depend on the nature of the environmental impact.

The project proposes to develop 163 multi-family units with 41 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), and six 1,000-square-foot commercial retail units on an underutilized, vacant property surrounded by existing uses. The project is consistent with applicable General Plan land use policies and is permitted under the City’s Zoning Code. There have not been other mixed-use complexes (i.e. successive project of the same type) built in this area of Fontana and thus there is no cumulative impact as defined under this Exception. As such, project impacts are not cumulatively considerable, and Exception Criterion (b) would not apply to the project.

Apartment and Retail Mixed Use Project
January 23, 2026

Exception (c) A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

The proposed development would not result in any significant effects on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The Project Site is vacant and undeveloped, located in an urbanized and built out area of the City that borders existing residential and commercial uses.

The Project Site is not located within a sensitive resource area and no site-specific environmental constraints, such as biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, or hazards and hazardous materials exist on-site. Technical analyses regarding biological resources, transportation, air quality, and noise have been prepared and summarized in this memorandum to substantiate the project’s less than significant effects on the environment. Additionally, the project is permitted to use under the site’s R-5 Multi-Family High Density Residential designation zone. Therefore, no unusual circumstances are present that could result in any significant project effects on the environment. Exception (c) would not apply to the Proposed Project.

Exception (d) A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a State scenic highway.

Based on the San Bernardino Countywide Map:NR-3 Scenic Routes & Highways, there are no scenic highways near the Project Site or within the City of Fontana.7 The closest officially designated or eligible State scenic highway is Lytle Creek Canyon Drive located approximately

5.8 miles to the north in Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernadino County. Given the distance of the Project Site to Lytle Creek Canyon Drive and intervening topography, vegetation, and structures, the project would not be visible. As such, the Proposed Project would have no impact on scenic resources within a State scenic highway and Exception (d) would not apply.

Exception (e) A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list complied pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the Department of Toxic Substance Control and State Water Resources Control Board to compile and update a regulatory site listing (per the criteria of the Section). The California Department of Health Services is also required to compile and update, as appropriate, a list of all public drinking water wells that contain detectable levels of organic contaminants and that are subject to water analysis pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 116395. Section 65962.5 requires the local enforcement agency, as designated pursuant to Section 18051 of Title 14 of the CCR, to compile, as appropriate, a list of all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration of hazardous waste.

The Project Site is not currently listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List).8 As such, Exception (e) would not apply.
7 San Bernardino Countywide Map:NR-3 Scenic Routes & Highways. Accessed December 3, 2024. 8 California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese Listing, https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/, accessed December 3, 2024.

Apartment and Retail Mixed Use Project
January 23, 2026

Exception (f) A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

The Project Site consists of vacant and disturbed land. The Archaeological Resources Records Search Results for the TPM 23-015 Project, Fontana, California (Archaeological Resources Report), prepared by BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company Inc. and dated November 15, 2024, was prepared for the proposed development; refer to Appendix G, Archaeological Resources Records Search. As detailed in the Archaeological Resources Report, the records search and the field survey did not yield any historic-period or pre-contact cultural resources within the project area. Therefore, no known historic properties under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act or historical resources under CEQA would be affected by the proposed development. As such, Exception (f) would not apply.

CONCLUSION
As detailed above, construction and operations of the project would result in less than significant impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality. The project would meet Criterion (d) requirements.

Criterion (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

The Project Site is within the City of Fontana and would be served by existing utilities and public services. The City of Fontana Public Works Department provides wastewater and stormwater collection services and oversees solid waste collection services (contracted to Burrtec), and the Fontana Water Company provides water services to the Project Site. Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company would provide electricity and natural gas services, respectively. Additionally, the project would be served by the Fontana Fire Protection District for fire protection services, the Fontana Police Department for police protection services, the Fontana Unified School District (FUSD) for school services, and the San Bernardino County Library for library services.

The proposed 163 multi-family units with 41 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), and five 1,000-square-foot commercial retail units, would accommodate recreational services and office space. This would directly generate population growth within the city that would increase demand for utilities and services. Additionally, the project would install utility improvements on-site to connect to utility infrastructure that already exists in the site vicinity. The project Applicant would also be responsible for paying development impact fees related to sewer and storm drains pursuant to FMC requirements.
9 As the project is consistent with the land use designation and density for the site, payment of standard connection fees and ongoing user fees for these utilities would ensure that sufficient capacity is available to serve the proposed development.

The project would be required to pay fire protection and police protection impact fees pursuant to FMC Section 11.2, Fire Protection Fees on New Development, and Section 22-4, Police Capital Facilities Fee on New or Expanded Development, to offset project impacts to fire and police services, respectively. The project would also pay applicable FUSD developer fees. 10 As such,
the project would meet Criterion (e) requirements.
9 City of Fontana, Development Fees, https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2271/DevelopmentImpact-Fees, accessed December 3, 2024. 10 Fontana Unified School District, Developer Fees, https://www.fusd.net/Page/639, accessed December 3, 2024.

Apartment and Retail Mixed Use Project
January 23, 2026

REFERENCES
California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese Listing, https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/, accessed December 3, 2024.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region, Order R8-2010-0036 (NPDES Permit No. CAS618036), January 29, 2010,
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders/2010 /10_036_sbc_ms4_permit_01_29_10.pdf, accessed August 20, 2024.

City of Fontana, City of Fontana General Plan Land Use Map, https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/44297, accessed December 2, 2024.

City of Fontana, City of Fontana Zoning District Map,
https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30623/Zoning-District-Map, December 3, 2024.

City of Fontana, Development Fees,
https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2271/Development-Impact-Fees, accessed December 3, 2024.

City of Fontana, Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035, November 13, 2018.

City of Fontana, Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report, June 2018.

City of Fontana, Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2045, Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design Element, updated July 23, 2023
City of Fontana, Form Based Code Districts,
https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/32043/All-Form-Based-Code-Districts, September 10, 2019.

Fontana Unified School District, Developer Fees, https://www.fusd.net/Page/639, accessed December 3, 2024.

Ganddini Group Inc, NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use Noise Impact Analysis, January 2, 2025.

HP Engineering, Inc., Preliminary Hydrology-Hydraulics Report, September 14, 2023.

K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc. VMT Screening Assessment, December 2, 2024.

Lilburn Corporation, CalEEMod Detailed Report, December 4, 2024.

San Bernardino Countywide Plan Maps, Natural Resources- NR-3 Scenic Routes & Highways, accessed December 3, 2024.

USA National Title Company, Inc., Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, January 4, 2021 Apartment and Retail Mixed Use Project
January 23, 2026

APPENDICES
Appendix A Biological Resources Assessment Letter Report Appendix B VMT Screening Assessment
Appendix C Noise Impact Analysis
Appendix D CalEEMod Detailed Report
Appendix E Hydrology Hydraulics
Appendix F Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix G Archaeological Resources Records Search

APPENDIX A

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

LETTER REPORT
35414 Acacia Ave.

Yucaipa, CA 92399
(909) 534-4547
www.jennings-environmental.com
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 1
December 4, 2024
Lilburn Corporation
Attn: Cheryl Tubbs
1905 Business Center Drive
San Bernardino, CA 92408
RE: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT LETTER REPORT FOR THE MCN23-0101PROJECT

IN THE CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Dear Ms. Tubbs,
Jennings Environmental was retained by Lilburn Corporation (Lilburn) to conduct a Biological Resources Assessment of the proposed MCN23-0101Project (Project). The survey identified vegetation communities, the potential for the occurrence of special status species, or habitats that could support special status wildlife species, and recorded all plants and animals observed or detected within the Project boundary. This biological resources assessment is designed to address the potential effects of the proposed project on designated critical habitats and/or any species currently listed or formally proposed for listing as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or species designated as sensitive by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). Information contained in this document is in accordance with accepted scientific and technical standards that are consistent with the requirements of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and (CDFW).

Project Description and Location
The proposed Project is to develop 163 multi-family units with 41 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), and six 1,000-square-foot commercial retail units. The Project site is approximately 3.8 acres.

Figures 1 and 2, in Attachment A, depict the site location.

The Project is generally located in Section 1, Township 1 South, Range 6 West, and is depicted in the Fontana U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map. More specifically the project is located within Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 1110-331-13 and -25, within the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The site is bordered by vacant land to the west and east, residential uses to the north, and commercial uses to the south.

Methods
Prior to performing the updated field survey, existing documentation relevant to the Project site was reviewed. The most recent records of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) managed by CDFW (CDFW 2024), the USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper (USFWS 2024), and the California Native Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 2
Plant Society’s Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2024) were reviewed for the following quadrangles containing and surrounding the Project site: Fontana, Devore, Guasti, Cucamonga Peak USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles. The Devore, Guasti, Cucamonga Peak quads were included in this search due to the site’s proximity to their borders.

These databases contain records of reported occurrences of federal- or state-listed endangered or threatened species, California Species of Concern (SSC), or otherwise special status species or habitats that may occur within or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site.

Jennings biologist, Gene Jennings, conducted the general reconnaissance survey within the Project site to identify the potential for the occurrence of special status species, vegetation communities, or habitats that could support special status wildlife species. The surveys were conducted on foot, throughout the Project site between 0800 and 0900 hours on December 3, 2024. Weather conditions during the survey included temperatures ranging from 58.2 to 59.5 degrees Fahrenheit, with partly cloudy skies, no precipitation, and 1.2 to 1.4-mile-per-hour winds. Photographs of the Project site were taken to document existing conditions and are included in Attachment B.

Results
Habitat and Wildlife
The habitat on-site consists of disturbed ruderal vegetation and bare gravel ground. The northern portion of the site was previously developed and the structure was removed. Additionally, the site is also being maintained through weed abatement (mowing or weed whacking) as evidenced by the minimal amount of vegetation on-site and dried broken plant parts. Plant species observed on site are; tumbleweed (Salsola tragus), lemon gum (Corymbia citriodora), telegraphweed (Heterotheca grandiflora), spelt wheat(Triticum spelta), puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), Mediterranean mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), golden crownbead (Verbesina encelioides), and flatspine burragweed (Ambrosia acanthicarpa). None of these plants are documented as rare using the CNPS California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1 or 2.

Animal species observed or otherwise detected on or in the vicinity of the project site during the surveys included; mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), common raven (Corvus corax), whitecrowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), American pipit (Anthus rubescens), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), anna’ s hummingbird (Calypte anna), and Cassin’s kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans).

The Project site is located within a largely developed portion of the City of Fontana. As mentioned above the site is continually maintained and portions were previously developed. As such the site offers no habitat for any listed species.

CNDDB Results
According to the CNDDB, CNPSEI, and other relevant literature and databases, 93 sensitive species, 18 of which are listed as threatened or endangered, and 5 sensitive habitats, have been documented in the Fontana, Devore, Guasti, Cucamonga Peak quads. This list of sensitive species and habitats includes any State and/or federally-listed threatened or endangered species, CDFW-designated Species of Special Concern (SSC), and otherwise Special Animals. “Special Animals” is a general term that refers to all of the taxa the CNDDB is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 3
protection status. This list is also referred to as the list of “species at risk” or “special status species.” The CDFW considers the taxa on this list to be those of greatest conservation need.

An analysis of the likelihood of the occurrence of all CNDDB-sensitive species documented in the Fontana, Devore, Guasti, Cucamonga Peak quads is provided in Table 1, in Attachment C. This analysis takes into account species range as well as documentation within the vicinity of the project area and includes the habitat requirements for each species and the potential for their occurrence on the site, based on required habitat elements and range relative to the current site conditions.

According to the databases, no sensitive habitat, including USFWS-designated critical habitat, occurs within or adjacent to the project site.

Designated Critical Habitat and San Bernardino County Biotic Resources Overlay The site is not located within or adjacent to any USFWS-designated Critical Habitat. No further action is required.

The site is within the identified boundary for burrowing owl on the San Bernardino County Biotic Resources Overlay. See below for findings related to this species, based on the completed habitat assessment.

Special Status Species Background
Burrowing owl (BUOW) {Athene cunicularia} [State – Candidate Endangered] The BUOW is a state and federal SSC. This owl is a mottled, brownish, sand-colored, dove-sized raptor, with large, yellow eyes, a rounded head lacking ear tufts, white eyebrows, and long legs compared to other owl species. It is a ground-dwelling owl typically found in arid prairies, fields, and open areas where vegetation is sparse and low to the ground. The BUOW is heavily dependent upon the presence of mammal burrows, with ground squirrel burrows being a common choice, in its habitat to provide shelter from predators, and inclement weather, and to provide a nesting place.

They are also known to make use of human-created structures, such as cement culverts and pipes, for burrows.

BUOW spends a great deal of time standing on dirt mounds at the entrance to a burrow or perched on a fence post or other low-to-the-ground perch from which they hunt for prey. BUOW frequently hunt by hovering in place above the ground and dropping on their prey from above. They feed primarily on insects such as grasshoppers, June beetles, and moths, but will also take small rodents, birds, and reptiles. They are active during the day and night but are considered a crepuscular owl; generally observed in the early morning hours or at twilight. The breeding season for BUOW is February 1 through August 31. Up to 11, but typically 7 to 9, eggs are laid in a burrow, abandoned pipe, or other subterranean hollows where incubation is complete in 28-30 days. Young BUOW fledges in 44 days. The BUOW is considered a migratory species in portions of its range, which includes western North America from Canada to Mexico, and east to Texas and Louisiana. BUOW populations in California are considered to be sedentary or locally migratory.

Throughout its range, the BUOW is vulnerable to habitat loss, predation, vehicular collisions, and destruction of burrow sites, and the poisoning of ground squirrels. BUOW has disappeared from significant portions of their range in the last 15 years. The BUOW is listed under the California Endangered Species Act as a candidate species. The BUOW is a migratory bird protected by the Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 4
international treaty under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and by State law under the California Fish and Game Code (CDFG Code #3513 & #3503.5).

Findings: The conditions present on-site are not suitable for BUOW. California ground squirrels, a burrow surrogate species, were not observed on-site. No evidence of BUOW was found in the survey area. No burrows of appropriate size, aspect, or shape were located and no BUOW pellets, feathers, or whitewash were found. No burrowing owl individuals were observed. Additionally, the site does not contain friable soils. These factors preclude this species from the site. Therefore, no further surveys or mitigation measures are required or recommended.

Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the literature review and personal observations made in the immediate vicinity, no State and/or federally-listed threatened or endangered species are documented/or expected to occur within the Project site. Additionally, no plant species with the CNPS California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1 or 2 were observed on-site or documented to occur on-site in the relevant databases. No other sensitive species were observed within the project area or buffer area.

The Project Site is highly disturbed. The habitat on-site is ruderal/disturbed vegetation with gravel surfaces. The site offers no suitable habitat for any sensitive species or listed species. Therefore, no further surveys are required.

Nesting Birds
Although the site is highly disturbed, there is some habitat within the Project site and adjacent area that is suitable for nesting birds in general. In general, the following condition of approval should be implemented prior to construction.

Nesting bird nesting season generally extends from February 1 through September 15 in southern California and specifically, March 15 through August 31 for migratory passerine birds. To avoid impacts to nesting birds (common and special status) during the nesting season, a qualified Avian Biologist will conduct pre‐construction Nesting Bird Surveys (NBS) prior to Project‐related disturbance to nestable vegetation to identify any active nests. If no active nests are found, no further action will be required. If an active nest is found, the biologist will set appropriate no‐work buffers around the nest which will be based on the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, nesting stage, and expected types, intensity, and duration of the disturbance. The nests and buffer zones shall be field-checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved no‐work buffer zone shall be clearly marked in the field, within which no disturbance activity shall commence until the qualified biologist has determined the young birds have successfully fledged and the nest is inactive.

Certification
I hereby certify that the statements furnished herein, and in the attached exhibits present data and information required for this analysis to the best of my ability, and the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. This report was prepared in accordance with professional requirements and standards. Fieldwork conducted for this assessment was performed by me. I certify that I have not signed a non-disclosure or consultant Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 5
confidentiality agreement with the project proponent and that I have no financial interest in the project.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at 909-534-4547 should you have any questions or require further information.

Sincerely,
Gene Jennings
Principal/Regulatory Specialist
Attachments:

Attachment A – Figures
Attachment B – Site Photos
Attachment C – Table 1
Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 6
Attachment A - Figures
Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 7
Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 8
Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 9
Attachment B - Photos
Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 10
Photo 1 –
Southeast corner
of Project site,
facing northwest.

Photo 2 –
Northeast corner
of Project site,
facing southwest.

Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 11
Photo 3 –
Northeast corner
of Project site,
facing south.

Photo 4 –
Northwest corner
of Project site,
facing southeast.

Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 12
Attachment C – Table 1
Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 13
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Agelaius tricolor tricolored
blackbird
None,
Threatened
G1G2, S2,

CDFW-SSC
Highly colonial species, most
numerous in Central Valley and vicinity.

Largely endemic to California. Requires
open water, protected nesting
substrate, and foraging area with insect
prey within a few km of the colony.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Ambrosia
monogyra
singlewhorl
burrobrush None, None G5, S2, 2B.2
Chaparral, Sonoran desert scrub.

Sandy soils. 5-475 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Anniella stebbinsi
Southern
California legless
lizard
None, None G3, S3,

CDFW-SSC
Generally south of the Transverse
Range, extending to northwestern Baja
California. Occurs in sandy or loose
loamy soils under sparse vegetation.

Disjunct populations in the Tehachapi
and Piute Mountains in Kern County.

Variety of habitats; generally in moist,
loose soil. They prefer soils with a high
moisture content.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Arctostaphylos
glandulosa ssp.
gabrielensis
San Gabriel
manzanita None, None G5T3, S3, 1B.2
Chaparral. Rocky outcrops; can be
dominant shrub where it occurs. 960-
2015 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 14
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Arenaria
paludicola marsh sandwort Endangered, Endangered
G1, S1,
1B.1
Marshes and swamps. Growing up
through dense mats of Typha, Juncus,
Scirpus, etc. in freshwater marsh.

Sandy soil. 3-170 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Arizona elegans
occidentalis
California glossy
snake None, None G5T2, S2, CDFW-SSC
Patchily distributed from the eastern
portion of San Francisco Bay, southern
San Joaquin Valley, and the Coast,
Transverse, and Peninsular ranges,
south to Baja California. Generalist
reported from a range of scrub and
grassland habitats, often with loose or
sandy soils.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Artemisiospiza
belli belli Bell's sparrow None, None
G5T2T3,
S3, CDFWWL
Nests in chaparral dominated by fairly
dense stands of chamise. Found in
coastal sage scrub in south of range.

Nest located on the ground beneath a
shrub or in a shrub 6-18 inches above
ground. Territories about 50 yds apart.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Asplenium
vespertinum
western
spleenwort None, None G3?, S4, 4.2
Chaparral, Cismontane woodland,
Coastal scrub
Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 15
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Athene cunicularia burrowing owl
None,
Candidate
Endangered
G4, S2,

CDFW-SSC
Open, dry annual or perennial
grasslands, deserts, and scrublands
characterized by low-growing
vegetation. Subterranean nester,
dependent upon burrowing mammals,
most notably, the California ground
squirrel.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Batrachoseps
gabrieli
San Gabriel
slender
salamander
None, None G2G3,
S2S3
Known only from the San Gabriel Mtns.

Found under rocks, wood, and fern
fronds, and on soil at the base of talus
slopes. Most active on the surface in
winter and early spring.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Bombus crotchii Crotch's bumble
bee
None,
Candidate
Endangered
G2, S2
Coastal California east to the SierraCascade crest and south into Mexico.

Food plant genera include Antirrhinum,
Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon,
Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Bombus
pensylvanicus
American
bumble bee None, None G3G4, S2
Long-tongued; forages on a wide variety
of flowers including vetches (Vicia),
clovers (Trifolium), thistles (Cirsium),
sunflowers (Helianthus), etc. Nests
above ground under long grass or
underground. Queens overwinter in
rotten wood or underground.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 16
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
California Walnut
Woodland
California Walnut
Woodland None, None G2, S2.1 Cismontane woodland This habitat type is absent from the Project site.

Calochortus
catalinae
Catalina
mariposa lily None, None G3G4, S3S4, 4.2
Chaparral, Cismontane woodland,
Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill
grassland
Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Calochortus
plummerae
Plummer's
mariposa-lily None, None G4, S4, 4.2
Coastal scrub, chaparral, valley and
foothill grassland, cismontane
woodland, lower montane coniferous
forest. Occurs on rocky and sandy sites,
usually of granitic or alluvial material.

Can be very common after fire. 60-2500
m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Calochortus weedii
var. intermedius
intermediate
mariposa-lily None, None G3G4T3, S3, 1B.2
Coastal scrub, chaparral, valley and
foothill grassland. Dry, rocky
calcareous slopes and rock outcrops.
60-1575 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Catostomus
santaanae
Santa Ana sucker Threatened,
None
G1, S1,

CDFW-SSC
Endemic to Los Angeles Basin south
coastal streams. Habitat generalists,
but prefer sand-rubble-boulder
bottoms, cool, clear water, and algae.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 17
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Chaetodipus fallax
fallax
northwestern
San Diego pocket
mouse
None, None G5T3T4,
S3S4
Coastal scrub, chaparral, grasslands,
sagebrush, etc. in western San Diego,
Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los
Angeles Counties, inclusive of Orange
County. Sandy, herbaceous areas,
usually in association with rocks or
coarse gravel.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Chaetodipus fallax
pallidus
pallid San Diego
pocket mouse None, None G5T3T4, S3S4
Desert border areas of San Diego,
Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los
Angeles counties in desert wash, desert
scrub, desert succulent scrub, pinyonjuniper, etc. Sandy, herbaceous areas, usually in association with rocks or
coarse gravel.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Chloropyron
maritimum ssp.
maritimum
salt marsh bird'sbeakEndangered,
Endangered
G4?T1, S1,
1B.2
Marshes and swamps, coastal dunes.

Limited to the higher zones of salt
marsh habitat. 0-10 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Chorizanthe parryi
var. parryi
Parry's
spineflower None, None G3T2, S2, 1B.1
Coastal scrub, chaparral, cismontane
woodland, valley and foothill grassland.

Dry slopes and flats; sometimes at
interface of 2 vegetation types, such as
chaparral and oak woodland. Dry,
sandy soils. 90-1220 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 18
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Chorizanthe xanti
var. leucotheca
white-bracted
spineflower None, None G4T3, S3, 1B.2
Mojavean desert scrub, pinyon and
juniper woodland, coastal scrub
(alluvial fans). Sandy or gravelly places.
365-1830 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Cicindela
tranquebarica
viridissima
greenest tiger
beetle None, None G5T1, S1
Inhabits the woodlands adjacent to the
Santa Ana River basin. Usually found in
open spots between trees.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Cladium
californicum
California sawgrass
None, None G4, S2,
2B.2
Meadows and seeps, marshes and
swamps (alkaline or freshwater).

Freshwater or alkaline moist habitats. -
40-2150 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Claytonia peirsonii
ssp. peirsonii
Peirson's spring
beauty None, None G2G3T2, S2, 1B.2
Upper montane coniferous forest,
subalpine coniferous forest. Granitic
scree slopes, often with a sandy or fine
soil component and granitic cobbles.
1510-2745 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Coastal and Valley
Freshwater Marsh
Coastal and
Valley
Freshwater
Marsh
None, None G3, S2.1 Marsh & swamp | Wetland This habitat type is absent from the Project site.

Deinandra
paniculata
paniculate
tarplant None, None G4, S4, 4.2 Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 19
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Diplacus johnstonii Johnston's
monkeyflower None, None G4, S4, 4.3
Lower montane coniferous forest
(disturbed areas, gravelly, roadsides,
rocky, scree)
Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Dipodomys
merriami parvus
San Bernardino
kangaroo rat
Endangered,
Endangered
G5T1, S1,

CDFW-SSC
Alluvial scrub vegetation on sandy loam
substrates characteristic of alluvial
fans and flood plains. Needs early to
intermediate seral stages.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Dipodomys
stephensi
Stephens'
kangaroo rat
Threatened,
Threatened G2, S3
Primarily annual and perennial
grasslands, but also occurs in coastal
scrub and sagebrush with sparse
canopy cover. Prefers buckwheat,
chamise, brome grass and filaree. Will
burrow into firm soil.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Dodecahema
leptoceras
slender-horned
spineflower
Endangered,
Endangered
G1, S1,
1B.1
Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub (alluvial fan sage scrub).

Flood deposited terraces and washes;
associates include Encelia, Dalea,
Lepidospartum, etc. Sandy soils. 200-
765 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Eriastrum
densifolium ssp.
sanctorum
Santa Ana River
woollystar
Endangered,
Endangered
G4T1, S1,
1B.1
Coastal scrub, chaparral. In sandy soils
on river floodplains or terraced fluvial
deposits. 180-705 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 20
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Eriogonum
microthecum var.
alpinum
alpine slender
buckwheat None, None G5T3, S3, 4.3 Alpine dwarf scrub, Great Basin scrub Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Eriogonum
microthecum var.
johnstonii
Johnston's
buckwheat None, None G5T2, S2, 1B.3
Subalpine coniferous forest, upper
montane coniferous forest. Slopes and
ridges on granite or limestone. 1795-
2865 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Eriogonum
umbellatum var.
minus
alpine sulfurflowered
buckwheat
None, None G5T4, S4,

4.3 Subalpine coniferous forest, Upper
montane coniferous forest
Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Eriophyllum
lanatum var.
obovatum
southern Sierra
woolly sunflower None, None G5T4, S4, 4.3
Lower montane coniferous forest,
Upper montane coniferous forest
Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Eugnosta
busckana Busck's gallmoth None, None G1G3, S2S3
Coastal southern California. Tiny micromoth (1 cm) with larva forming galls on host plant Encelia californica
(California brittlebush). Adult flight
period is during winter, generally from
November to February, and have been
reported at UV lights and porch lights.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 21
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Eumops perotis
californicus
western mastiff
bat None, None
G4G5T4,
S3S4,

CDFW-SSC
Many open, semi-arid to arid habitats,
including conifer and deciduous
woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands,
chaparral, etc. Roosts in crevices in cliff
faces, high buildings, trees and tunnels.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Fritillaria
pinetorum pine fritillary None, None G4, S4, 4.3
Chaparral, Lower montane coniferous
forest, Pinyon and juniper woodland,
Subalpine coniferous forest, Upper
montane coniferous forest
Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Galium
angustifolium ssp.
gabrielense
San Antonio
Canyon bedstraw None, None G5T3, S3, 4.3
Chaparral, Lower montane coniferous
forest
Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Galium jepsonii Jepson's
bedstraw None, None G3, S3, 4.3 Lower montane coniferous forest, Upper montane coniferous forest Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Galium johnstonii Johnston's
bedstraw None, None G4, S4, 4.3
Chaparral, Lower montane coniferous
forest, Pinyon and juniper woodland,
Riparian woodland
Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 22
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Gila orcuttii arroyo chub None, None G1, S2,

CDFW-SSC
Native to streams from Malibu Creek to
San Luis Rey River basin. Introduced
into streams in Santa Clara, Ventura,
Santa Ynez, Mojave and San Diego river
basins. Slow water stream sections
with mud or sand bottoms. Feeds
heavily on aquatic vegetation and
associated invertebrates.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Heuchera
caespitosa
urn-flowered
alumroot None, None G3, S3, 4.3
Cismontane woodland, Lower montane
coniferous forest, Riparian forest
(montane), Upper montane coniferous
forest
Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Horkelia cuneata
var. puberula mesa horkelia None, None G4T1, S1, 1B.1
Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub. Sandy or gravelly sites.
15-1645 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Juglans californica
Southern
California black
walnut
None, None G4, S4, 4.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland,
Coastal scrub, Riparian woodland
Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Juncus duranii Duran's rush None, None G3, S3, 4.3
Lower montane coniferous forest,
Meadows and seeps, Upper montane
coniferous forest
Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 23
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Lasiurus xanthinus western yellow
bat None, None G4G5, S3, CDFW-SSC
Found in valley foothill riparian, desert
riparian, desert wash, and palm oasis
habitats. Roosts in trees, particularly
palms. Forages over water and among
trees.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Laterallus
jamaicensis
coturniculus
California black
rail
None,
Threatened
G3T1, S2,

CDFW-FP
Inhabits freshwater marshes, wet
meadows and shallow margins of
saltwater marshes bordering larger
bays. Needs water depths of about 1
inch that do not fluctuate during the
year and dense vegetation for nesting
habitat.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Lepechinia
fragrans
fragrant pitcher
sage
None, None G3, S3, 4.2 Chaparral
Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Lepidium
virginicum var.
robinsonii
Robinson's
pepper-grass
None, None G5T3, S3,

4.3 Chaparral, coastal scrub. Dry soils,
shrubland. 4-1435 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Lepus californicus
bennettii
San Diego blacktailed jackrabbit None, None G5T3T4,
S3S4
Intermediate canopy stages of shrub
habitats and open shrub / herbaceous
and tree / herbaceous edges. Coastal
sage scrub habitats in Southern
California.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 24
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Lilium humboldtii
ssp. ocellatum
ocellated
Humboldt lily None, None G4T4?, S4?, 4.2
Chaparral, Cismontane woodland,
Coastal scrub, Lower montane
coniferous forest, Riparian woodland
Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Lilium parryi lemon lily None, None G3, S3,
1B.2
Lower montane coniferous forest,
meadows and seeps, riparian forest,
upper montane coniferous forest. Wet,
mountainous terrain; generally in
forested areas; on shady edges of
streams, in open boggy meadows and
seeps. 625-2930 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Linanthus
concinnus
San Gabriel
linanthus None, None G2, S2, 1B.2
Lower montane coniferous forest,
upper montane coniferous forest,
chaparral. Dry rocky slopes, often in
Jeffrey pine/canyon oak forest. 1310-
2560 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Lycium parishii Parish's desertthorn None, None G4, S1, 2B.3
Coastal scrub, Sonoran desert scrub. -
3-570 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Malacothamnus
parishii
Parish's
bushmallow None, None GXQ, SX, 1A
Chaparral, coastal sage scrub. In a
wash. 305-455 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 25
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Monardella
australis ssp.
jokerstii
Jokerst's
monardella None, None G4T1?, S1?, 1B.1
Lower montane coniferous forest,
chapparal. Steep scree or talus slopes
between breccia. Secondary alluvial
benches along drainages and washes.
210-1740 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Monardella pringlei Pringle's
monardella None, None GX, SX, 1A Coastal scrub. Sandy hills. 300-400 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Monardella
saxicola rock monardella None, None G3, S3, 4.2
Chaparral, Closed-cone coniferous
forest, Lower montane coniferous
forest
Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Muhlenbergia
californica California muhly None, None G4, S4, 4.3
Coastal scrub, chaparral, lower
montane coniferous forest, meadows
and seeps. Usually found near streams
or seeps. 100-2000 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Muhlenbergia utilis aparejo grass None, None G4, S2S3,
2B.2
Meadows and seeps, marshes and
swamps, chaparral, coastal scrub,
cismontane woodland. Sometimes
alkaline, sometimes serpentinite. 25-
2325 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 26
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Navarretia
prostrata
prostrate vernal
pool navarretia None, None G2, S2, 1B.2
Coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools, meadows and
seeps. Alkaline soils in grassland, or in
vernal pools. Mesic, alkaline sites. 3-
1235 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Neolarra alba white cuckoo bee None, None GH, SH
Known only from localities in Southern
California. Cleptoparasitic in the nests
of perdita bees.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Neotoma lepida
intermedia
San Diego desert
woodrat None, None
G5T3T4,
S3S4,

CDFW-SSC
Coastal scrub of Southern California
from San Diego County to San Luis
Obispo County. Moderate to dense
canopies preferred. They are
particularly abundant in rock outcrops,
rocky cliffs, and slopes.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Nyctinomops
femorosaccus
pocketed freetailed bat None, None G5, S3,

CDFW-SSC
Variety of arid areas in Southern
California; pine-juniper woodlands,
desert scrub, palm oasis, desert wash,
desert riparian, etc. Rocky areas with
high cliffs.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 27
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus pop.
10 steelhead -
southern
California DPS
Endangered,
Candidate
Endangered
G5T1Q, S1,
Federal listing refers to populations
from Santa Maria River south to
southern extent of range (San Mateo
Creek in San Diego County). Southern
steelhead likely have greater
physiological tolerances to warmer
water and more variable conditions.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Opuntia basilaris
var. brachyclada
short-joint
beavertail None, None G5T3, S3, 1B.2
Chaparral, Joshua tree woodland,
Mojavean desert scrub, pinyon and
juniper woodland. Sandy soil or coarse,
granitic loam. 425-2015 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Oreonana vestita woolly mountainparsley None, None G3, S3, 1B.3
Subalpine coniferous forest, upper
montane coniferous forest, lower
montane coniferous forest. High ridges;
on scree, talus, or gravel. 800-3370 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Ovis canadensis
nelsoni
desert bighorn
sheep None, None G4T3, S3, CDFW-FP
Widely distributed from the White Mtns
in Mono Co. to the Chocolate Mts in
Imperial Co. Open, rocky, steep areas
with available water and herbaceous
forage.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 28
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Perognathus
longimembris
brevinasus
Los Angeles
pocket mouse None, None
G5T2,
S1S2,

CDFW-SSC
Lower elevation grasslands and coastal
sage communities in and around the
Los Angeles Basin. Open ground with
fine, sandy soils. May not dig extensive
burrows, hiding under weeds and dead
leaves instead.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Phacelia
mohavensis Mojave phacelia None, None G4Q, S4, 4.3
Cismontane woodland, Lower montane
coniferous forest, Meadows and seeps,
Pinyon and juniper woodland
Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Phacelia stellaris Brand's star
phacelia None, None G1, S1, 1B.1
Coastal scrub, coastal dunes. Open
areas. 3-370 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Phrynosoma
blainvillii
coast horned
lizard None, None G4, S4, CDFW-SSC
Frequents a wide variety of habitats,
most common in lowlands along sandy
washes with scattered low bushes.

Open areas for sunning, bushes for
cover, patches of loose soil for burial,
and abundant supply of ants and other
insects.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 29
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Polioptila
californica
californica
coastal
California
gnatcatcher
Threatened,
None
G4G5T3Q,
S2, CDFWSSC
Obligate, permanent resident of coastal
sage scrub below 2500 ft in Southern
California. Low, coastal sage scrub in
arid washes, on mesas and slopes. Not
all areas classified as coastal sage
scrub are occupied.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum
white rabbittobacco None, None G4, S2,
2B.2
Riparian woodland, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, chaparral.

Sandy, gravelly sites. 35-515 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Quercus durata
var. gabrielensis San Gabriel oak None, None G4T3, S3, 4.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Rana muscosa
southern
mountain yellowlegged frog
Endangered,
Endangered
G1, S2,

CDFW-WL
Disjunct populations known from
southern Sierras (northern DPS) and
San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San
Jacinto Mtns (southern DPS). Found at
1,000 to 12,000 ft in lakes and creeks
that stem from springs and snowmelt.

May overwinter under frozen lakes.

Often encountered within a few feet of
water. Tadpoles may require 2 - 4 yrs to
complete their aquatic development.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 30
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Rhaphiomidas
terminatus
abdominalis
Delhi Sands
flower-loving fly
Endangered,
None G1T1, S1
Found only in areas of the Delhi Sands
formation in southwestern San
Bernardino and northwestern Riverside
counties. Requires fine, sandy soils,
often with wholly or partly consolidated
dunes and sparse vegetation.

Oviposition req. shade.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Rhinichthys
gabrielino
Santa Ana
speckled dace
Proposed
Threatened,
None
G5T1, S1,

CDFW-SSC
Headwaters of the Santa Ana and San
Gabriel rivers. May be extirpated from
the Los Angeles River system. Requires
permanent flowing streams with
summer water temps of 17-20 C.

Usually inhabits shallow cobble and
gravel riffles.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Riversidian Alluvial
Fan Sage Scrub
Riversidian
Alluvial Fan Sage
Scrub
None, None G1, S1.1 Coastal scrub This habitat type is absent from the Project site.

Sagittaria sanfordii Sanford's
arrowhead None, None G3, S3, 1B.2
Marshes and swamps. In standing or
slow-moving freshwater ponds,
marshes, and ditches. 0-605 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Senecio
aphanactis
chaparral
ragwort
None, None G3, S2,
2B.2
Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub. Drying alkaline flats. 20-
1020 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 31
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Senecio
astephanus
San Gabriel
ragwort
None, None G3, S3, 4.3 Chaparral, Coastal scrub
Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Southern Riparian
Forest
Southern
Riparian Forest None, None G4, S4 Riparian forest This habitat type is absent from the Project site.

Southern
Sycamore Alder
Riparian Woodland
Southern
Sycamore Alder
Riparian
Woodland
None, None G4, S4 Riparian woodland This habitat type is absent from the Project site.

Spea hammondii western
spadefoot
Proposed
Threatened,
None
G2G3,
S3S4,

CDFW-SSC
Occurs primarily in grassland habitats,
but can be found in valley-foothill
hardwood woodlands. Vernal pools are
essential for breeding and egg-laying.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Sphenopholis
obtusata
prairie wedge
grass
None, None G5, S2,
2B.2
Cismontane woodland, meadows and
seeps. Open moist sites, along rivers
and springs, alkaline desert seeps. 15-
2625 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Streptanthus
bernardinus
Laguna
Mountains
jewelflower
None, None G3G4,
S3S4, 4.3
Chaparral, lower montane coniferous
forest. Clay or decomposed granite
soils; sometimes in disturbed areas
such as streamsides or roadcuts. 1440-
2500 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 32
Scientific Name Common Name Federal/State
Status
Other
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Symphyotrichum
defoliatum
San Bernardino
aster
None, None G2, S2,
1B.2
Meadows and seeps, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, lower
montane coniferous forest, marshes
and swamps, valley and foothill
grassland. Vernally mesic grassland or
near ditches, streams and springs;
disturbed areas. 3-2045 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Thamnophis
hammondii
two-striped
gartersnake None, None G4, S3S4, CDFW-SSC
Coastal California from vicinity of
Salinas to northwest Baja California.

From sea to about 7,000 ft elevation.

Highly aquatic, found in or near
permanent fresh water. Often along
streams with rocky beds and riparian
growth.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Viola pinetorum
ssp. grisea grey-leaved violet None, None G4G5T3, S3, 1B.2 Subalpine coniferous forest, upper
montane coniferous forest, meadows
and seeps. Dry mountain peaks and
slopes. 1580-3700 m.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's vireo Endangered,
Endangered G5T2, S3
Summer resident of Southern California
in low riparian in vicinity of water or in
dry river bottoms; below 2000 ft. Nests
placed along margins of bushes or on
twigs projecting into pathways, usually
willow, Baccharis, mesquite.

Suitable habitat for this species does
not occur on site. As such, this species
is considered absent from the Project
site.

Biological Resources Assessment for TPM 23-015 Project
Jennings Environmental, LLC P a g e | 33
Coding and Terms
E = Endangered T = Threatened C = Candidate FP = Fully Protected WL = Watch List SSC = Species of Special Concern R = Rare

State Species of Special Concern: An administrative designation given to vertebrate species that appear to be vulnerable to extinction because of declining populations, limited acreages, and/or continuing threats. Raptor and owls are protected under section 3502.5 of the California Fish and Game code: “It is unlawful to take, possess or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes or to take, possess or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird.” State Fully Protected: The classification of Fully Protected was the State's initial effort in the 1960's to identify and provide additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction. Lists were created for fish, mammals, amphibians and reptiles. Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research and relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock.

Global Rankings (Species or Natural Community Level):

G1 = Critically Imperiled – At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors.

G2 = Imperiled – At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors.

G3 = Vulnerable – At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors.

G4 = Apparently Secure – Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.

G5 = Secure – Common; widespread and abundant.
? = Uncertainty in the exact status of an element (could move up or down one direction from current rank) Subspecies Level: Taxa which are subspecies or varieties receive a taxon rank (T-rank) attached to their G-rank. Where the G-rank reflects the condition of the entire species, the T-rank reflects the global situation of just the subspecies. For example: the Point Reyes mountain beaver, Aplodontia rufa ssp. phaea is ranked G5T2. The G-rank refers to the whole species range i.e., Aplodontia rufa. The T-rank refers only to the global condition of ssp. phaea.

State Ranking:

S1 = Critically Imperiled – Critically imperiled in the State because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations) or because of factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the State.

S2 = Imperiled – Imperiled in the State because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the State.

S3 = Vulnerable – Vulnerable in the State due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation from the State.

S4 = Apparently Secure – Uncommon but not rare in the State; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.

S5 = Secure – Common, widespread, and abundant in the State.

California Rare Plant Rankings (CNPS List):
1A = Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere. 1B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. 2A = Plants presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere. 2B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere. 3 = Plants about which more information is needed; a review list. 4 = Plants of limited distribution; a watch list.

Threat Ranks:
.1 = Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 = Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat) .3 = Not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known)

APPENDIX B

VMT SCREENING ASSESSMENT
K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc.
1442 Irvine Blvd, Suite 210, Tustin, CA 92780 T.714-832-2116 Email: [email protected] December 2, 2024
Mike Mahmoudi
Dynamic Truck Sales
15408 Valley Blvd
Fontana, CA 92335
Re: VMT Screening Assessment
Proposed 204-Unit Apartment and Retail
NEC of Foothill Blvd and Sultana St, Fontana
Dear Mike,
Per your request, we have prepared the VMT screening assessment for the proposed apartment. This letter presents out findings and recommendations.

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
The project site is located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Sultana Street in the City of Fontana. The proposed development includes constructing 204 apartment units and 5,000 square feet of retail space. Site plan is shown in Exhibit

1. TRIP GENERATION
Passenger vehicle trips were estimated using the rates and methodologies outlined in “Trip Generation, 11th Edition”, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The applicable trip generation rates and calculation are shown in Exhibit 2. With consideration of internal and pass-by trip allowances, the project is expected to generate 90 trips in the AM peak hour including 25 inbound and 65 outbound trips, 119 trips in the PM peak hour including 74 inbound and 45 outbound trips, and 1,604 daily trips.

VMT SCREENING ASSESSMENT
For the purpose of Senate Bill (SB) 743 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance, a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis should be conducted VMT Screening Assessment for the Proposed 204-Unit Apartment and Retail December 2, 2024 NEC of Foothill Blvd and Sultana Ave, Fontana Page 2 of 3 K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc.
1442 Irvine Blvd, Suite 210, Tustin, CA 92780 T.714-832-2116 Email: [email protected] for land use projects that have the potential to increase the average VMT per service population (SP) compared to the City’s baseline VMT/SP rate. The City’s Guidelines has provided a number of screening steps, based upon recommendations from the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) Implementation Pathway Study that may be followed to screen projects from a project-level assessment.

Step 1: Transit Priority Area (TPA) or High Quality Transit Area (HQTA) Screening
According to the City’s Guidelines, projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) or High Quality Transit Area (HQTA)1 may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. Based on the SBCTA Screening Tool TPA map, shown in Exhibit 3, the project is located within a TPA.

However, this screening presumption is NOT appropriate as the proposed project provides more parking than required by the City requirements. Therefore, the project has NOT MET the TPA screening criterion.

Type 2: Low VMT Area Screening
Residential and office projects located within a low VMT-generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. Other employment-related and mixed-use projects within a low VMTgenerating area may also qualify for this screening if the project can reasonably be expected to generate VMT per service population similar to the existing land uses in the low VMT generating area.

1 A TPA is defined as a ½ mile area around an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor per the following definitions:

Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 - ‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.

Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 - For purposes of this section, a ‘high-quality transit corridor’ means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.

VMT Screening Assessment for the Proposed 204-Unit Apartment and Retail December 2, 2024 NEC of Foothill Blvd and Sultana Ave, Fontana Page 3 of 3 K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc.
1442 Irvine Blvd, Suite 210, Tustin, CA 92780 T.714-832-2116 Email: [email protected] For this screening in the SBCTA area, the SBTAM travel forecasting model was used to measure VMT performance for City of Fontana and for individual traffic analysis zones (TAZs). TAZs are geographic polygons similar to Census block groups used to represent areas of homogenous travel behavior. Total daily VMT per service population plus employment) was estimated for each TAZ. This presumption may not be appropriate if the project land uses would alter the existing built environment in such a way as to increase the rate or length of vehicle trips.

Based on the SBCTA Screening Tool Low VMT map in Exhibit 3, the project is located within a Low VMT area. The project has MET the Low VMT Screening criterion.

Type 3: Project Type Screening
Local serving projects generally reduce vehicle travel by providing a more proximate location to travel to. In accordance with the City’s Guidelines, local serving projects generating less than 500 daily vehicle trips may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.

The project is expected to generate 1,653 daily trips, exceeding the threshold of 500 daily trips. The project has NOT MET the Project Type screening criterion.

SUMMARY
The project is screened out from a project-level VMT assessment by meeting the Low VMT area screening criteria. The project can be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact.

Regards,
K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Jende Kay Hsu, T.E.

California License TR2285


)227+,//%/9'
















 
 
 
 













 


(/(9




 
:528*+7,521)(1&(


5 

/,1(2))/225$%29(
6:,1*,1**$7(6
(;,67,1*0$1+2/(
(;,67,1*0$1+2/(
(;,67,1*75$)),&6,*1$/$1'675((7/,*+7725(0$,1







6)
5(7$,/81,7
6)
5(7$,/81,7
6)
5(7$,/81,7
6)
5(7$,/81,7
6)
5(7$,/81,7
 

 0,1





6(7%$&.


6(7%$&.
 

6(7%$&.



+,*+:528*+7,521)(1&(

+,*+0$6215<6&5((1:$//

:,'(0$1*$7(723$&,),&(/(&75,&$/75$,/


7<3 7<3





7<3
7<3



7<

3 
<7 3



6 7( $% .&
 

 


3/


67$,56
(/(9
67$,56



7<3





7<3
02725&<&/(3$5.,1*63$&(6
/2$',1*=21(


3$7+2)75$9(/
3$7+2)75$9(/
3$7+2)75$9(/
(/(9$725
 




[

75$6+67$*,1*$5($
)2575$6+(1&/2685(,13$5.,1**$5$*(

 










 

02725&<&/(3$5.,1*63$&(6








+,*+/$1'6&$3,1*%(50  352326('
+,*+/$1'6&$3,1*%(50  352326('


 

675((7/,*+73(5&,7<67$1'$5'6 
 675((7/,*+73(5 &,7<67$1'$5'6
675((7/,*+73(5&,7<67$1'$5'6
675((7/,*+73(5&,7<67$1'$5'6
675((7/,*+73(5&,7<67$1'$5'6
),5(+<'5$173(5&,7<67$1'$5'6
),5(+<'5$173(5&,7<67$1'$5'6
),5(+<'5$173(5&,7<67$1'$5'6
),5(+<'5$173(5&,7<67$1'$5'6
81'(5*5281',1),/75$7,21&+$0%(5

 67$&.,1* 0,1

+$/)6:,1*,1*
+$/)6/,',1**$7(
(175$1&()255(6,'(17621/<


:,'(0$1*$7(5$03'2:1723$5.,1**$5$*(
2:1(5
0,.(0$+028',352-(&7$''5(66
1(&)227+,//%/9' 68/7$1$67
)217$1$&$

$5&+,7(&7
$1'5(6(1$5&+,7(&785(,1&
25$1*(:$<)217$1$&$




GRXJDQGUHVHQ#DDLILUPFRP
75$)),&
.75$)),&(1*,1((5,1*,1&
.$<+68

ND\#NWUDIILFFRP
)227+,//%/9'
6)
5(7$,/81,7
6)
5(7$,/81,7
6)
5(7$,/81,7
6)
5(7$,/81,7
6)
5(7$,/81,7



0$1*$7(





+,*+:528*+7,521)(1&(

+,*+0$6215<6&5((1:$//

:,'(0$1*$7(723$&,),&(/(&75,&$/75$,/








 
 





5  
 5 






68/7$1$$9(

+,*+0$6215<6&5((1:$//

 67$&.,1* 0,1

+,*+:528*+7,521)(1&(:,7+'(&25$7,9(3,/$67(5(9(5<  


3/

+,*+:528*+7,521)(1&(:,7+'(&25$7,9(3,/$67(5(9(5<  


3/

+$/)6:,1*,1*
+$/)6/,',1**$7(
(175$1&()255(6,'(17621/<


:,'(0$1*$7(
 $//(;7(5,25/,*+7,1*6+$//%(',5(&7('$1'6+,(/'('72,//80,1$7(21/<7+(3$5.,1* %8,/',1*$1'/2$',1*$5($$1'$92,'*/$5(,03$&7621$'-$&(173523(57,(6  7+($33/,&$176+$//'(6,*17+(352-(&7726+2:&203/,$1&(:,7+7+(/$7(67 $'237('(',7,212)7+()2//2:,1*&2'(6$6$33/,&$%/(
$ &$/,)251,$%8,/',1*&2'(
% &$/,)251,$5(6,'(17,$/&2'(& &$/,)251,$(/(&75,&$/&2'(' &$/,)251,$0(&+$1,&$/&2'(( &$/,)251,$3/80%,1*&2'() &$/,)251,$(1(5*<&2'(* &$/,)251,$),5(&2'(+ &$/,)251,$*5((1%8,/',1*67$1'$5'6&2'( 

3$&,),&(/(&75,&75$,/
%$6,1
127(
32:'(5&2$7(':,)(1&,1*

(4


0$;

(4


0$;

(4


0$;


+,*+


3,/$67(5$7
 
2&




;;*5$<35(&,6,21
3,/$67(5:,7+60227+3/$67(5),1,6+
;*$76#
2&64*$76#2&
;
*$7632:'(5&2$7('
($57+25$&3$9,1*
;*$76
32:'(5&2$7('
% &QWI#PFTGUGP#TEJKVGEVGZRTGUUN[TGUGTXGUJKUEQOOQPNCYEQR[TKIJVCPFQVJGTRTQRGTV[TKIJVUKPVJGUGRNCPU6JGUGRNCPUCTGPQVVQDGTGRTQFWEGFEJCPIGFQTEQRKGFKPCP[HQTOQTOCPPGTYJCVUQGXGTPQTCTGVJG[VQDGCUUKIPGFVQCP[VJKTFRCTV[YKVJQWVHKTUVQDVCKPKPIVJGGZRTGUUYTKVVGPRGTOKUUKQPCPFEQPUGPVQH&QWINCU#PFTGUGP#TEJKVGEV , / &(16(' $5&+ , 7(&7
67$7( 2) &$/ , )251 $,
R ' XJODV $QG U HVHQ
&

5(1(:$/
'$7(
5BMRQDWDQEDOOHVWHURVUYW PHQWV?0DKPRXGL)RRWKLOO & ?8VHUV?-RQDWDQ%DOOHVWHURV?'RFX 


30 3/ 6LWH3ODQ 3URSRVHG$SDUWPHQW&RPSOH[)RU
0LNH0DKPRXGL  1RY 1(&)RRWKLOO%OYG 6XOWDQD6W)RQWDQD&$  6LWH3ODQ3DUNLQJ*DUDJH  

3URSRVHG$SDUWPHQW&RPSOH[)RU

0LNH0DKPRXGL
1(&)RRWKLOO%OYG 6XOWDQD6W
)RQWDQD&$

$31
=21,1*
52&&83$1&<
*52835&216758&7,21
3$5.,1**$5$*(
7<3(7<3(9$),5(635,1./(56
$8720$7,&/,)(6$)(7<635,1./(56<67(0
5(48,5('
352-(&7'(6&5,37,21
352326('81,76$3$570(17$1'$'881,76&207(0325$5<67</(&203/(; 727$/81,76
:,7+3$5.,1*6758&785(),567)/22572+$9(

6)5(7$,/81,76$1'3$5.,1*63$&(66(&21')/2257+528*+),)7+)/22572+$9(352326('6)$1'6)81,767+528*+287$//)285)/2256$0(1,7,(6216,7(,1&/8'(322/ 63$ 67)/225
),71(66&(17(5
5')/225
5(&5($7,21&(17(5
7+)/225
6,77,1*$5($:,7+%%4$1'75(//,6$1'522)723'(&.:,7+),5(3,7/27$5($ 
64)7
$&
%8,/',1*)22735,17
64)71(7/27$5($
64)7

/$1'6&$3($5($
64)7

+$5'6&$3($5($
64)7

&20%,1('727$/35,9$7($1'&2002123(163$&(5(48,5('


64)7


35,9$7(23(163$&(
%$/&21,(6
727$/


64)7
&2002023(163$&(
$75,80

 64)7
322/$5($

 64)7
833(5322/$5($

 64)7
522)723'(&.

 64)7727$/&2002123(163$&(
 64)7&20%,1('727$/35,9$7($1'&2002123(163$&(3529,'('


64)7

2.
/27&29(5$*(
 '(16,7<
0,1,08081,7$&5( 0$;,08081,7$&5(

 727$/81,76$//2:('
64)7[81,76

64)7
 81,760$;$//2:('727$/$'881,76
81,76[  81,76
RI81,76 %('522081,76
6)
72%($'8
6 81,7%5($.'2:1
%('522081,76
6)

81,76%('522081,76
6)

81,76%('522081,76
6)

81,76727$/29(5$//81,763529,'('
727$/81,76 81,76%$/&21,(69$5<)52081,77281,7)5206)726) 6((6,7(3/$129(5$//),567)/2253/$1

12*5281'/(9(/81,76$//81,763529,'('$5(833(5/(9(/ 3$5.,1*7$%8/$7,21
727$/3$5.,1*63$&(65(48,5('
81,76[
63$&(6727$/81,73$5.,1*63$&(63529,'('
727$/63$&(6 63$&(6,1&/8',1*$'$63$&(6
63$&(6,1&/8',1*(9&$3$%/(


63$&(6,1&/8',1*(96(5($'<

63$&(6,1&/8',1*(96(,167$//('


63$&(65(7$,/81,766)



63$&(6727$/5(48,5('63$&(6

63$&(6
6)3(563$&()257+(),5676)7+(16)3(563$&($)7(57+$7 727$/5(7$,/3$5.,1*63$&(63529,'('
727$/63$&(6 63$&(6,1&/8',1*$'$63$&(6
63$&(6,1&/8',1*(9&$3$%/(


63$&(6,1&/8',1*(96(5($'<

63$&(6,1&/8',1*(96(,167$//('


63$&(6727$/29(5$//3$5.,1*63$&(63529,'('
727$/63$&(6 63$&(675((65(48,5('

3$5.,1*63$&(6

75((675((3529,'('
75((6
%XLOGLQJ'DWD
)HQFH)LUH3ODQ
 

*HQHUDO1RWHV
'LVWDQFHWR1RUWK6LGHRI3DFLILF(OHFWULF7UDLO
 

2YHUKHDG9LHZ
$UHD6FKHGXOH
1DPH $UHD
3DUNLQJ*DUDJH&RPPHUFLDO8QLWV 6)&RQGLWLRQHG 6)3DUNLQJ*DUDJH 6)8QFRQGLWLRQHG 6)3DUNLQJ*DUDJH 6)VW)ORRU%HG8QLW  6)%HG8QLW$ 
6)%HG8QLW% 6)0HQ
V55 6):RPHQ
V55 6)&RQGLWLRQHG 
6)$WULXP 6)3RRO$UHD 6)2SHQ6SDFH 
6)%DOFRQ\ 6)&RUULGRU 6)8QFRQGLWLRQHG 6)VW)ORRU 

6)QG)ORRU%HG8QLW 
6)%HG8QLW$ 
6)%HG8QLW% 6)0HQ
V55 6):RPHQ
V55 6)&RQGLWLRQHG 
6)8SSHU3RRO$UHD 6)2SHQ6SDFH 6)%DOFRQ\ 6)&RUULGRU 6)8QFRQGLWLRQHG 6)QG)ORRU 6)UG)ORRU%HG8QLW  6)%HG8QLW$ 
6)%HG8QLW% 6))LWQHVV&HQWHU 6)0HQ V55 6):RPHQ
V55 6)&RQGLWLRQHG 6)%DOFRQ\ 6)&RUULGRU 6)8QFRQGLWLRQHG 6)UG)ORRU 6)WK)ORRU%HG8QLW 6)%HG8QLW$  6)%HG8QLW% 6)0HQ
V55 6):RPHQ
V55 6)&RQGLWLRQHG 
6)%DOFRQ\ 6)&RUULGRU 6)8QFRQGLWLRQHG 

6)WK)ORRU 6)5RRI7RS'HFN5RRI7RS3DWLR 6)2SHQ6SDFH 6)5RRI7RS'HFN 6)*UDQGWRWDO 6) 6HTXHQFH2I'UDZLQJV'5
1XPEHU 'HVFULSWLRQ
3/ 6LWH3ODQ3/ 6LWH3ODQ2YHUDOO)LUVW)ORRU3ODQ3/ 2YHUDOO)ORRU3ODQV3/ 7\SLFDO)ORRU3ODQV3/ 0DLQ&RUQHU3ODQV3/ 0DLQ&RUQHU3ODQV3/ 0DLQ&RUQHU3ODQ3/ ([WHULRU(OHYDWLRQV3/ '9LHZVRI 3UHOLPLQDU\*UDGLQJ3ODQ( 6LWH3KRWRPHWULF3ODQ/ 3UHOLPLQDU\/DQGVFDSH3ODQ/ 3UHOLPLQDU\/DQGVFDSH3ODQ  
  :URXJKW,URQ)HQFLQJ
EXHIBIT 1. SITE PLAN
EXHIBIT 2. TRIP GENERATION
TABLE 1. TRIP GENERATION RATE (ITE)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Unit Daily Total In Out Total In Out
Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) (822) 1000 SF 54.45 2.36 60% 40% 6.59 50% 50% Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) (220) Dwelling Unit 6.74 0.40 24% 76% 0.51 63% 37% Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition
TABLE 2. NET TRIP GENERATION
AM Peak PM Peak
LAND USE UNIT Quantity Total In Out Total In Out Daily
1000 SF 5 12 7 5 33 17 16 272
-1 -1 0 -7 -2 -5 -8
Pass-By Trip
Reduction 10% -2 -1 -1 -4 -2 -2 -27
Dwelling Unit 204 82 20 62 104 66 38 1375
-1 0 -1 -7 -5 -2 -8
90 25 65 119 74 45 1,604
Internal Trip Reduction
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) (220)
Internal Trip Reduction Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) (822) NET Trip Generation
K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc.

EXHIBIT 3. SBCTA VMT SCREENING INPUT & RESULTS

APPENDIX C

NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Tra!c Engineering # Transporta%on Planning # Parking # Noise & Vibra%on Air Quality # Global Climate Change # Health Risk Assessment

NEC FOOTHILL & SULTANA MIXED-USE

NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
January 2, 2025
City of Fontana
<UNHIDDEN>

NEC FOOTHILL & SULTANA MIXED-USE

NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
January 2, 2025
City of Fontana
prepared by
Catherine Howe, MS
Roma Stromberg, INCE, MS
GANDDINI GROUP INC.
555 Park Center Drive, Suite 225
Santa Ana, California 92705
(714) 795-3100 | ganddini.com Project No. 19772
NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
i 19772

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. III

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Objectives ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Location ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description .......................................................................................................................................................... 1

2. NOISE AND VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS .................................................................................................. 4 Noise Fundamentals ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Vibration Fundamentals ................................................................................................................................................. 4

3. EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................................... 8 Existing Land Uses and Sensitive Receptors ............................................................................................................ 8 Ambient Noise Measurements ..................................................................................................................................... 8

4. REGULATORY SETTING .................................................................................................................................... 12 Federal Regulation ........................................................................................................................................................ 12 Federal Noise Control Act of 1972 ............................................................................................................. 12 Federal Transit Administration ...................................................................................................................... 12 State Regulations .......................................................................................................................................................... 12 State of California General Plan Guidelines 2017 ................................................................................... 12 Department of Transportation ...................................................................................................................... 13 Local Regulations .......................................................................................................................................................... 13 City of Fontana General Plan......................................................................................................................... 13 City of Fontana Municipal Code ................................................................................................................... 14

5. ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY AND MODEL PARAMETERS................................................................ 20 Construction Noise Modeling ................................................................................................................................... 20 Mobile Source Noise Modeling ................................................................................................................................. 20 Future Roadway Noise .................................................................................................................................... 20 Existing and Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels ........................................................................... 20 Groundborne Vibration Modeling ............................................................................................................................ 21

6. NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACTS ................................................................................................................ 26 Noise Impacts ................................................................................................................................................................ 26 Project Construction ........................................................................................................................................ 26 Project Operational Noise .............................................................................................................................. 28 Future Roadway Noise Levels at the Project Site .................................................................................... 29 Groundborne Vibration Impacts ............................................................................................................................... 30 Air Traffic Impacts ........................................................................................................................................................ 31

7. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................... 40

APPENDICES
Appendix A List of Acronyms
Appendix B Glossary
Appendix C Noise Measurement Field Worksheets
Appendix D Construction Noise Model Worksheets
Appendix E SoundPLAN Worksheets
Appendix F FHWA Traffic Noise Model Worksheets
Appendix G Groundborne Vibration Worksheets
NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
ii 19772

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Short-Term Noise Measurement Summary .................................................................................................. 9 Table 2. Long-Term Noise Measurement Summary (LTNM1) .............................................................................. 10 Table 3. Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria ..................................................................... 17 Table 4. Guideline Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria ................................................................................... 18 Table 5. State of California Land Use Compatibility for Community Exposure ............................................... 19 Table 6. CA/T Equipment Noise Emissions and Acoustical Usage Factor Database ...................................... 22 Table 7. Project Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Roadway Parameters ...................................................... 24 Table 8. Construction Equipment Vibration Source Levels ................................................................................... 25 Table 9. Construction Noise Levels .............................................................................................................................. 32 Table 10. Increase in Existing Noise Levels Along Roadways as a Result of Project......................................... 34 Table 11. Future Traffic Noise Levels and Required Window STC Ratings – Proposed Residential Building ................................................................................................................................................................ 35 Table 12. Future Traffic Noise Levels and Required Window STC Ratings – Proposed Commercial Building ................................................................................................................................................................ 36 Table 13. Construction Vibration Levels at the Nearest Receptors ....................................................................... 37

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location Map .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Site Plan .................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3. A-Weighted Comparative Sound Levels ........................................................................................................ 6 Figure 4. Typical Levels of Groundborne Vibration ...................................................................................................... 7 Figure 5. Noise Measurement Location Map .............................................................................................................. 11 Figure 6. Operational Noise Levels ................................................................................................................................ 38 Figure 7. Operational Noise Contours .......................................................................................................................... 39 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
iii 19772

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project site is located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Sultana Street in the City of Fontana, California. The proposed development includes constructing 204 apartment units and 5,000 square feet of retail/commercial space.

Existing Noise Environment
Sensitive receptors that may be affected by project generated noise include the existing single-family residential uses located approximately 80 feet northeast of the project site (across the Pacific Electric Trail), 130 feet north of the project site (across the Pacific Electric Trail), and 275 feet southwest of the project site (on western side of Sultana Avenue).

Measured short-term ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ranged between 58.6 and 76.5 dBA Leq and measured long-term noise ambient noise levels ranged between 48 and 58.4 dBA Leq. The dominant noise source in the project vicinity was vehicle traffic associated with Boyle Avenue, Slover Avenue, Interstate 10 Freeway, and other surrounding roadways.

Project Construction Impacts – Onsite Equipment
Based on the modeled construction noise levels, construction noise levels will not exceed the daytime FTA residential construction noise standards of 80 dBA Leq for residential uses and 85 dBA Leq for commercial uses. In addition, the modeled construction noise levels do not exceed the nighttime FTA construction noise threshold of 85 dBA Leq for commercial uses. However, the nighttime FTA construction noise threshold of 70 dBA Leq for residential uses will potentially be exceeded at the residential uses to the northeast of the project site if construction activities occur between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.

Project construction will not occur outside of the hours outlined in the City of Fontana Municipal Code Section 18-63(b)(7) (6:00 PM to 7:00 AM on weekdays and 5:00 PM and 8:00 AM on Saturdays); therefore. The project would not undergo construction activities during the FTA noise sensitive nighttime hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Therefore, the project is not expected to exceed established standards relating to construction noise. The project impact would be less than significant; no mitigation is required.

Notwithstanding the above, best management practices (BMPs) are provided in the Project Description and can be added to project plans and in contract specifications to minimize construction noise emanating from the proposed project.

Project Construction Impacts – Offsite Vehicle Trips
Project vehicle traffic generated during project construction would be anticipated to be nominal relative to existing roadway volumes and would not result in the doubling of traffic volume necessary to increase noise levels by 3 dBA. The project impact is less than significant; no mitigation is required.

Operational Noise Impacts - On-Site Project Generated Operational Noise Sources The proposed project is located on a parcel zoned for residential land uses, but it is bordered on three sides with parcels zoned for commercial and industrial land uses. Vacant property immediately east of the project site is also zoned residential. The closest existing noise sensitive land use is located approximately 80 feet northeast of the project site.

NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
iv 19772
Section 30.469 of the City of Fontana Municipal Code prohibits the project from generating on-site noise that exceeds 65 dBA Leq between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM or from exceeding 45 dBA Leq between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM on a property zoned for residential land uses.

Project operational noise will consist of passenger vehicles coming and leaving and heating and ventilation units (HVAC). A HVAC plan has not yet been developed but they are expected to service individual units.

Using a conservative estimate that the HVAC plan will propose 3-ton units1 outside of each unit with a sound power level of 74 dBA; and assuming that three units are hypothetically located at the northeast corner of the project site, facing the nearest sensitive receptor, the resulting noise level at full operation would be 43.1 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receptor. HVAC noise associated with the proposed project would not exceed daytime or nighttime stationary noise standards. No mitigation is required.

Most parking onsite will be located within the proposed building under the proposed residential units. Outdoor parking areas will generate noise associated with vehicles arriving and leaving and occasional conversation and would not contribute substantially to ambient noise levels. The project will not exceed the City’s daytime or nighttime stationary noise standards at nearby residential land uses. The project impact is less than significant; no mitigation is required.

Operational Noise Impacts – Offsite Vehicle Trips
Project generated mobile vehicle noise is evaluated in light of the City of Fontana’s Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report (June 8, 2018), which refers to the City of Fontana General Plan Noise Element noise level criteria of 65 dBA CNEL. Furthermore, an audible change in noise level, considered to be an increase of 3 dBA or more, would be considered potentially significant.

The addition of project trips is not expected to change noise levels in excess of audible threshold of a 3 dB increase at any of the study roadway segments. The project impact is less than significant; no mitigation is required.

Future Roadway Noise Levels at the Project Site
Future traffic noise levels associated with Sultana Avenue and W. Foothill Boulevard were modeled at the proposed project site using the SoundPLAN noise model in order to determine the project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan Noise Element Criteria of 65 dBA CNEL for residential land uses and the State of California Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines for the proposed commercial land uses.

Modeled future traffic noise levels at proposed residential units vary between 58 and 74 dBA CNEL and they will exceed the City’s exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL. However, there are no proposed outdoor use areas that would be affected by these noise levels. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

As stated in the City’s General Plan Noise Element, State of California Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines are to be followed with respect to acoustical study requirements. Therefore, the land use compatibility criteria for commercial land uses apply to the proposed commercial land use. Commercial land uses are considered to be “”normally acceptable” in noise environments up to 70 dBA CNEL, and “conditionally acceptable” in noise environments up to 77.5 dBA CNEL. Future traffic noise levels at the proposed commercial building can be expected to reach up to 75 dBA CNEL and will not exceed the “conditionally acceptable” land use category”.
1 Carrier® Comfort™ - 3 Ton, 14 SEER, Packaged Heat Pump System (208/230-3-60) | Peirce-Phelps LLC – Sound Power level of 74 dBA.

NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
v 19772
Groundborne Vibration Impacts
Groundborne vibration generated by project construction would not exceed the levels necessary to cause architectural damage and annoyance to sensitive receptors. Furthermore, perceptibility of construction vibration would be temporary and would occur only during daytime hours. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Air Traffic Impacts
The project site is located well outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour of the LA/Ontario International Airport. Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with airports. The impact would be less than significant; no mitigation is required.

NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
1 19772

1. INTRODUCTION
This section describes the purpose of this study and the proposed project.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this report is to provide an assessment of the noise impacts resulting from development and operation of the proposed project and to identify mitigation measures that may be necessary to reduce potentially significant impacts. The noise issues related to the proposed land use and development have been evaluated in light of applicable federal, state and local policies, including those of the City of Fontana, in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Although this is a technical report, effort has been made to write the report clearly and concisely. A list of acronyms and glossary are provided in Appendix A and Appendix B of this report to assist the reader with technical terms related to noise and vibration analysis.

PROJECT LOCATION
The 1 project site is located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Sultana Street in the City of Fontana, California. A vicinity map showing the project location is provided on Figure 1.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed development includes constructing 204 apartment units and 5,000 square feet of retail/commercial space. Figure 2 illustrates the project site plan.

The following best management practices (BMPs) can be provided on project plans and in contract specifications to minimize construction noise emanating from the proposed project:

1. All equipment, whether fixed or mobile, will be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturer standards.

2. All stationary construction equipment will be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site.

3. As applicable, all equipment shall be shut off and not left to idle when not in use.

4. To the degree possible, equipment staging will be located in areas that create the greatest distance between construction-related noise and vibration sources and existing sensitive receptors.

5. No amplified music and/or voice will be allowed on the project site.

6. Haul truck deliveries will not occur outside of the hours presented as exempt for construction per City of Fontana Municipal Code Section 18-63(b)(7).
1 Figure 1
Project Location Map
NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
19772
N
Site
S
ULT
A
N
A
AVE

FOOTHILL BLVD
2 Figure 2
Site Plan
NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
19772
N
3 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
4 19772

2. NOISE AND VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS
This section provides an overview of key noise and vibration concepts.

NOISE FUNDAMENTALS
Sound is a pressure wave created by a moving or vibrating source that travels through an elastic medium such as air. Noise is defined as unwanted or objectionable sound. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and in extreme circumstances, hearing impairment.

Commonly used noise terms are presented in Appendix B. The unit of measurement used to describe a noise level is the decibel (dB). The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the sound spectrum.

Therefore, the “A-weighted” noise scale, which weights the frequencies to which humans are sensitive, is used for measurements. Noise levels using A-weighted measurements are written dB(A) or dBA.

From the noise source to the receiver, noise changes both in level and frequency spectrum. The most obvious is the decrease in noise as the distance from the source increases. The manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on whether the source is a point or line source as well as ground absorption, atmospheric effects and refraction, and shielding by natural and manmade features. Sound from point sources, such as air conditioning condensers, radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern.

The noise drop-off rate associated with this geometric spreading is 6 dBA per each doubling of the distance (dBA/DD). Transportation noise sources such as roadways are typically analyzed as line sources, since at any given moment the receiver may be impacted by noise from multiple vehicles at various locations along the roadway. Because of the geometry of a line source, the noise drop-off rate associated with the geometric spreading of a line source is 3 dBA/DD.

Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, which quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used for earthquake magnitudes. Thus, a doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as a doubled traffic volume, would increase the noise levels by 3 dBA; halving of the energy would result in a 3 dBA decrease. Figure 3 shows the relationship of various noise levels to commonly experienced noise events.

Average noise levels over a period of minutes or hours are usually expressed as dBA Leq, or the equivalent noise level for that period of time. For example, Leq(3-hr) would represent a 3-hour average. When no period is specified, a one-hour average is assumed.

Noise standards for land use compatibility are stated in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and the Day-Night Average Noise Level (DNL). CNEL is a 24-hour weighted average measure of community noise. CNEL is obtained by adding five decibels to sound levels in the evening (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM), and by adding ten decibels to sound levels at night (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM). This weighting accounts for the increased human sensitivity to noise during the evening and nighttime hours. DNL is a very similar 24- hour average measure that weights only the nighttime hours.

It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA; that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible, and that an increase (decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud. This definition is recommended by the California Department of Transportation’s Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (2013).

VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS
The way in which vibration is transmitted through the earth is called propagation. Propagation of earthborn vibrations is complicated and difficult to predict because of the endless variations in the soil through which waves travel. There are three main types of vibration propagation: surface, compression and shear waves. 4 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
5 19772
Surface waves, or Rayleigh waves, travel along the ground’s surface. These waves carry most of their energy along an expanding circular wave front, similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a pool of water.

Compression waves, or P-waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e., in a “push-pull” fashion). P-waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. Shear waves, or S-waves, are also body waves that carry energy along an expanding spherical wave front. However, unlike P-waves, the particle motion is transverse or “side-to-side and perpendicular to the direction of propagation”.

As vibration waves propagate from a source, the energy is spread over an ever-increasing area such that the energy level striking a given point is reduced with the distance from the energy source. This geometric spreading loss is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Wave energy is also reduced with distance as a result of material damping in the form of internal friction, soil layering, and void spaces. The amount of attenuation provided by material damping varies with soil type and condition as well as the frequency of the wave.

Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed as either peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal in inches per second. The RMS of a signal is the average of the squared amplitude of the signal in vibration decibels (VdB), ref one micro-inch per second. The Federal Railroad Administration uses the abbreviation “VdB” for vibration decibels to reduce the potential for confusion with sound decibel.

PPV is appropriate for evaluating the potential of building damage and VdB is commonly used to evaluate human response. Decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required in measuring vibration.

Similar to the noise descriptors, Leq and Lmax can be used to describe the average vibration and the maximum vibration level observed during a single vibration measurement interval. Figure 4 illustrates common vibration sources and the human and structural responses to ground-borne vibration. As shown in the figure, the threshold of perception for human response is approximately 65 VdB; however, human response to vibration is not usually substantial unless the vibration exceeds 70 VdB. Vibration tolerance limits for sensitive instruments such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or electron microscopes could be much lower than the human vibration perception threshold.
5 Figure 3
A-Weighted Comparative Sound Levels
NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
19772
© Ganddini Group, Inc.

Based on Policy & Guidance from Federal Aviation Administration 6 Figure 4
Typical Levels of Groundborne Vibration
NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
19772
Source: FRA, 2012. Federal Railroad Administration High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Office of Railroad Policy Development, Washington, D.C. DOT/FRA/ORD-12/15. September. 7 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
8 19772

3. EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
This section describes the existing noise setting in the project vicinity.

EXISTING LAND USES AND SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
The project site is bordered by Sultana Avenue to the west, Foothill Boulevard to the south, vacant land to the east, and a walking/biking path (Pacific Electric Trail) to the north of the project site.

The State of California defines sensitive receptors as those land uses that require serenity or are otherwise adversely affected by noise events or conditions. Schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, single and multiplefamily residential, including transient lodging, motels and hotel uses make up the majority of these areas.

Existing sensitive land uses that may be affected by project noise include the existing single-family residential uses located approximately 80 feet northeast of the project site (across the Pacific Electric Trail), 130 feet north of the project site (across the Pacific Electric Trail), and 275 feet southwest of the project site (on western side of Sultana Avenue).

AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS
An American National Standards Institute (ANSI Section SI.4 2014, Class 1) Larson Davis model LxT sound level meter was used to document existing ambient noise levels. In order to document existing ambient noise levels in the project area, five (5) 15-minute daytime noise measurements were taken between 1:00 PM and 3:28 PM on November 21, 2024. In addition, one (1) long-term 24-hour noise measurement was also taken from November 21, 2024 to November 22, 2024. Figure 5 shows the noise measurement location map. Field worksheets and noise measurement worksheets are provided in Appendix C.  STNM1: represents the existing noise environment of the single-family residential uses to the northeast of the project site along Sesame Seed Avenue (15523 Sesame Seed Avenue, Fontana) and the Pacific Electric Trail. The noise meter was placed south of the residential uses within the pathway of the Pacific Electric Trail.
 STNM2: represents the existing noise environment of the single-family residential uses located to the north of the project site along Vanilla Bean Lane (15459 Vanilla Bean Lane, Fontana). The noise meter was placed just southwest of the residential uses and east of Sultana Avenue.  STNM3: represents the existing noise environment of the project site. The noise meter was placed near the center of the western property line just east of Sultana Avenue.  STNM4: represents the existing noise environment of the single-family residential use to the southwest of the project site along Sultana Avenue (8134 Sultana Avenue, Fontana). The noise meter was placed near the eastern property line of the residential use just west of Sultana Avenue.  STNM5: represents the existing noise environment of the vacant land to the east of the project site along the northern side of Foothill Boulevard (15526 Foothill Boulevard, Fontana). The noise meter was placed near the southern property line of the vacant land just north of Foothill Boulevard.  LTNM1: represents the existing noise environment in the vicinity of the project site. The noise meter was placed near the center of the western property line just east of Sultana Avenue.

Table 1 provides a summary of the short-term ambient noise data. Table 2 provides hourly interval ambient noise data from the long-term noise measurements. Measured short-term ambient noise levels ranged between 60.1 and 67.6 dBA Leq. Long-term hourly noise measurement ambient noise levels ranged from 49.7 to 61.7 dBA Leq. The dominant noise source in the project vicinity was vehicle traffic associated with Foothill Boulevard, Sultana Avenue, and other surrounding roadways. 8 Site Location Time Started Leq Lmax Lmin L(2) L(8) L(25) L(50) STNM1 1:00 PM 48.6 60.1 39.0 54.2 51.9 49.4 47.2
STNM2 1:28 PM 62.0 75.4 38.7 70.1 67.0 63.2 55.6
STNM3 2:03 PM 60.7 76.9 43.2 67.3 64.0 61.2 56.4
STNM4 2:36 PM 63.4 78.0 47.2 72.7 66.8 62.6 59.5
STNM5 3:13 PM 67.6 81.3 43.5 72.6 71.1 69.0 66.6
(1) See Figure 5 for noise measurement locations. Each noise measurement was performed over a 15-minute duration. (2) Noise measurements performed on November 21, 2024.

Notes:

Table 1
Short-Term Noise Measurement Summary
Daytime Measurements (dBA) 1,2
NEC Foothill Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
9 19772
Leq Lmax Lmin L(2) L(8) L(25) L(50)
5:00 PM 57.5 86.1 39.1 63.8 60.4 57.6 54.7
5:00 PM 60.0 82.0 51.2 65.4 62.1 59.8 58.2
6:00 PM 59.0 71.2 50.3 64.4 61.6 59.6 58.1
7:00 PM 58.4 76.0 47.8 65.0 61.1 58.5 56.6
8:00 PM 58.4 83.2 46.0 63.7 60.0 57.5 55.3
9:00 PM 56.8 78.7 45.4 62.9 59.5 56.7 54.5
10:00 PM 53.6 70.1 44.2 58.8 56.7 54.0 52.1
11:00 PM 53.6 74.1 41.2 61.0 56.2 53.0 50.8
12:00 AM 52.5 77.7 41.1 57.3 53.7 50.4 48.2
1:00 AM 49.7 66.6 39.1 56.3 53.0 50.3 47.5
2:00 AM 51.4 60.4 39.9 57.0 55.4 52.7 49.8
3:00 AM 53.5 65.9 40.8 59.8 57.3 54.5 51.6
4:00 AM 57.5 73.7 43.2 64.0 60.7 57.9 55.6
5:00 AM 58.2 75.4 48.1 64.7 60.6 58.4 56.6
6:00 AM 59.1 68.8 48.1 64.1 62.0 60.1 58.4
7:00 AM 59.9 75.6 51.5 64.6 62.3 60.3 58.8
8:00 AM 57.4 75.2 46.0 64.1 59.7 57.1 55.3
9:00 AM 55.8 76.2 43.4 63.4 58.4 55.5 53.0
10:00 AM 55.4 75.0 43.8 62.9 58.2 55.2 52.7
11:00 AM 55.7 74.2 41.5 62.8 58.7 55.7 53.3
12:00 PM 55.9 72.7 42.4 63.6 59.1 55.6 53.4
1:00 PM 56.3 75.5 43.6 62.7 59.2 56.0 53.8
2:00 PM 57.4 78.2 43.0 64.9 59.8 56.8 54.6
3:00 PM 60.5 86.1 48.1 66.0 61.3 58.4 56.6
4:00 PM 61.7 83.4 48.0 69.8 62.9 59.5 57.6
(1)
(2)
Notes:

See Figure 5 for noise measurement locations. Noise measurement was performed over a 24-hour duration.

Noise measurement performed from November 21, 2024 to November 22, 2024. 19 20
21 22
23 CNEL
24 62.8
18 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
6 Table 2
Long-Term Noise Measurement Summary (LTNM1)
24-Hour Ambient Noise (dBA) 1,2
Hourly
Measurements Time Started
Overall Summary
1 2
3 4
5 NEC Foothill Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
10 19772
Figure 5
Noise Measurement Location Map
NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
19772
N
Site
S
ULT
A
N
A
AVE

FOOTHILL BLVD
Noise Measurement Location
Legend
NM 1
ST NM Short-Term Noise Measurement
LT NM Long-Term Noise Measurement
ST NM 4
ST NM 5
ST NM 3
LT NM 1
ST NM 2
ST NM 1
11 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
12 19772

4. REGULATORY SETTING
This section documents the regulatory framework and applicable noise standards.

FEDERAL REGULATION
Federal Noise Control Act of 1972
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Noise Abatement and Control was originally established to coordinate federal noise control activities. After its inception, EPA’s Office of Noise Abatement and Control issued the Federal Noise Control Act of 1972, establishing programs and guidelines to identify and address the effects of noise on public health, welfare, and the environment. In response, the EPA published Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (Levels of Environmental Noise). The Levels of Environmental Noise recommended that the Ldn should not exceed 55 dBA outdoors or 45 dBA indoors to prevent significant activity interference and annoyance in noise-sensitive areas.

In 1981, EPA administrators determined that subjective issues such as noise would be better addressed at lower levels of government. Consequently, in 1982 responsibilities for regulating noise control policies were transferred to State and local governments. However, noise control guidelines and regulations contained in EPA rulings in prior years remain in place by designated Federal agencies, allowing more individualized control for specific issues by designated Federal, State, and local government agencies.

Federal Transit Administration
The City has not established quantitative thresholds for the purpose of evaluating whether or not a project may result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels during construction activities, and according to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (2018), local noise ordinances are typically not very useful in evaluating construction noise. They often define nuisances and hours of allowed activity and sometimes specify limits in terms of maximum levels but are generally not practical for assessing the impact of a construction project.

Project construction noise criteria should account for the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels produced during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land uses. The FTA standard for construction noise impacts to residential and commercial land uses were utilized for purposes of this analysis.

STATE REGULATIONS
State of California General Plan Guidelines 2017
Though not adopted by law, the State of California General Plan Guidelines 2017, published by the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) (OPR Guidelines), provides guidance for the compatibility of projects within areas of specific noise exposure. The OPR Guidelines identify the suitability of various types of construction relative to a range of outdoor noise levels and provide each local community some flexibility in setting local noise standards that allow for the variability in community preferences. Findings presented in the Levels of Environmental Noise Document (EPA 1974) influenced the recommendations of the OPR Guidelines, most importantly in the choice of noise exposure metrics (i.e., Ldn or CNEL) and in the upper limits for the normally acceptable outdoor exposure of noise-sensitive uses.

The OPR Guidelines include a Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix (Table 5) which identifies acceptable and unacceptable community noise exposure limits for various land use categories. Where the “normally acceptable” range is used, it is defined as the highest noise level that should be considered for the construction of the buildings which do not incorporate any special acoustical treatment or noise mitigation. The 12 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
13 19772
“conditionally acceptable” or “normally unacceptable” ranges include conditions calling for detailed acoustical study prior to the construction or operation of the proposed project.

Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has developed several publications on groundborne vibration. The Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans, 2020) provides informational content that supplements previous publications with improved knowledge and information relating to groundborne transportation- and construction-induced vibrations. Although the Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual is not an official policy, standard, specification, or regulation, it serves as a useful guide for evaluating vibration impacts.

Table 3 and Table 4 show the guideline criteria for potential damage and annoyance resulting from groundborne vibration. As shown in Table 3, these guidelines recommend that the threshold at which there is a risk of architectural damage is a peak particle velocity (PPV) of 0.25 inches/second (in/sec) for historic buildings, PPV of 0.3 in/sec at older residential structures, and a PPV of 0.5 in/sec at new residential structures and modern commercial/industrial buildings. Table 4 shows that a PPV of 0.4 in/sec is the threshold at which groundborne vibration becomes severe in regard to annoyance (Caltrans, 2020).

LOCAL REGULATIONS
City of Fontana General Plan
The City of Fontana General Plan Noise and Safety Element goals, policies, and actions that apply to the proposed project are presented below.

Goal 8 The City of Fontana protects sensitive land uses from excessive noise by diligent planning through 2035.

Policies:
 New sensitive land uses shall be prohibited in incompatible areas.  Noise-tolerant land uses shall be guided into areas irrevocably committed to land uses that are noiseproducing, such as transportation corridors.  Where sensitive uses are to be placed along transportation routes, mitigation shall be provided to ensure compliance with state-mandated noise levels.
 Noise spillover or encroachment from commercial, industrial and educational land uses shall be minimized into adjoining residential neighborhoods or noise-sensitive uses.

Actions:

A. The following uses shall be considered noise-sensitive and discouraged in areas in excess of 65 dBA CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level): Residential Uses; Hospitals; Rest Homes; Long Term Care Facilities; and Mental Care Facilities.

B. The following uses shall be considered noise-sensitive and discouraged in areas in excess of 65 dBA Leq (Equivalent Continuous Sound Level): Schools; Libraries; Places of Worship; and Passive Recreation Uses.

C. The State of California Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines shall be followed with respect to acoustical study requirements (see Table 5). 13 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
14 19772
Goal 9 The City of Fontana provides a diverse and efficiently operated ground transportation system that generates the minimum feasible noise on its residents through 2035.

Policies:
 All noise sections of the State Motor Vehicle Code shall be enforced.  Roads shall be maintained such that the paving is in good condition and free of cracks, bumps, and potholes.  Noise mitigation measures shall be included in the design of new roadway projects in the city.

Actions:

A. On-road trucking activities shall continue to be regulated in the City to ensure noise impacts are minimized, including the implementation of truck-routes based on traffic studies.

B. Development that generates increased traffic and subsequent increases in the ambient noise level adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses shall provide appropriate mitigation measures.

C. Noise mitigation practices shall be employed when designing all future streets and highways, and when improvements occur along existing highway segments.

D. Explore the use of “quiet pavement” materials for street improvements.

Goal 10 Fontana’s residents are protected from the negative effects of “spillover” noise.

Policies:
 Residential land uses and areas identified as noise-sensitive shall be protected from excessive noise from non-transportation sources including industrial, commercial, and residential activities and equipment.

Actions:

A. Projects located in commercial areas shall not exceed stationary- source noise standards at the property line of proximate residential or commercial uses.

B. Industrial uses shall not exceed commercial or residential stationary source noise standards at the most proximate land uses.

C. Non-transportation noise shall be considered in land use planning decisions.

D. Construction shall be performed as quietly as feasible when performed in proximity to residential or other noise sensitive land uses.

City of Fontana Municipal Code
Section 18-63 Scope, enumeration of prohibited noises.
a. This article shall apply to loud, excessive, impulsive, or intrusive interior and exterior sound or noise that annoys or disturbs persons of ordinary sensibilities emanating from any type of property or source within the city.
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, but such enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive, namely:
14 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
15 19772

1. Loading, unloading or opening boxes. The creation of a loud, excessive, impulsive, or intrusive and excessive noise in connection with loading or unloading of any vehicle or the opening and destruction of bales, boxes, crates and containers.

2. 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 AM and 6:00 PM 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 PM and 7:00 AM, 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 PM and 7:00 AM, upon application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during the progress of the work.

3. Noise near schools, courts, places 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.

4. Piledrivers, hammers, etc. The operation between the hours of 6:00 PM and 7:00 AM of any piledriver, steam shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, steam or electric hoist or other appliance, the use of which is attended by loud, excessive, impulsive or intrusive noise.

5. Blowers. The operation of any noise-creating blower or power fan or any internal combustion engine other than from the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM on a weekday and the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on a Saturday, the operation of which cause noise due to the explosion of operating gases or fluids, unless the noise from such blower or fan is muffled and such engine is equipped with a muffler device sufficient to deaden such noise.

In addition to the criteria listed above from Section 18-63 of the City's Municipal Code, the City of Fontana regulates noise impacts from one property to another in the City’s Zoning and Development Code. Noise standards vary depending upon the zoning of the noise generator and receiving property. The proposed project and all of the affected receptors are located within the Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan and designated as Freeway Industrial/Commercial. Therefore, the noise standards for industrial zoning districts as outlined in Article VII Industrial Zoning Districts of the City’s Development Code apply, see below.

Section 30-543 Noise and vibration.

The following are the noise and vibration-related performance standards for industrial zoning districts within the City.
a. Noise level. No person shall create or cause to be created any sound which exceeds the noise level standards set forth below as measured at the property line of any residentially zoned property.

1. The noise level between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM shall not exceed 70 db(A).

2. The noise level between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM shall not exceed 65 db(A). 15 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
16 19772
b. Noise measurements. Noise shall be measured with a sound level meter that meets the standards of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Section SI4-1979, Type 1 or Type 2. Noise levels shall be measured using the “A” weighted sound pressure level scale in decibels (reference pressure = 20 micronewtons per meter squared).
c. Vibration. No person shall create or cause to be created any activity which causes a vibration which can be felt beyond the property line with or without the aid of an instrument. 16 Transient Sources1
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources1
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1
Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25
Older residential structures 0.5 0.3
New residential structures 1.0 0.5
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5

1. Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

Table 3
Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria Structure Condition
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Notes:

Source: California Department of Transportation. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Chapter 7 Table 19, April 2020.

NEC Foothill Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
17 19772
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01
Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.10
Severe 2.0 0.4
Source: California Department of Transportation. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Chapter 7 Table 20, April 2020.

Table 4
Guideline Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria
(1) Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

Human Response
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Notes:

NEC Foothill Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
18 19772
Source: California Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines, 2017 Update.

Table 5
Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure
55 60
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. Outdoor environment will seem noisy.

Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals,
Nursing Homes
Transient Lodging: Motels, Hotels
Residential Multi-Family Dwellings
Office Buildings, Businesses,
Commercial and Professional
Golf Courses, Riding Stables,
Water Recreation, Cemeteries
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks
Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports
Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Construction costs to make the indoor environment acceptable would be prohibitive and the outdoor environment would not be usable.

Normally Acceptable: Specified land uses is satisfactory based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation or requirements.

Land Use
dBA, CNEL or Ldn
65 70 75 80
Residential-Low Density Single Family,
Duplexes and Mobile Homes
Industrial, Manufacturing,
Utilities, Agriculture
Normally Unacceptable: New construction and development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made with needed noise insulation features included in the design. Outdoor areas must be shielded.

NEC Foothill Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
19 19772
NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
20 19772

5. ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY AND MODEL PARAMETERS
This section discusses the analysis methodologies used to assess noise impacts.

CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODELING
Construction noise will vary depending on the construction process, type of equipment involved, location of the construction site with respect to sensitive receptors, the schedule proposed to carry out each task (e.g., hours and days of the week) and the duration of the construction work.

Construction noise associated with the proposed project was calculated at the sensitive receptor locations utilizing methodology presented in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018) together with several key construction parameters, including: distance to each sensitive receiver, equipment usage, percent usage factor, and baseline parameters for the project site.

Distances to receptors were based on the acoustical center of the project site.

The equipment used to calculate the construction noise levels for each phase were based on the assumptions provided in the CalEEMod data prepared for the proposed project (Lilburn, 2024). For analysis purposes, the distance measured from the project site to sensitive receptors was assumed to be the acoustical center of the project site to the property line of residential properties with existing residential buildings. Sound emission levels associated with typical construction equipment as well as typical usage factors are provided in Table 6.

MOBILE SOURCE NOISE MODELING
Future Roadway Noise
The SoundPLAN acoustical modeling software was utilized to model future roadway noise levels at the proposed sensitive receptors (e.g., residences). SoundPLAN is capable of evaluating both mobile and stationary noise sources (e.g., vehicle traffic, rail, parking lots, drive-thru menus, car wash equipment, vacuums, etc.). The SoundPLAN software utilizes algorithms (based on the inverse square law) to calculate noise level projections.

The software allows the user to input specific noise sources, spectral content, sound barriers, building placement, topography, and sensitive receptor locations.

The project is bordered by Sultana Avenue on the west and W. Foothill Boulevard on the south. Sultana Avenue is designated as a Primary Highway with an estimated capacity of 36,000 average daily trips (ADTs) and W. Foothill Boulevard is designated as a Major Highway with an estimated capacity of 54,000 ADTs in the City of Fontana General Plan Community Mobility and Circulation Element (2023).

Typically, the noisiest buildout condition associated with arterials and highways occurs during Level of Service (LOS) C conditions or when the roadway capacity of approximately 75 percent is utilized. The SoundPLAN noise model was used to model noise levels associated with both roadways at LOS C with a vehicle mix of 92 percent passenger vehicles, 3 percent medium trucks and 5 percent heavy trucks. Posted speeds of 40 and 45 miles per hour were used for modeling purposes. SoundPLAN data sheets are provided in Appendix E.

Existing and Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels Noise from vehicular traffic was projected using a computer program that replicates the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The FHWA model arrives at the predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL). Key model parameters and REMEL adjustments are presented below:
20 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
21 19772
 Roadway classification (e.g., freeway, major arterial, arterial, secondary, collector, etc.)  Roadway active width (distance between the center of the outer most travel lanes on each side of the roadway)
 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes, Travel Speeds, Percentages of automobiles, medium trucks and heavy trucks
 Roadway grade and angle of view
 Site conditions (e.g., soft vs. hard)
 Percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period Traffic noise levels were calculated at the right-of-way based on distance from the centerline of the analyzed roadway. The modeling is theoretical and does not take into account any existing barriers, structures, and/or topographical features that may further reduce noise levels. Therefore, the modeled noise levels are shown for comparative purposes only to show the difference between with and without project conditions.

Project generated vehicle traffic is expected to utilize Foothill Boulevard and Sultana Avenue to access the project site. Existing average daily vehicle trips were estimated by use of the measured ambient noise levels (see Table 1).1 Project average daily vehicle trips were provided in the VMT Screening Assessment Proposed 204-Unit Apartment and Retail NEC of Foothill and Sultana St, Fontana (VMT Screening Assessment) prepared for the project (K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc., December 2, 2024). Per the VMT Screening Assessment, the project is anticipated to generate 1,604 net new daily vehicle trips. As no trip distribution was provided in the VMT Screening Assessment, to be conservative, it was assumed that all project generated vehicle trips would travel on each modeled roadway segment. Table 7 includes the modeled roadway segments as well as the average daily traffic volumes, posted speed limits, and vehicle mix utilized in this analysis.

GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION MODELING
Groundborne vibration modeling was performed using vibration propagation equations and construction equipment source levels obtained from the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018).

Table 8 shows typical vibration levels associated with commonly used construction equipment based on data from the FTA.

There are several types of construction equipment that can cause vibration levels high enough to annoy persons in the vicinity and/or result in architectural or structural damage to nearby structures and improvements. For example, as shown in Table 8, a vibratory roller could generate up to 0.21 in/sec PPV at and operation of a large bulldozer could generate up to 0.089 PPV at a distance of 25 feet (two of the most vibratory pieces of construction equipment). Groundborne vibration at sensitive receptors associated with this equipment would drop off as the equipment moves away. For example, as the vibratory roller moves further than 100 feet from the sensitive receptors, the vibration associated with it would drop below 0.0026 in/sec PPV. It should be noted that these vibration levels are reference levels and may vary slightly depending upon soil type and specific usage of each piece of equipment.

The fundamental equation used to calculate vibration propagation through average soil conditions and distance is as follows:

PPVequipment = PPVref (25/Drec)
n
Where: PPVref = reference PPV at 25ft.

Drec = distance from equipment to receiver in ft.
n = 1.5 (the value related to the attenuation rate through ground) 1 STNM5 was used for Foothill Boulevard and STNM3 was used for Sultana Avenue. 21 Table 6 (1 of 2)
CA/T Equipment Noise Emissions and Acoustical Usage Factor Database Equipment Description
Impact
Device?
Acoustical
Use Factor (%)
Spec. Lmax
@ 50ft
(dBA, slow)
Actual
Measured
Lmax @ 50ft
(dBA, slow)
No. of Actual
Data Samples
(Count)
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No 50 85 -N/A- 0
Auger Drill Rig No 20 85 84 36
Backhoe No 40 80 78 372
Bar Bender No 20 80 -N/A- 0
Blasting Yes -N/A- 94 -N/A- 0
Boring Jack Power Unit No 50 80 83 1
Chain Saw No 20 85 84 46
Clam Shovel (dropping) Yes 20 93 87 4
Compactor (ground) No 20 80 83 57
Compressor (air) No 40 80 78 18
Concrete Batch Plant No 15 83 -N/A- 0
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 85 79 40
Concrete Pump Truck No 20 82 81 30
Concrete Saw No 20 90 90 55
Crane No 16 85 81 405
Dozer No 40 85 82 55
Drill Rig Truck No 20 84 79 22
Drum Mixer No 50 80 80 1
Dump Truck No 40 84 76 31
Excavator No 40 85 81 170
Flat Bed Truck No 40 84 74 4
Forklift2,3 No 50 n/a 61 n/a
Front End Loader No 40 80 79 96
Generator No 50 82 81 19
Generator (<25KVA, VMS signs) No 50 70 73 74
Gradall No 40 85 83 70
Grader No 40 85 -N/A- 0
Grapple (on backhoe) No 40 85 87 1
Horizontal Boring Hydr. Jack No 25 80 82 6
Hydra Break Ram Yes 10 90 -N/A- 0
Impact Pile Driver Yes 20 95 101 11
Jackhammer Yes 20 85 89 133
Man Lift No 20 85 75 23
Mounted Impact hammer (hoe ram) Yes 20 90 90 212
Pavement Scarafier No 20 85 90 2
Paver No 50 85 77 9
Pickup Truck No 50 85 77 9
Paving Equipment No 50 85 77 9
Pneumatic Tools No 50 85 85 90
NEC Foothill Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
22 19772
Table 6 (2 of 2)
CA/T Equipment Noise Emissions and Acoustical Usage Factor Database Equipment Description
Impact
Device?
Acoustical
Use Factor (%)
Spec. Lmax
@ 50ft
(dBA, slow)
Actual
Measured
Lmax @ 50ft
(dBA, slow)
No. of Actual
Data Samples
(Count)
Pumps No 50 77 81 17
Refrigerator Unit No 100 82 73 3
Rivit Buster/chipping gun Yes 20 85 79 19
Rock Drill No 20 85 81 3
Roller No 20 85 80 16
Sand Blasting (Single Nozzle) No 20 85 96 9
Scraper No 40 85 84 12
Shears (on backhoe) No 40 85 96 5
Slurry Plant No 100 78 78 1
Slurry Trenching Machine No 50 82 80 75
Soil Mix Drill Rig No 50 80 -N/A- 0
Tractor No 40 84 -N/A- 0
Vacuum Excavator (Vac-truck) No 40 85 85 149
Vacuum Street Sweeper No 10 80 82 19
Ventilation Fan No 100 85 79 13
Vibrating Hopper No 50 85 87 1
Vibratory Concrete Mixer No 20 80 80 1
Vibratory Pile Driver No 20 95 101 44
Warning Horn No 5 85 83 12
Welder/Torch No 40 73 74 5
Notes:
(1) Source: FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide January 2006. (2) Warehouse & Forklift Noise Exposure - NoiseTesting.info Carl Stautins, November 4, 2014 http://www.noisetesting.info/blog/carl-strautins/page-3/ (3) Data provided Leq as measured at the operator. Sound Level at 50 feet is calculated using Inverse Square Law.

NEC Foothill Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
23 19772
Existing
Existing
Plus Project
Foothill Boulevard In the Vicinity of the Project Site 13,175 14779 45 Hard Sultana Avenue In the Vicinity of the Project Site 3,210 4,814 40 Hard Motor-Vehicle Type
Daytime %
(7 AM-7 PM)
Evening %
(7 PM-10 PM)
Night %
(10 PM-7 AM)
Automobiles 75.56 13.96 10.49
Medium Trucks 48.91 2.17 48.91
Heavy Trucks 47.30 5.41 47.30
Motor-Vehicle Type (7 AM-7 PM) (7 PM-10 PM) (10 PM-7 AM) Automobiles 75.54 14.02 10.43
Medium Trucks 48.00 2.00 50.00
Heavy Trucks 48.00 2.00 50.00
Notes:
(2) Existing vehicle percentages are based on the Riverside County Industrial Hygiene Letter for Traffic Noise. (1) Project average daily vehicle trips were provided in the VMT Screening Assessment Proposed 204-Unit Apartment and Retail NEC of Foothill and Sultana St, Fontana (VMT Screening Assessment) prepared for the project (K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc., December 2, 2024). Per the VMT Screening Assessment, the project is anticipated to generate 1,604 net new daily vehicle trips. As no trip distribution was provided in the VMT Screening Assessment, to be conservative, it was assumed that all project generated vehicle trips would travel on each modeled roadway segment. Existing average daily vehicle trips were estimated by use of the measured ambient noise levels (see Table 1, STNM5 for Foothill Boulevard and STNM3 for Sultana Avenue).

Table 7
Roadway Segment
Site
Conditions
Posted
Travel
Speeds
(MPH)
Average Daily Traffic Volume1
Project Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Roadway Parameters Vehicle Distribution (Light Mix)2
Vehicle Distribution (Heavy Mix)2
NEC Foothill Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
24 19772
PPV at 25 ft, in/sec Approximate Lv* at 25 ft
upper range 1.518 112
typical 0.644 104
upper range 0.734 105
typical 0.170 93

0.202 94
in soil 0.008 66
in rock 0.017 75

0.210 94

0.089 87

0.089 87

0.089 87

0.076 86

0.035 79

0.003 58
Table 8
Equipment
Pile Driver (impact)
Pile Driver (sonic)
Caisson Drilling
clam shovel drop (slurry wall)
Hydromill (slurry wall)
Vibratory Roller
Hoe Ram
Large Bulldozer
Jackhammer
Small Bulldozer
Source: Federal Transit Administration: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018. *RMS velocity in decibels, VdB re 1 micro-in/sec
Construction Equipment Vibration Source Levels
Loaded Trucks
NEC Foothill Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
25 19772
NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
26 19772

6. NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACTS
This section analyzes the significance of project-related noise and groundborne vibration impacts relative to standards established by the City of Fontana and other applicable agencies in the context of CEQA. Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations) includes an environmental checklist that identifies issues upon which findings of significance should be made. The CEQA Environmental Checklist Appendix G, XIII. Noise, requires determination if the project would 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 area to excessive noise levels?

NOISE IMPACTS
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?
Finding: Less Than Significant
In relation to the Environmental Checklist noise issue “a”, applicable standards established by the City of Fontana can be categorized into the following areas:
 Construction Noise
 Operational Noise
Project Construction
On-Site Equipment
Construction noise is regulated within City of Fontana Municipal Code Section 18-63(b)(7) which prohibits construction activities outside the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM on weekdays and 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturdays. However, neither the City of Fontana General Plan or Municipal Code establish numeric maximum acceptable construction source noise levels at potentially affected receivers, which would allow for a quantified determination of what CEQA consists as a substantial temporary or periodic noise increase. Therefore, a numerical construction noise threshold based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is used for analysis of daytime construction impacts, as discussed below.

According to the FTA, local noise ordinances are typically not very useful in evaluating construction noise.

They usually relate to nuisance and hours of allowed activity, and sometimes specify limits in terms of maximum levels, but are generally not practical for assessing the impact of a construction project. Project construction noise criteria should account for the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land use. Due to the lack of standardized construction noise thresholds, the FTA provides guidelines that can be considered reasonable 26 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
27 19772
criteria for construction noise assessment. The FTA considers a daytime (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) exterior construction noise level of 80 dBA Leq for noise sensitive residential land uses and 85 dBA Leq for commercial uses. In addition, the FTA considers a nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) exterior construction noise level of 70 dBA Leq for noise sensitive residential land uses and 85 dBA Leq for commercial uses.

Accordingly, the project would result in a significant impact if:
 Project construction occurs outside the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM on weekdays;  Project construction occurs outside the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturdays;  Project construction noise exceeds 80 dBA Leq during the daytime (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) or 70 dBA Leq during the nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) at residential uses; or,  Project construction noise exceeds 85 dBA Leq during the daytime (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) or nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) at commercial uses.

Project construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors were calculated using the FTA methodology.

Construction noise modeling worksheets for each phase are provided in Appendix D. Anticipated noise levels during each construction phase are presented in Table 9.

As shown in Table 9, modeled construction noise levels are forecast to reach up to 68.2 dBA Leq at the nearest existing residential property line to the north, 74.7 dBA Leq at the nearest existing trail property line to the north, 63.6 dBA Leq at the nearest existing park property line to the northeast, 71.4 dBA Leq at the nearest existing residential property line to the northeast, 70.1 dBA Leq at the nearest existing industrial property line to the south, 66.8 dBA Leq at the nearest existing residential property line to the southwest, 68.7 dBA Leq at the nearest existing commercial property line to the southwest, 71.9 dBA Leq at the nearest existing commercial property line to the west, and 71.5 dBA Leq at the nearest existing commercial/public works property line to the northwest of the project site.

Based on the modeled construction noise levels (see Table 9), construction noise levels will not exceed the daytime FTA residential construction noise standards of 80 dBA Leq for residential uses and 85 dBA Leq for commercial uses. In addition, the modeled construction noise levels do not exceed the nighttime FTA construction noise threshold of 85 dBA Leq for commercial uses. However, the nighttime FTA construction noise threshold of 70 dBA Leq for residential uses will potentially be exceeded at the residential uses to the northeast of the project site if construction activities occur between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.

Project construction will not occur outside of the hours outlined in the City of Fontana Municipal Code Section 18-63(b)(7) (6:00 PM to 7:00 AM on weekdays and 5:00 PM and 8:00 AM on Saturdays); therefore, the project would not undergo construction activities during the FTA noise sensitive nighttime hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Therefore, the project is not expected to exceed established standards relating to construction noise. The project impact would be less than significant, no mitigation is required.

Notwithstanding the above, best management practices (BMPs) provided in the Project Description can be added to project plans and in contract specifications to minimize construction noise emanating from the proposed project.

Off-Site Vehicle Trips
The Fontana Forward General Plan 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report utilizes three main categories to determine if a noise impact is substantial, as detailed below. Only audible changes in noise level are considered potentially significant:

1. Audible – refers to increases in noise levels that are perceptible to humans, generally refers to a change of 3 dBA or more since this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments; a change of 5 dBA is readily audible to most people in an exterior environment. 27 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
28 19772

2. Potentially audible – refers to a change in noise level between 1 and 3 dBA. This range of noise levels was found to be noticeable to sensitive people in laboratory environments.

3. Inaudible – refers to noise level of less than 1 dBA that are typically "inaudible" to the human ear except under quiet conditions in controlled environments.

Construction truck trips would occur throughout the construction period. Foothill Boulevard currently handles approximately 13,175 average daily vehicle trips and Sultana Avenue currently handles approximately 3,210 average daily vehicle trips in the vicinity of the project site.2 According to CalEEMod data prepared for the proposed project (Lilburn, 2024), the greatest number of construction-related vehicle trips per day would be during building construction at up to 171 vehicle trips per day (148 worker trips and 22.6 vendor trips per day). Given the project site’s proximity to the Interstate 15 freeway and State Route 210 freeways, it is anticipated that vendor and/or haul truck traffic would take the most direct route to the appropriate freeway ramps. Therefore, the addition of project construction vehicles per day along off-site roadway segments would not be anticipated to result in a doubling of traffic volumes necessary to increase noise levels by 3 dBA. Offsite project generated construction vehicle trips would result in a negligible noise level increase and would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant; no mitigation measures are required.

Project Operational Noise
On-Site Project Generated Operational Noise Sources
The proposed project is located on a parcel zoned for residential land uses, but it is bordered on three sides with parcels zoned for commercial and industrial land uses. Vacant property immediately east of the project site is also zoned residential. The closest existing noise sensitive land use is located approximately 80 feet northeast of the project site.

Section 30.469 of the City of Fontana Municipal Code prohibits the project from generating on-site noise that exceeds 65 dBA Leq between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM or from exceeding 45 dBA Leq between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM on a property zoned for residential land uses.

Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the modeled operational noise levels and contours; SoundPLAN worksheets are provided in Appendix E. Project operational noise will consist of passenger vehicles coming and leaving and heating and ventilation units (HVAC). A HVAC plan has not yet been developed but they are expected to service individual units. Using a conservative estimate that the HVAC plan will propose 3-ton units3 outside of each unit with a sound power level of 74 dBA; and assuming that three units are hypothetically located at the northeast corner of the project site, facing the nearest sensitive receptor, the resulting noise level at full operation would be 40 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receptor. HVAC noise associated with the proposed project would not exceed daytime or nighttime stationary noise standards; no mitigation is required.

Most parking onsite will be located within the proposed building under the proposed residential units. Outdoor parking areas will generate noise associated with vehicles arriving and leaving and occasional conversation and would not contribute substantially to ambient noise levels. The project will not exceed the City’s daytime 2 Existing average daily vehicle trips were estimated by use of the measured ambient noise levels (see Table 1), STNM5 was used for Foothill Boulevard and STNM3 was used for Sultana Avenue. 3 Carrier® Comfort™ - 3 Ton, 14 SEER, Packaged Heat Pump System (208/230-3-60) | Peirce-Phelps LLC – Sound Power level of 74 dBA.
28 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
29 19772
or nighttime stationary noise standards at nearby residential land uses. The project impact is less than significant; no mitigation is required.

Offsite Project Generated Operational Noise Sources
Project generated mobile vehicle noise is evaluated in light of the City of Fontana’s Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report (June 8, 2018), which establishes noise level criteria of 65 dBA CNEL. Furthermore, as stated previously, the Fontana Forward General Plan 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report also utilizes three main categories to determine if a noise impact is substantial, as detailed below. Only audible changes in noise level are considered potentially significant:

4. Audible – refers to increases in noise levels that are perceptible to humans, generally refers to a change of 3 dBA or more since this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments; a change of 5 dBA is readily audible to most people in an exterior environment.

5. Potentially audible – refers to a change in noise level between 1 and 3 dBA. This range of noise levels was found to be noticeable to sensitive people in laboratory environments.

6. Inaudible – refers to noise level of less than 1 dBA that are typically "inaudible" to the human ear except under quiet conditions in controlled environments.

Roadway noise levels were calculated along W. Foothill Boulevard and Sultana Avenue in the vicinity of the project site based on the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model methodology. As shown in the VMT Screening Assessment (K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc., December 2, 2024), during operation the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 1,604 net average daily trips with 90 trips during the AM peak-hour and 119 trips during the PM peak-hour. Roadway noise levels were calculated for the following scenarios:
 Existing (without Project): This scenario refers to existing year traffic noise conditions.  Existing Plus Project: This scenario refers to existing year plus project traffic noise conditions.

Table 10 shows the change in existing roadway noise levels with the addition of project-generated operational trips. FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix F.

As shown in Table 10, modeled existing traffic noise levels range between 64.1 and 72.9 dBA CNEL and modeled Existing Plus Project traffic noise levels range between 65.9 and 73.4 dBA CNEL at the right-of-way of the roadway segments. The addition of project trips is not expected to change noise levels in excess of audible threshold of a 3 dB increase at any of the study roadway segments (see Table 10). The project impact is less than significant; no mitigation is required.

Future Roadway Noise Levels at the Project Site
Exterior Noise Levels
Future traffic noise levels associated with Sultana Avenue and W. Foothill Boulevard were modeled at the proposed project site using the SoundPLAN noise model in order to determine the project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan Noise Element Criteria of 65 dBA CNEL for residential land uses and the State of California Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines for the proposed commercial land uses.

As shown on Figure 6 and Figure 7 and in Table 11, modeled future traffic noise levels at proposed residential units vary between 58 and 74 dBA CNEL and they will exceed the City’s exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL. However, there are no proposed outdoor use areas that would be affected by these noise levels. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Future traffic noise levels at the proposed commercial building adjacent to W. Foothill Boulevard are also shown on Figure 6 and Table 12. As stated in the City’s General Plan Noise Element, State of California Office 29 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
30 19772
of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines are to be followed with respect to acoustical study requirements. Therefore, the land use compatibility criteria for commercial land uses apply to the proposed commercial land use. Commercial land uses are considered “normally acceptable” in noise environments up to 70 dBA CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” in noise environments up to 77.5 dBA CNEL. As shown in Figure 6, future traffic noise levels at the proposed commercial building can be expected to reach up to 75 dBA CNEL and will not exceed the “conditionally acceptable” land use category.

Interior Noise Levels
The State of California Building Code requirement for the interior of multiple family residential units is 45 dBA CNEL4. New construction provides at least 20 dB reduction from outdoor noise levels. Where exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL (see Figure 6 and Table 11), interior noise levels can be lowered to 45 dBA CNEL or lower with installation of upgraded windows. Impacts would be less than significant with the installation of upgraded windows.

For the proposed commercial building, California Green Code Section 5.507 requires wall/window assemblies exposed to a noise source of 65 dBA Leq or more to meet a composite STC rating of at least 45, and an exterior window rating of 40 STC. Installation of windows with an STC rating of 40 will ensure acceptable noise levels within the proposed commercial building (Table 12). This impact would be less than significant with compliance with California Green Code Section 5.507.4.1.1.

GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION IMPACTS
Would the project result in:
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Finding: Less Than Significant
The City of Fontana Municipal Code Sections 30-543 states that no person shall create or cause to be created any activity which causes a vibration which can be felt beyond the property line of any residentially zoned property with or without the aid of an instrument. Furthermore, the Fontana Forward General Plan 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report also states that, based on the aforementioned portion of the City’s Municipal Code, unless the vibration results in physical damage to local structures, it does not constitute a significant impact. Therefore, in relation to the Environmental Checklist noise issue “b”, the City of Fontana has not established numerical thresholds of significance concerning groundborne vibration. In the absence of City-established numerical thresholds, groundborne vibration impacts are based on guidance from the Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (California Department of Transportation, 2020) (see Regulatory Setting section). Accordingly, the project would result in a significant impact if:
 Groundborne vibration levels generated by the project have the potential to cause architectural damage at nearby buildings by exceeding the following PPV:
□ 0.08 in/sec at extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments □ 0.10 in/sec at fragile buildings
□ 0.25 in/sec at historic and some old buildings
□ 0.30 in/sec at older residential structures
□ 0.50 in/sec at new residential structures and modern industrial/commercial buildings.  Groundborne vibration levels generated by the project have the potential to cause severe annoyance to people living or working in nearby buildings by exceeding a PPV of 0.4 in/sec. 4 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2 Section 1206.4, Allowable interior noise levels. 30 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
31 19772
Groundborne vibration modeling worksheets are provided in Appendix G.

Based on the groundborne vibration modeling, as shown in Table 13, the Caltrans thresholds of 0.3 PPV in/sec for older residential structures and 0.5 PPV in/sec for industrial/commercial buildings will not be exceeded at any of the existing structures surrounding the project site. Furthermore, as shown in Table 13, the use of vibratory rollers and large bulldozers would also not exceed the threshold for annoyance due to vibration (PPV of 0.4 in/sec at offsite residential sensitive uses). Other equipment anticipated to be used during project construction would generate lower PPV. Therefore, groundborne vibration generated by project construction would not exceed the levels necessary to cause architectural damage or annoyance to sensitive receptors.

The most substantial sources of groundborne vibration during post-construction project operations will include the movement of passenger vehicles and trucks on paved and generally smooth surfaces. Loaded trucks generally have a PPV of 0.076 at a distance of 25 feet (Caltrans 2020), which is a substantially lower PPV than that of a vibratory roller (0.210 in/sec PPV at 25 feet). Therefore, groundborne vibration levels generated by project operation would not exceed those modeled for project construction.

AIR TRAFFIC IMPACTS
Would the project result in:
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 area to excessive noise levels? Finding: No Impact
The closest airport to the project site is the LA/Ontario International Airport, with airport runways located as close as approximately 7.3 miles southwest of the project site. Per the Fontana Forward General Plan 2015- 2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report Figure 5.10-1, the project site is located well outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for the airport. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with airports. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
31 Table 9 (1 of 2)
Construction Noise Levels
Phase Receptor Location
Construction
Noise Levels
(dBA Leq)1
Applicable
Daytime
FTA
Threshold
(dBA Leq)2
FTA
Threshold
Exceeded?
Applicable
Nighttime
FTA
Threshold
(dBA Leq)2
FTA
Threshold
Exceeded?
Residential to North (15475 Vanilla Bean Lane) 67.2 80 No 70 No Trail to North (Pacific Electric Trail) 73.8 85 No 85 No Park Use to Northeast (Energy Prime, 8005 Sultana Ave) 62.6 85 No 85 No Residential to Northeast (15523 Sesame Seed Ave) 70.5 80 No 70 No Industrial to South (Taylored Services Warehouse, 8375 Sultana Ave) 69.2 85 No 85 No Residential to Southwest (8134 Sultana Ave) 65.8 80 No 70 No Commercial to Southwest (15395 Foothill Blvd) 67.8 85 No 85 No Commercial to West (Fontana Nursery, 15380 Foothill Blvd) 70.9 85 No 85 No Commercial/Public Works to Northwest (7980 Sultana Ave) 70.6 85 No 85 No Residential to North (15475 Vanilla Bean Lane) 68.2 80 No 70 No Trail to North (Pacific Electric Trail) 74.7 85 No 85 No Park Use to Northeast (Energy Prime, 8005 Sultana Ave) 63.6 85 No 85 No Residential to Northeast (15523 Sesame Seed Ave) 71.4 80 No 70 No Industrial to South (Taylored Services Warehouse, 8375 Sultana Ave) 70.1 85 No 85 No Residential to Southwest (8134 Sultana Ave) 66.8 80 No 70 No Commercial to Southwest (15395 Foothill Blvd) 67.8 85 No 85 No Commercial to West (Fontana Nursery, 15380 Foothill Blvd) 71.9 85 No 85 No Commercial/Public Works to Northwest (7980 Sultana Ave) 71.5 85 No 85 No Residential to North (15475 Vanilla Bean Lane) 67.8 80 No 70 No Trail to North (Pacific Electric Trail) 74.3 85 No 85 No Park Use to Northeast (Energy Prime, 8005 Sultana Ave) 63.2 85 No 85 No Residential to Northeast (15523 Sesame Seed Ave) 71.0 80 No 70 No Industrial to South (Taylored Services Warehouse, 8375 Sultana Ave) 69.7 85 No 85 No Residential to Southwest (8134 Sultana Ave) 66.4 80 No 70 No Commercial to Southwest (15395 Foothill Blvd) 68.7 85 No 85 No Commercial to West (Fontana Nursery, 15380 Foothill Blvd) 71.5 85 No 85 No Commercial/Public Works to Northwest (7980 Sultana Ave) 71.1 85 No 85 No Residential to North (15475 Vanilla Bean Lane) 66.4 80 No 70 No Trail to North (Pacific Electric Trail) 72.9 85 No 85 No Park Use to Northeast (Energy Prime, 8005 Sultana Ave) 61.8 85 No 85 No Residential to Northeast (15523 Sesame Seed Ave) 69.7 80 No 70 No Industrial to South (Taylored Services Warehouse, 8375 Sultana Ave) 68.4 85 No 85 No Residential to Southwest (8134 Sultana Ave) 65.0 80 No 70 No Commercial to Southwest (15395 Foothill Blvd) 67.0 85 No 85 No Commercial to West (Fontana Nursery, 15380 Foothill Blvd) 70.1 85 No 85 No Commercial/Public Works to Northwest (7980 Sultana Ave) 69.7 85 No 85 No Grading
Building
Construction
Site
Preparation
Demolition
NEC Foothill Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
32 19772
Table 9 (2 of 2)
Construction Noise Levels
Phase Receptor Location
Construction
Noise Levels
(dBA Leq)1
Applicable
Daytime
FTA
Threshold
(dBA Leq)2
FTA
Threshold
Exceeded?
Applicable
Nighttime
FTA
Threshold
(dBA Leq)2
FTA
Threshold
Exceeded?
Residential to North (15475 Vanilla Bean Lane) 64.9 80 No 70 No Trail to North (Pacific Electric Trail) 71.4 85 No 85 No Park Use to Northeast (Energy Prime, 8005 Sultana Ave) 60.3 85 No 85 No Residential to Northeast (15523 Sesame Seed Ave) 68.1 80 No 70 No Industrial to South (Taylored Services Warehouse, 8375 Sultana Ave) 66.9 85 No 85 No Residential to Southwest (8134 Sultana Ave) 63.5 80 No 70 No Commercial to Southwest (15395 Foothill Blvd) 65.5 85 No 85 No Commercial to West (Fontana Nursery, 15380 Foothill Blvd) 68.6 85 No 85 No Commercial/Public Works to Northwest (7980 Sultana Ave) 68.2 85 No 85 No Residential to North (15475 Vanilla Bean Lane) 54.4 80 No 70 No Trail to North (Pacific Electric Trail) 61.0 85 No 85 No Park Use to Northeast (Energy Prime, 8005 Sultana Ave) 49.9 85 No 85 No Residential to Northeast (15523 Sesame Seed Ave) 57.7 80 No 70 No Industrial to South (Taylored Services Warehouse, 8375 Sultana Ave) 56.4 85 No 85 No Residential to Southwest (8134 Sultana Ave) 53.1 80 No 70 No Commercial to Southwest (15395 Foothill Blvd) 55.0 85 No 85 No Commercial to West (Fontana Nursery, 15380 Foothill Blvd) 58.2 85 No 85 No Commercial/Public Works to Northwest (7980 Sultana Ave) 57.8 85 No 85 No Notes:
uses. In addition, the FTA considers a nighttime exterior construction noise level of 70 dBA Leq for noise sensitive residential land uses and 85 dBA Leq for commercial uses.
(1) Construction noise worksheets are provided in Appendix D.

Paving
Architectural
Coating
NEC Foothill Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
33 19772
Existing
Without
Project at
right-of-way
Existing Plus
Project at
right-of-way
Change in
Noise Level
Exceeds
Standards3
Increase of
3 dB or
More?
Foothill Boulevard In the Vicinity of the Project Site 66 72.9 73.4 0.50 Yes No Sultana Avenue In the Vicinity of the Project Site 40 64.1 65.9 1.76 No No Notes:
(2) Roadway centerline to right-of-way based on Figure 9.2, Hierarchy of Streets in Fontana, from the Community and Mobility and Circulation Element of the Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2025 (2017).

Distance from
roadway
centerline to
right-of-way
(feet)2
(3) Per the City of Fontana exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL for residential zoning districts (see Table 5).

Increase in Existing Noise Levels Due to Project Generated Vehicle Traffic Table 10
(1) Exterior noise levels calculated 5 feet above pad elevation, perpendicular to subject roadway.

Roadway Segment
Modeled Noise Levels (dBA CNEL)1
NEC Foothill Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
34 19772
Building Side Floor
Modeled Future
Traffic Noise Level1
(dBA, CNEL)
Necessary Reduction (dB) to
Achieve Interior Noise Level of
45 dBA CNEL or Less
Required Window and Sliding
Glass Door STC Ratings
1 69 24.0 27.0
2 69 24.0 27.0
3 69 24.0 27.0
4 69 24.0 27.0
1 72 27.0 30.0
2 66 21.0 24.0
3 58 13.0 16.0
4 58 13.0 15.0
1 68 23.0 26.0
2 68 23.0 26.0
3 69 24.0 27.0
4 72 27.0 30.0
1 74 29.0 32.0
2 74 29.0 32.0
3 74 29.0 32.0
4 74 29.0 32.0
Notes:
(1) See Figure 6.
(2) See Receptor 9 on Figure 6.

Western Half of the North
Facing Building Façade
Southern Building Façade
South Half of the East Facing
Building Façade
Western Building Façade
Table 11
Future Traffic Noise Levels and Required Window STC Ratings - Proposed Residential Building NEC Foothill Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
35 19772
Building Side
Modeled Exterior
Noise Level1
(dBA, CNEL)
Necessary Reduction (dB) to
Achieve Interior Noise Level of
45 dBA CNEL or Less
Recquired Window and Sliding
Glass Door STC Ratings
75 30.0 33.0
75 30.0 33.0
75 30.0 33.0
75 30.0 33.0
Table 12
Future Traffic Noise Levels and Required Window STC Ratings - Proposed Commercial Building South, East and West Facades
NEC Foothill Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
36 19772
Receptor Location
Distance from
Property Line to
Nearest
Structure (feet) Equipment
Vibration
Level
(PPV)1
Potential
Architectural
Damage
Threshold
(PPV)2
Threshold
Exceeded?
143 Vibratory Roller 0.015 0.3 No
143 Large Bulldozer 0.007 0.3 No
95 Vibratory Roller 0.028 0.3 No
95 Large Bulldozer 0.012 0.3 No
202 Vibratory Roller 0.009 0.5 No
202 Large Bulldozer 0.004 0.5 No
184 Vibratory Roller 0.011 0.5 No
184 Large Bulldozer 0.004 0.5 No
225 Vibratory Roller 0.008 0.5 No
225 Large Bulldozer 0.003 0.5 No
58 Vibratory Roller 0.059 0.5 No
58 Large Bulldozer 0.025 0.5 No
(2) Caltrans guidance identifies the threshold at which there is a risk of architectural damage as 0.3 in/sec PPV at older residential structures and 0.5 in/sec PPV at modern industrial/commercial buildings (see Table 3). (1) PPV = Peak Particle Velocity in inches per second.

Notes:

Table 13
Construction Vibration Levels at the Nearest Receptors
Residential to North (15459 Vanilla Bean Lane, Fontana) Commercial/Public Works to Northwest (7980 Sultana
Avenue, Fontana)
Residential to Northeast (15523 Sesame Seed Avenue,
Fontana)
Industrial to South (Taylored Services Warehouse, 8375
Sultana Avenue, Fontana)
Commercial to Southwest (15395 Foothill Boulevard,
Fontana)
Commercial to West (Fontana Nursery, 15380 Foothill
Boulevard, Fontana)
NEC Foothill Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
37 19772
Figure 6
Operational Noise Levels
NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
38 19772
Figure 7
Operational Noise Contours
NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
39 19772
NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
40 19772

7. REFERENCES
California, State of, Department of Transportation
2020 Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April.

Environmental Protection Agency
1974 "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health And Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety," EPA/ONAC 550/9-74-004, March 1974.

Federal Transit Administration
2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Emissions.

Fontana, City of
2018 Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report. June 8. 2018 Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035. November 13.

K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc.
2024 VMT Screening Assessment Proposed 204-Unit Apartment and Retail NEC of Foothill and Sultana St, Fontana. December 2.

Office of Planning and Research
2017 State of California General Plan Guidelines
Riverside, County of
2001 General Plan, Chapter 4, Figure C-3 "Link Volume Capacities/Level of Service for Riverside County Roadways".
2009 County of Riverside Industrial Hygiene Guidelines for Determining and Mitigating Traffic Noise Impacts to Residential Structures and County.
2015 County of Riverside General Plan
2015 County of Riverside Municipal Code.

Stautins, Carl
2014 Warehouse & Forklift Noise Exposure – Noise Testing. November 4, 2014.

U.S. Department of Transportation
2006 FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. January. 40 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed-Use
Noise Impact Analysis
41 19772

APPENDICES
Appendix A List of Acronyms
Appendix B Glossary
Appendix C Noise Measurement Field Worksheets
Appendix D Construction Noise Model Worksheets
Appendix E SoundPLAN Worksheets
Appendix F FHWA Traffic Noise Model Worksheets
Appendix G Groundborne Vibration Worksheets
Apx-1

APPENDIX A

LIST OF ACRONYMS
Apx-2
Term Definition
ADT
ANSI
CEQA
CNEL
D/E/N
dB
dBA or dB(A)
dBA/DD
dBA Leq
EPA
FHWA
L02,L08,L50,L90
DNL
Leq(x)
Leq
Lmax
Lmin
Lp
LOS C
Lw
OPR
PPV
RCNM
REMEL
RMS
Average Daily Traffic
American National Standard Institute
California Environmental Quality Act
Community Noise Equivalent Level
Day / Evening / Night
Decibel
Decibel "A-Weighted"
Decibel per Double Distance
Average Noise Level over a Period of Time
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Highway Administration
A-weighted Noise Levels at 2 percent, 8 percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent, respectively, of the time period
Day-Night Average Noise Level
Equivalent Noise Level for '"x" period of time
Equivalent Noise Level
Maximum Level of Noise (measured using a sound level meter) Minimum Level of Noise (measured using a sound level meter) Sound pressure level
Level of Service C
Sound Power Level
California Governor's Office of Planning and Research
Peak Particle Velocities
Road Construction Noise Model
Reference Energy Mean Emission Level
Root Mean Square
Apx-3

APPENDIX B

GLOSSARY
Apx-4
Term Definition
Ambient Noise
Level
The all-encompassing noise environment associated with a given environment, at a specified time, usually a composite of sound from many sources, at many directions, near and far, in which usually no particular sound is dominant.

A-Weighted Sound
Level, dBA
The sound level obtained by use of A-weighting. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear.

CNEL
Community Noise Equivalent Level. CNEL is a weighted 24-hour noise level that is obtained by adding five decibels to sound levels in the evening (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM), and by adding ten decibels to sound levels at night (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM). This weighting accounts for the increased human sensitivity to noise during the evening and nighttime hours.

Decibel, dB
A logarithmic unit of noise level measurement that relates the energy of a noise source to that of a constant reference level; the number of decibels is 10 times the logarithm (to the base 10) of this ratio.

DNL, Ldn
Day Night Level. The DNL, or Ldn is a weighted 24-hour noise level that is obtained by adding ten decibels to sound levels at night (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM). This weighting accounts for the increased human sensitivity to noise during the nighttime hours.

Equivalent
Continuous Noise
Level, Leq
A level of steady state sound that in a stated time period, and a stated location, has the same A-weighted sound energy as the time-varying sound.

Fast/Slow Meter
Response
The fast and slow meter responses are different settings on a sound level meter. The fast response setting takes a measurement every 100 milliseconds, while a slow setting takes one every second.

Frequency, Hertz In a function periodic in time, the number of times that the quantity repeats itself in one second (i.e., the number of cycles per second).

L02, L08, L50, L90
The A-weighted noise levels that are equaled or exceeded by a fluctuating sound level, 2 percent, 8 percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent of a stated time period, respectively.

Lmax, Lmin
Lmax is the RMS (root mean squared) maximum level of a noise source or environment measured on a sound level meter, during a designated time interval, using fast meter response. Lmin is the minimum level.

Offensive/
Offending/Intrusive
Noise
The noise that intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location.

The relative intrusiveness of sound depends on its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence, and tonal information content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.

Root Mean Square
(RMS)
A measure of the magnitude of a varying noise source quantity. The name derives from the calculation of the square root of the mean of the squares of the values. It can be calculated from either a series of lone values or a continuous varying function.

Apx-5

APPENDIX C

NOISE MEASUREMENT FIELD WORKSHEETS
Apx-6
Noise Measurement
Field Data
Project Name: Fontana Downtown West Parking Structure Date:

Project #:

Noise Measurement #: Technician:

Weather: Settings: SLOW FAST
Temperature: 76 deg F Wind: 2 mph Humidity: 12% Terrain:

Start Time: 1:00 PM End Time: 1:15 PM Run Time:

Leq: 48.6 dB Traffic noise from vehicles traveling along Foothill Blvd ( E-W ) & Sultana Ave ( N-S ).

Lmax 60.1 dB Traffic ambiance from other surrounding roads.

L2 54.2 dB Leaf rustle from 2mph breeze. Bird song. Some residential ambiance.

L8 51.9 dB Joggers & cyclists passing STNM1 along concrete track ( Pacific Electric Track ).

L25 49.4 dB
L50 47.2 dB
NOISE METER: CALIBRATOR:

MAKE: MAKE:

MODEL: MODEL:

SERIAL NUMBER: SERIAL NUMBER:

FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

FIELD CALIBRATION DATE:
7/31/2024 7/10/2024
11/21/2024
FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

Larson Davis
LXT1
3099
Larson Davis
CAL 250
2723
Primary Noise Source:

Secondary Noise Sources:

Flat
Site Description (Type of Existing Land Use and any other notable features):

SoundTrack LXT Class 1
<5% cloud, sunshine. Sunset 4:42 PM
Larson Davis CAL 250
Measurement Site: Taken within concrete jogging/cycling path (running SE-NW) just S of Sesame Seed Ave. Adjacent: Foothill Blvd (running E-W) ~510' south, Sultana Ave (running N-S) ~360' west. Vacant, cleared land to south and residential to the north.

November 21, 2024
Ian Edward Gallagher
Nearest Address or Cross Street: 15523 Sesame Seed Avenue, Fontana, CA 92336 STNM1 Run Time: 15 minutes
19772
Apx-7
Noise Measurement
Field Data
PHOTOS:

STNM1 looking NW along jogger/ cyclist track towads Sultana Ave intersection STNM1 looking NE to closest residence 15523 Sesame Seed Ave, Fontana. ( ~400' NW ). Jogger/ cyclist track converted from old unused rail line.

Apx-8
Summary
File Name on Meter LxT_Data.479.s
File Name on PC
Serial Number 0003099
Model SoundTrack LxT®
Firmware Version 2.404
User Ian Edward Gallagher
Location STNM1 34° 6'28.52"N 117°28'3.93"W
Job Description 15 minute noise measurement
Note
Measurement
Start 2024-11-21 13:00:43
Stop 2024-11-21 13:15:43
Duration 00:15:00.0
Run Time 00:15:00.0
Pause 00:00:00.0
Pre-Calibration 2024-11-21 13:00:15
Post-Calibration None
Calibration Deviation ---
Overall Settings
RMS Weight A Weighting
Peak Weight A Weighting
Detector Slow
Preamplifier PRMLxT1L
Microphone Correction Off
Integration Method Linear
OBA Range Normal
OBA Bandwidth 1/1 and 1/3
OBA Frequency Weighting C Weighting
OBA Max Spectrum At LMax
Overload 122.1 dB
Results
LAeq 48.6
LAE 78.1
EA 7.251 µPa²h
EA8 232.020 µPa²h
EA40 1.160 mPa²h
LApeak (max) 2024-11-21 13:05:49 87.5 dB
LASmax 2024-11-21 13:14:45 60.1 dB
LASmin 2024-11-21 13:02:32 39.0 dB
Statistics
LCeq 64.0 dB LA2.00 54.2 dB
LAeq 48.6 dB LA8.00 51.9 dB
LCeq - LAeq 15.4 dB LA25.00 49.4 dB
LAIeq 50.8 dB LA50.00 47.2 dB
LAeq 48.6 dB LA66.60 45.9 dB
LAIeq - LAeq 2.2 dB LA90.00 43.5 dB
Overload Count 0
Overload Duration 0.0 s
LxT_0003099-20241121 130043-LxT_Data.479.ldbin
Ganddini Project # 19772 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed Use, City of Fontana Apx-9








 




!"#$%&# '


 




!((()(&&*+(+$,,+, ,)(($)*
!"#$%&#
-.


, ((()(&& /
+#$($ 0
 1 2-/- 3

45


6
 7
, )$8 9+:#;+<
,,%8+:)#&)<= >
. "
6

 ,; 








3-- ?
@
6 A ,&%%+
2' 

5

B 7
 
- 0
C 'D
E 
 7 
+(+$*,,*+, ,)F((F$) "
 (F,;F((#( 2- 
+(+$*,,*+, ,)F,;F$)
 
?

(F((F((#(

GHG IJ


6
K
L $:#9 -M
K2 %:#, -M 72K *** -M 2K %#) N?O5
K ; ;+#( -M 2K: +)+#( N?O5 2K$( ,#+ ?O5
K

P :%#; -M +(+$*,,*+, ,)F(;F$&
K7 9(#, -M +(+$*,,*+, ,)F,$F$;  )&#( -M +(+$*,,*+, ,)F(+F)+ K
L $:#9 -M
' 9$#( -M
'
L *
K
L ,;#$ -M
K1
L ;(#: -M
K1
L *
K
L +#+ -M 26

-6
 '
 "

K7 Q 9;#( -M ( (F((F((#(
K7 Q :;#( -M
K

P Q ,);#( -M
K

P Q ,)%#( -M
K

P Q ,$(#( -M '
D



"

"D

45 *** -M *** -M (#( -M
"2

"D
2J

45 *** -M *** -M *** -M *** -M KD " K ' R

J


7

J


7

J


7

L $:#9 -M 9$#( -M *** -M
ST 9(#, -M +(+$*,,*+, ,)F,$F$; *** -M *** -M
7ST )&#( -M +(+$*,,*+, ,)F(+F)+ *** -M *** -M
?
PST :%#; -M +(+$*,,*+, ,)F(;F$& *** -M *** -M IJ


- '
 "
 IMK '
 IMK "
 ( (F((F((#( ( (F((F((#( 76
K7 +#( ;$#+ -M
K7 :#( ;,#& -M
K7 +;#( $&#$ -M
K7 ;(#( $%#+ -M
K7 99#9 $;#& -M
K7 &(#( $)#; -M
Apx-10








       
    







            ! 
! "
! "
! 





 #$
            ! 
! "
! "
!
Apx-11






 
 










 


 







 
 










 



 
 








 
 










 



 
 

Apx-12







 
 










 









Apx-13
Noise Measurement
Field Data
Project Name: Fontana Downtown West Parking Structure Date:

Project #:

Noise Measurement #: Technician:

Weather: Settings: SLOW FAST
Temperature: 76 deg F Wind: 2 mph Humidity: 12% Terrain:

Start Time: 1:28 PM End Time: 1:43 PM Run Time:

Leq: 62 dB Traffic noise from the 121 vehicles traveling along Sultana Ave passing microphone Lmax 75.4 dB just W of STNM2. Traffic ambiance from Foothill Blvd & other surrounding roads.

L2 70.1 dB Leaf rustle from 2mph breeze. Bird song. Some residential ambiance.

L8 67.0 dB Joggers & cyclists passing STNM2 along concrete track.

L25 63.2 dB
L50 55.6 dB
NOISE METER: CALIBRATOR:

MAKE: MAKE:

MODEL: MODEL:

SERIAL NUMBER: SERIAL NUMBER:

FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

FIELD CALIBRATION DATE:

November 21, 2024
Ian Edward Gallagher
Nearest Address or Cross Street: 15459 Vanilla Bean Lane, Fontana, CA 92336 STNM2 Run Time: 15 minutes
19772
Primary Noise Source:

Secondary Noise Sources:

Flat
Site Description (Type of Existing Land Use and any other notable features):

SoundTrack LXT Class 1
<5% cloud, sunshine. Sunset 4:42 PM
Larson Davis CAL 250
Measurement Site: Just southwest of residential use along Vanilla Bean Lane and northwest of retention basin to east of Sultana Ave. Adjacent: Foothill Blvd (running E-W) ~730' south and Sultana Ave (running N-S) just west. Vacant land jogging/cycling lane ( Pacific Electric Track ) to south and residential to the north/northeast. 7/31/2024 7/10/2024
11/21/2024
FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

Larson Davis
LXT1
3099
Larson Davis
CAL 250
2723
Apx-14
Noise Measurement
Field Data
PHOTOS:

STNM2 looking N along Sultana Avenue ( on the left ). Closest residence 15459 Vanilla STNM2 looking SW where jogging/cycling lane ( Pacific Electric Track ) crosses Bean Lane, Fontana ( on the right ). Sultana Avenue.

Apx-15
Summary
File Name on Meter LxT_Data.480.s
File Name on PC
Serial Number 0003099
Model SoundTrack LxT®
Firmware Version 2.404
User Ian Edward Gallagher
Location STNM2 34° 6'31.18"N 117°28'7.89"W
Job Description 15 minute noise measurement
Note
Measurement
Start 2024-11-21 13:28:10
Stop 2024-11-21 13:43:10
Duration 00:15:00.0
Run Time 00:15:00.0
Pause 00:00:00.0
Pre-Calibration 2024-11-21 13:27:49
Post-Calibration None
Calibration Deviation ---
Overall Settings
RMS Weight A Weighting
Peak Weight A Weighting
Detector Slow
Preamplifier PRMLxT1L
Microphone Correction Off
Integration Method Linear
OBA Range Normal
OBA Bandwidth 1/1 and 1/3
OBA Frequency Weighting C Weighting
OBA Max Spectrum At LMax
Overload 122.3 dB
Results
LAeq 62.0
LAE 91.6
EA 159.862 µPa²h
EA8 5.116 mPa²h
EA40 25.578 mPa²h
LApeak (max) 2024-11-21 13:32:51 93.8 dB
LASmax 2024-11-21 13:33:16 75.4 dB
LASmin 2024-11-21 13:40:37 38.7 dB
Statistics
LCeq 70.9 dB LA2.00 70.1 dB
LAeq 62.0 dB LA8.00 67.0 dB
LCeq - LAeq 8.9 dB LA25.00 63.2 dB
LAIeq 63.6 dB LA50.00 55.6 dB
LAeq 62.0 dB LA66.60 49.8 dB
LAIeq - LAeq 1.6 dB LA90.00 43.1 dB
Overload Count 0
Overload Duration 0.0 s
LxT_0003099-20241121 132810-LxT_Data.480.ldbin
Ganddini Project # 19772 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed Use, City of Fontana Apx-16








 




!"#$%&# '


 




!&&&(&))*+&+$,,+, ,(+%,&*
!"#$%&#
-.


, &&&(&)) /
+#$&$ 0
 1 2-/- 3

45


6
 7
+ ($8 9(,#,%:
,,;8+%;#%):< =
. "
6

 ,> 








3-- ?
@
6 A ,);;+
2' 

5

B 7
 
- 0
C 'D
E 
 7 
+&+$*,,*+, ,(F+%F,& "
 &F,>F&&#& 2- 
+&+$*,,*+, ,(F$(F,&
 
?

&F&&F&&#&

GHG IJ


6
K
L 9+#& -M
K2 ),#9 -M 72K *** -M 2K ,>)#) N?O5
K > 99#; -M 2K% >#, ?O5 2K$& +>#9 ?O5
K

P )(#% -M +&+$*,,*+, ,(F(+F>,
K7 ;>#$ -M +&+$*,,*+, ,(F((F,9  (%#; -M +&+$*,,*+, ,(F$&F(; K
L 9+#& -M
' ;&#) -M
'
L *
K
L %#) -M
K1
L 9(#9 -M
K1
L *
K
L ,#9 -M 26

-6
 '
 "

K7 Q 9>#& -M +) &F&(F&%#$
K7 Q %>#& -M & &F&&F&&#&
K

P Q ,(>#& -M
K

P Q ,(;#& -M
K

P Q ,$&#& -M '
D



"

"D

45 *** -M *** -M &#& -M
"2

"D
2J

45 *** -M *** -M *** -M *** -M KD " K ' R

J


7

J


7

J


7

L 9+#& -M ;&#) -M *** -M
ST ;>#$ -M +&+$*,,*+, ,(F((F,9 *** -M *** -M
7ST (%#; -M +&+$*,,*+, ,(F$&F(; *** -M *** -M
?
PST )(#% -M +&+$*,,*+, ,(F(+F>, *** -M *** -M IJ


- '
 "
 IMK '
 IMK "
 & &F&&F&&#& & &F&&F&&#& 76
K7 +#& ;&#, -M
K7 %#& 9;#& -M
K7 +>#& 9(#+ -M
K7 >&#& >>#9 -M
K7 99#9 $)#% -M
K7 )&#& $(#, -M
Apx-17








       
    







    !          " 
" #
" #
" 





 $%
    !          " 
" #
" #
"
Apx-18






 
 
 







 













 
 
 







 
















 
 
 







 










Apx-19







 
 
 







 







Apx-20
Noise Measurement
Field Data
Project Name: Fontana Downtown West Parking Structure Date:

Project #:

Noise Measurement #: Technician:

Weather: Settings: SLOW FAST
Temperature: 76 deg F Wind: 2 mph Humidity: 12% Terrain:

Start Time: 2:03 PM End Time: 2:18 PM Run Time:

Leq: 60.7 dB Traffic noise from the 126 vehicles traveling along Sultana Ave, traffic noise from Lmax 76.9 dB Foothill Blvd. Traffic ambiance from other surrounding roads.

L2 67.3 dB Leaf rustle from 2mph breeze. Bird song. Some residential ambiance.

L8 64.0 dB Joggers & cyclists passing on Pacific Electric Trail ~370' N of STNM3.

L25 61.2 dB
L50 56.4 dB
NOISE METER: CALIBRATOR:

MAKE: MAKE:

MODEL: MODEL:

SERIAL NUMBER: SERIAL NUMBER:

FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

FIELD CALIBRATION DATE:

November 21, 2024
Ian Edward Gallagher
Nearest Address or Cross Street: 8011 Sultana Ave, Fontana, CA 92336 STNM3 Run Time: 15 minutes
19772
Primary Noise Source:

Secondary Noise Sources:

Flat
Site Description (Type of Existing Land Use and any other notable features):

SoundTrack LXT Class 1
<5% cloud, sunshine. Sunset 4:42 PM
Larson Davis CAL 250
Measurement Site: Taken along vacant land just south of demolished buildings 8011 Sultana Ave and east of Sultana Avenue. Adjacent: Foothill Blvd (running E-W) ~280' south, Sultana Ave (running N-S) ~40' west. Vacant, cleared land adjacent to east and residential single-family homes ~400'north.
7/31/2024 7/10/2024
11/21/2024
FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

Larson Davis
LXT1
3099
Larson Davis
CAL 250
2723
Apx-21
Noise Measurement
Field Data
PHOTOS:

STNM3 looking N along Sultana Avenue towards Pacific Electric jogging/cycling track STNM3 looking S along Sultana Ave towards Foothill Boulevard intersection ( ~400' N ) and SF housing community ( ~470' N ). ( ~290' S ), large warehouse ( left ), and various businesses ( right, ~430' S ).

Apx-22
Summary
File Name on Meter LxT_Data.481.s
File Name on PC
Serial Number 0003099
Model SoundTrack LxT®
Firmware Version 2.404
User Ian Edward Gallagher
Location STNM3 34° 6'26.64"N 117°28'7.76"W
Job Description 15 minute noise measurement
Note
Measurement
Start 2024-11-21 14:03:06
Stop 2024-11-21 14:18:06
Duration 00:15:00.0
Run Time 00:15:00.0
Pause 00:00:00.0
Pre-Calibration 2024-11-21 14:02:28
Post-Calibration None
Calibration Deviation ---
Overall Settings
RMS Weight A Weighting
Peak Weight A Weighting
Detector Slow
Preamplifier PRMLxT1L
Microphone Correction Off
Integration Method Linear
OBA Range Normal
OBA Bandwidth 1/1 and 1/3
OBA Frequency Weighting C Weighting
OBA Max Spectrum At LMax
Overload 122.2 dB
Results
LAeq 60.7
LAE 90.2
EA 116.825 µPa²h
EA8 3.738 mPa²h
EA40 18.692 mPa²h
LApeak (max) 2024-11-21 14:06:01 96.1 dB
LASmax 2024-11-21 14:04:22 76.9 dB
LASmin 2024-11-21 14:07:17 43.2 dB
Statistics
LCeq 73.6 dB LA2.00 67.3 dB
LAeq 60.7 dB LA8.00 64.0 dB
LCeq - LAeq 13.0 dB LA25.00 61.2 dB
LAIeq 62.4 dB LA50.00 56.4 dB
LAeq 60.7 dB LA66.60 52.5 dB
LAIeq - LAeq 1.7 dB LA90.00 48.4 dB
Overload Count 0
Overload Duration 0.0 s
LxT_0003099-20241121 140306-LxT_Data.481.ldbin
Ganddini Project # 19772 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed Use, City of Fontana Apx-23








 




!"#$%&# '


 




!((()(**+,(,$&&,& &$()(-+
!"#$%&#
./


& ((()(** 0
,#$($ 1
 2 3.0. 4

56


7
 8
) )$9 -,-#-$:
&&;9,%;#;-:< =
/ "
7

 &> 








4.. ?
@
7 A &*;;,
3' 

6

B 8
 
. 1
C 'D
E 
 8 
,(,$+&&+,& &$F()F(- "
 (F&>F((#( 3. 
,(,$+&&+,& &$F&%F(-
 
?

(F((F((#(

GHG IJ


7
K
L -(#; .M
K3 *(#, .M 83K +++ .M 3K &&-#% N?O6
K > ->#) .M 3K% )#; ?O6 3K$( &%#; ?O6
K

P *-#& .M ,(,$+&&+,& &$F(-F(&
K8 ;-#* .M ,(,$+&&+,& &$F($F,,  $)#, .M ,(,$+&&+,& &$F(;F&; K
L -(#; .M
' ;)#- .M
'
L +
K
L &)#( .M
K2
L -,#$ .M
K2
L +
K
L &#; .M 37

.7
 '
 "

K8 Q ->#( .M &, (F((F>>#%
K8 Q %>#( .M ( (F((F((#(
K

P Q &)>#( .M
K

P Q &);#( .M
K

P Q &$(#( .M '
D



"

"D

56 +++ .M +++ .M (#( .M
"3

"D
3J

56 +++ .M +++ .M +++ .M +++ .M KD " K ' R

J


8

J


8

J


8

L -(#; .M ;)#- .M +++ .M
ST ;-#* .M ,(,$+&&+,& &$F($F,, +++ .M +++ .M
8ST $)#, .M ,(,$+&&+,& &$F(;F&; +++ .M +++ .M
?
PST *-#& .M ,(,$+&&+,& &$F(-F(& +++ .M +++ .M IJ


. '
 "
 IMK '
 IMK "
 ( (F((F((#( ( (F((F((#( 87
K8 ,#( -;#) .M
K8 %#( -$#( .M
K8 ,>#( -&#, .M
K8 >(#( >-#$ .M
K8 --#- >,#> .M
K8 *(#( $%#$ .M
Apx-24








        
    







             ! 
! "
! "
! 





 #$
             ! 
! "
! "
!
Apx-25






 
 
 













 


 






 
 
 













 




 
 






 
 
 













 




 
 

Apx-26







 
 
 













 







Apx-27
Noise Measurement
Field Data
Project Name: Fontana Downtown West Parking Structure Date:

Project #:

Noise Measurement #: Technician:

Weather: Settings: SLOW FAST
Temperature: 76 deg F Wind: 2 mph Humidity: 12% Terrain:

Start Time: 2:36 PM End Time: 2:51 PM Run Time:

Leq: 63.4 dB Traffic noise from the 47 vehicles traveling Sultana Ave passing microphone just E Lmax 78 dB of STNM4. Traffic noise from Foothill Blvd & other surrounding roads.

L2 72.7 dB Leaf rustle from 2mph breeze. Bird song. Some residential ambiance.

L8 66.8 dB
L25 62.6 dB
L50 59.5 dB
NOISE METER: CALIBRATOR:

MAKE: MAKE:

MODEL: MODEL:

SERIAL NUMBER: SERIAL NUMBER:

FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

FIELD CALIBRATION DATE:
7/31/2024 7/10/2024
11/21/2024
FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

Larson Davis
LXT1
3099
Larson Davis
CAL 250
2723
Primary Noise Source:

Secondary Noise Sources:

Flat
Site Description (Type of Existing Land Use and any other notable features):

SoundTrack LXT Class 1
<5% cloud, sunshine. Sunset 4:42 PM
Larson Davis CAL 250
Measurement Site: Within sidewalk just east of residence 8134 Sultana Ave.

Adjacent: Foothill Blvd (running E-W) ~140' north, Sultana Ave (running N-S) adjacent to east. Large warehouse structure to east (across Sultana Ave) and residential adjacent to west.

November 21, 2024
Ian Edward Gallagher
Nearest Address or Cross Street: 8134 Sultana Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335 STNM4 Run Time: 15 minutes
19772
Apx-28
Noise Measurement
Field Data
PHOTOS:

STNM4 looking N along Sultana Avenue towards Foothill Boulevard intersection STNM4 looking S along Sultana Ave, residence 8134 Sultana Avenue, Fontana ( ~130' N ). on the right.

Apx-29
Summary
File Name on Meter LxT_Data.482.s
File Name on PC
Serial Number 0003099
Model SoundTrack LxT®
Firmware Version 2.404
User Ian Edward Gallagher
Location STNM4 34° 6'21.45"N 117°28'8.63"W
Job Description 15 minute noise measurement
Note
Measurement
Start 2024-11-21 14:36:27
Stop 2024-11-21 14:51:27
Duration 00:15:00.0
Run Time 00:15:00.0
Pause 00:00:00.0
Pre-Calibration 2024-11-21 14:36:06
Post-Calibration None
Calibration Deviation ---
Overall Settings
RMS Weight A Weighting
Peak Weight A Weighting
Detector Slow
Preamplifier PRMLxT1L
Microphone Correction Off
Integration Method Linear
OBA Range Normal
OBA Bandwidth 1/1 and 1/3
OBA Frequency Weighting C Weighting
OBA Max Spectrum At LMax
Overload 122.2 dB
Results
LAeq 63.4
LAE 93.0
EA 219.216 µPa²h
EA8 7.015 mPa²h
EA40 35.074 mPa²h
LApeak (max) 2024-11-21 14:41:42 92.9 dB
LASmax 2024-11-21 14:49:09 78.0 dB
LASmin 2024-11-21 14:49:54 47.2 dB
Statistics
LCeq 73.7 dB LA2.00 72.7 dB
LAeq 63.4 dB LA8.00 66.8 dB
LCeq - LAeq 10.3 dB LA25.00 62.6 dB
LAIeq 65.4 dB LA50.00 59.5 dB
LAeq 63.4 dB LA66.60 57.8 dB
LAIeq - LAeq 2.0 dB LA90.00 53.8 dB
Overload Count 0
Overload Duration 0.0 s
LxT_0003099-20241121 143627-LxT_Data.482.ldbin
Ganddini Project # 19772 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed Use, City of Fontana Apx-30








 




!"#$%&# '


 




!((()(**+&(&$,,&, ,$)-&.+
!"#$%&#
/0


, ((()(** 1
&#$($ 2
 3 4/1/ 5

67


8
 9
$ )$: -&,#$;<
,,.:&%%#-)<= >
0 "
8

 ,; 








5// ?
@
8 A ,*..&
4' 

7

B 9
 
/ 2
C 'D
E 
 9 
&(&$+,,+&, ,$F)-F&. "
 (F,;F((#( 4/ 
&(&$+,,+&, ,$F;,F&.
 
?

(F((F((#(

GHG IJ


8
K
L -)#$ /M
K4 *)#( /M 94K +++ /M 4K &,*#& N?O7
K ; -%#; /M 4K% .#( ?O7 4K$( );#, ?O7
K

P *&#* /M &(&$+,,+&, ,$F$,F$&
K9 .%#( /M &(&$+,,+&, ,$F$*F(*  $.#& /M &(&$+,,+&, ,$F$*F;$ K
L -)#$ /M
' .)#. /M
'
L +
K
L ,(#) /M
K3
L -;#$ /M
K3
L +
K
L &#( /M 48

/8
 '
 "

K9 Q -;#( /M &* (F(&F)*#.

K9 Q %;#( /M ( (F((F((#(
K

P Q ,);#( /M
K

P Q ,).#( /M
K

P Q ,$(#( /M '
D



"

"D

67 +++ /M +++ /M (#( /M
"4

"D
4J

67 +++ /M +++ /M +++ /M +++ /M KD " K ' R

J


9

J


9

J


9

L -)#$ /M .)#. /M +++ /M
ST .%#( /M &(&$+,,+&, ,$F$*F(* +++ /M +++ /M
9ST $.#& /M &(&$+,,+&, ,$F$*F;$ +++ /M +++ /M
?
PST *&#* /M &(&$+,,+&, ,$F$,F$& +++ /M +++ /M IJ


/ '
 "
 IMK '
 IMK "
 ( (F((F((#( ( (F((F((#( 98
K9 &#( .&#. /M
K9 %#( --#% /M
K9 &;#( -&#- /M
K9 ;(#( ;*#; /M
K9 --#- ;.#% /M
K9 *(#( ;)#% /M
Apx-31








       
    




 

   !         " 
" #
" #
" 




  $%
   !         " 
" #
" #
"
Apx-32






 
 
 







 













 
 
 







 
















 
 
 







 










Apx-33







 
 
 







 







Apx-34
Noise Measurement
Field Data
Project Name: Fontana Downtown West Parking Structure Date:

Project #:

Noise Measurement #: Technician:

Weather: Settings: SLOW FAST
Temperature: 76 deg F Wind: 2 mph Humidity: 12% Terrain:

Start Time: 3:13 PM End Time: 3:28 PM Run Time:

Leq: 67.6 dB Traffic noise from the 470 vehicles traveling along Foothill Blvd just S of STNM5.

Lmax 81.3 dB Traffic ambiance from other surrounding roads.

L2 72.6 dB Leaf rustle from 2mph breeze. Bird song. Some residential ambiance. Joggers & L8 71.1 dB cyclists passing STNM5 along Pacific Electric concrete track ~300' N of STNM5.

L25 69.0 dB
L50 66.6 dB
NOISE METER: CALIBRATOR:

MAKE: MAKE:

MODEL: MODEL:

SERIAL NUMBER: SERIAL NUMBER:

FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

FIELD CALIBRATION DATE:

November 21, 2024
Ian Edward Gallagher
Nearest Address or Cross Street: 15526 Foothill Blvd, Fontana, CA 92335 STNM5 Run Time: 15 minutes
19772
Primary Noise Source:

Secondary Noise Sources:

Flat
Site Description (Type of Existing Land Use and any other notable features):

SoundTrack LXT Class 1
<5% cloud, sunshine. Sunset 4:42 PM
Larson Davis CAL 250
Measurement Site: Takenat the entry/Exit to demolished structure 15526 Foothill Blvd. Adjacent: Foothill Blvd (running E-W) adjacent to south, Sultana Ave (running N-S) ~560' west. Vacant, cleared land adjacent to north and large warehouse to soutuh (across Foothill Blvd).
7/31/2024 7/10/2024
11/21/2024
FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

Larson Davis
LXT1
3099
Larson Davis
CAL 250
2723
Apx-35
Noise Measurement
Field Data
PHOTOS:

STNM5 looking W along Foothill Boulevard towards Sultana Avenue intersection STNM5 looking E along Foothill Boulevard towards railroad bridge ( ~570' E ). ( ~560' W ).

Apx-36
Summary
File Name on Meter LxT_Data.483.s
File Name on PC
Serial Number 0003099
Model SoundTrack LxT®
Firmware Version 2.404
User Ian Edward Gallagher
Location STNM5 34° 6'24.21"N 117°28'1.43"W
Job Description 15 minute noise measurement
Note
Measurement
Start 2024-11-21 15:13:55
Stop 2024-11-21 15:28:55
Duration 00:15:00.0
Run Time 00:15:00.0
Pause 00:00:00.0
Pre-Calibration 2024-11-21 15:13:40
Post-Calibration None
Calibration Deviation ---
Overall Settings
RMS Weight A Weighting
Peak Weight A Weighting
Detector Slow
Preamplifier PRMLxT1L
Microphone Correction Off
Integration Method Linear
OBA Range Normal
OBA Bandwidth 1/1 and 1/3
OBA Frequency Weighting C Weighting
OBA Max Spectrum At LMax
Overload 122.2 dB
Results
LAeq 67.6
LAE 97.2
EA 580.032 µPa²h
EA8 18.561 mPa²h
EA40 92.805 mPa²h
LApeak (max) 2024-11-21 15:27:52 97.1 dB
LASmax 2024-11-21 15:27:53 81.3 dB
LASmin 2024-11-21 15:16:00 43.5 dB
Statistics
LCeq 74.0 dB LA2.00 72.6 dB
LAeq 67.6 dB LA8.00 71.1 dB
LCeq - LAeq 6.4 dB LA25.00 69.0 dB
LAIeq 68.6 dB LA50.00 66.6 dB
LAeq 67.6 dB LA66.60 64.4 dB
LAIeq - LAeq 1.0 dB LA90.00 54.8 dB
Overload Count 0
Overload Duration 0.0 s
LxT_0003099-20241121 151355-LxT_Data.483.ldbin
Ganddini Project # 19772 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed Use, City of Fontana Apx-37








 




!"#$%&# '


 




!(((&())*+(+$,,+, ,-,&--*
!"#$%&#
./


, (((&()) 0
+#$($ 1
 2 3.0. 4

56


7
 8
- &$9 :+$#+,;
,,<9+%,#$&;= >
/ "
7

 ,- 








4.. ?
@
7 A ,)<<+
3' 

6

B 8
 
. 1
C 'D
E 
 8 
+(+$*,,*+, ,-F,&F-- "
 (F,-F((#( 3. 
+(+$*,,*+, ,-F+%F--
 
?

(F((F((#(

GHG IJ


7
K
L :<#: .M
K3 )<#+ .M 83K *** .M 3K -%(#( N?O6
K - <(#- .M 3K% ,%#: ?O6 3K$( )+#% ?O6
K

P )<#, .M +(+$*,,*+, ,-F+<F-+
K8 %,#& .M +(+$*,,*+, ,-F+<F-&  $&#- .M +(+$*,,*+, ,-F,:F(( K
L :<#: .M
' <$#( .M
'
L *
K
L :#$ .M
K2
L :%#: .M
K2
L *
K
L ,#( .M 37

.7
 '
 "

K8 Q :-#( .M +- (F,(F+$#,(
K8 Q %-#( .M ( (F((F((#(
K

P Q ,&-#( .M
K

P Q ,&<#( .M
K

P Q ,$(#( .M '
D



"

"D

56 *** .M *** .M (#( .M
"3

"D
3J

56 *** .M *** .M *** .M *** .M KD " K ' R

J


8

J


8

J


8

L :<#: .M <$#( .M *** .M
ST %,#& .M +(+$*,,*+, ,-F+<F-& *** .M *** .M
8ST $&#- .M +(+$*,,*+, ,-F,:F(( *** .M *** .M
?
PST )<#, .M +(+$*,,*+, ,-F+<F-+ *** .M *** .M IJ


. '
 "
 IMK '
 IMK "
 ( (F((F((#( ( (F((F((#( 87
K8 +#( <+#: .M
K8 %#( <,#, .M
K8 +-#( :)#( .M
K8 -(#( ::#: .M
K8 ::#: :$#$ .M
K8 )(#( -$#% .M
Apx-38








        
    







             ! 
! "
! "
! 





 #$
             ! 
! "
! "
!
Apx-39






 
 
 











 


 






 
 
 











 




 
 






 
 
 











 




 
 

Apx-40







 
 
 











 







Apx-41
Noise Measurement
Field Data
Project Name: Fontana Downtown West Parking Structure Date:

Project #:

Noise Measurement #: Technician:

Weather: Settings: SLOW FAST
Temperature: 50-76 deg F Wind: 1-4 mph Humidity: 12-35% Terrain:

Start Time: 5:00 PM End Time: 5:00 PM Run Time:

Leq: 57.5 dB Traffic noise from vehicles traveling along Foothill Blvd ( E-W ) & Sultana Ave ( N-S ) Lmax 86.1 dB Traffic ambiance from other surrounding roads.

L2 63.8 dB Leaf rustle from breeze. Bird song. Some residential ambiance. Overhead air traffic.

L8 60.4 dB Joggers & cyclists active on Pacific Electric concrete trail ~310' N of LTNM1.

L25 57.6 dB
L50 54.7 dB
NOISE METER: CALIBRATOR:

MAKE: MAKE:

MODEL: MODEL:

SERIAL NUMBER: SERIAL NUMBER:

FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

FIELD CALIBRATION DATE:

November 21-22, 2024
Ian Edward Gallagher
Nearest Address or Cross Street: 8011 Sultana Ave, Fontana, CA 92336 LTNM1 Run Time: 24 hours ( 24 x 1 hours )
19772
Primary Noise Source:

Secondary Noise Sources:

Flat
Site Description (Type of Existing Land Use and any other notable features):

SoundTrack LXT Class 1
<5% cloud, sunshine by day. Sunset/rise 4:42PM/6:29AM
Larson Davis CAL 250
Measurement Site: Along chain link fence of demolished buildings within project site. Adjacent: Vacant land to east and throughout surrouding area. Foothill Blvd (running E-W) ~310' south and Sultana Ave (running N-S) ~80' west. Residential singlefamily homes and Pacific Electric Trail ~310' N of LTNM1. 7/31/2024 7/10/2024
11/21/2024
FACTORY CALIBRATION DATE:

Larson Davis
LXT1
3099
Larson Davis
CAL 250
2723
Apx-42
Noise Measurement
Field Data
PHOTOS:

LTNM1 looking SSW towards Sultana Avenue & Foothill Boulevard intersection LTNM1 N across 8011 Sultana Ave ( demolished ), Pacific Electric ( traffic lights ~320' SSW ). jogging/cycling path, towards Sesame Seed Avenue SF housing area.

Apx-43
Summary
File Name on Meter LxT_Data.485.s
File Name on PC
Serial Number 0003099
Model SoundTrack LxT®
Firmware Version 2.404
User Ian Edward Gallagher
Location LTNM1 34° 6'26.92"N 117°28'7.16"W
Job Description 24 hour noise measurement ( 24 x 1 hours ) Note
Measurement
Start 2024-11-21 17:00:00
Stop 2024-11-22 17:00:00
Duration 24:00:00.0
Run Time 24:00:00.0
Pause 00:00:00.0
Pre-Calibration 2024-11-21 16:27:13
Post-Calibration None
Calibration Deviation ---
Overall Settings
RMS Weight A Weighting
Peak Weight A Weighting
Detector Slow
Preamplifier Unknown
Microphone Correction Off
Integration Method Linear
OBA Range Normal
OBA Bandwidth 1/1 and 1/3
OBA Frequency Weighting A Weighting
OBA Max Spectrum Bin Max
Overload 122.2 dB
Results
LAeq 57.5
LAE 106.8
EA 5.339 mPa²h
EA8 1.780 mPa²h
EA40 8.898 mPa²h
LApeak (max) 2024-11-21 21:35:22 106.0 dB
LASmax 2024-11-22 15:36:44 86.1 dB
LASmin 2024-11-22 01:30:55 39.1 dB
Statistics
LCeq 69.4 dB LA2.00 63.8 dB
LAeq 57.5 dB LA8.00 60.4 dB
LCeq - LAeq 12.0 dB LA25.00 57.6 dB
LAIeq 59.0 dB LA50.00 54.7 dB
LAeq 57.5 dB LA90.00 48.1 dB
LAIeq - LAeq 1.5 dB LA99.00 42.4 dB
Overload Count 0
Overload Duration 0.0 s
LxT_0003099-20241121 170000-LxT_Data.485.ldbin
Ganddini Project # 19772 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed Use, City of Fontana Apx-44
Record # Date Time Run Duration Run Time Pause LAeq LASmin LASmin Time LASmax LASmax Time LAS2.00 LAS8.00 LAS25.00 LAS50.00 LAS90.00 LAS99.00 1 2024-11-21 17:00:00 01:00:00.0 01:00:00.0 00:00:00.0 60.0 51.2 17:34:52 82.0 17:06:36 65.4 62.1 59.8 58.2 55.2 52.6 2 2024-11-21 18:00:00 01:00:00.0 01:00:00.0 00:00:00.0 59.0 50.3 18:33:41 71.2 18:15:43 64.4 61.6 59.6 58.1 54.5 51.7 3 2024-11-21 19:00:00 01:00:00.0 01:00:00.0 00:00:00.0 58.4 47.8 19:41:34 76.0 19:34:32 65.0 61.1 58.5 56.6 52.7 50.0 4 2024-11-21 20:00:00 01:00:00.0 01:00:00.0 00:00:00.0 58.4 46.0 20:35:17 83.2 20:43:20 63.7 60.0 57.5 55.3 51.4 47.4 5 2024-11-21 21:00:00 01:00:00.0 01:00:00.0 00:00:00.0 56.8 45.4 21:57:01 78.7 21:35:22 62.9 59.5 56.7 54.5 50.0 47.2 6 2024-11-21 22:00:00 01:00:00.0 01:00:00.0 00:00:00.0 53.6 44.2 22:54:31 70.1 22:08:27 58.8 56.7 54.0 52.1 48.5 46.0 7 2024-11-21 23:00:00 01:00:00.0 01:00:00.0 00:00:00.0 53.6 41.2 23:25:12 74.1 23:28:20 61.0 56.2 53.0 50.8 46.6 43.1 8 2024-11-22 00:00:00 01:00:00.0 01:00:00.0 00:00:00.0 52.5 41.1 00:09:13 77.7 00:46:57 57.3 53.7 50.4 48.2 44.2 41.9 9 2024-11-22 01:00:00 01:00:00.0 01:00:00.0 00:00:00.0 49.7 39.1 01:30:55 66.6 01:06:11 56.3 53.0 50.3 47.5 41.7 40.0 10 2024-11-22 02:00:00 01:00:00.0 01:00:00.0 00:00:00.0 51.4 39.9 02:13:51 60.4 02:40:43 57.0 55.4 52.7 49.8 43.2 40.7 11 2024-11-22 03:00:00 01:00:00.0 01:00:00.0 00:00:00.0 53.5 40.8 03:34:16 65.9 03:00:30 59.8 57.3 54.5 51.6 45.9 42.2 12 2024-11-22 04:00:00 01:00:00.0 01:00:00.0 00:00:00.0 57.5 43.2 04:02:00 73.7 04:36:37 64.0 60.7 57.9 55.6 50.4 46.0 13 2024-11-22 05:00:00 01:00:00.0 01:00:00.0 00:00:00.0 58.2 48.1 05:27:58 75.4 05:58:43 64.7 60.6 58.4 56.6 52.7 50.1 14 2024-11-22 06:00:00 01:00:00.0 01:00:00.0 00:00:00.0 59.1 48.1 06:11:51 68.8 06:47:43 64.1 62.0 60.1 58.4 54.4 51.2 15 2024-11-22 07:00:00 01:00:00.0 01:00:00.0 00:00:00.0 59.9 51.5 07:58:33 75.6 07:12:09 64.6 62.3 60.3 58.8 55.6 53.4 16 2024-11-22 08:00:00 01:00:00.0 01:00:00.0 00:00:00.0 57.4 46.0 08:38:11 75.2 08:20:07 64.1 59.7 57.1 55.3 51.5 47.8 17 2024-11-22 09:00:00 01:00:00.0 01:00:00.0 00:00:00.0 55.8 43.4 09:50:13 76.2 09:06:03 63.4 58.4 55.5 53.0 48.4 45.0 18 2024-11-22 10:00:00 01:00:00.0 01:00:00.0 00:00:00.0 55.4 43.8 10:36:21 75.0 10:15:44 62.9 58.2 55.2 52.7 48.2 45.6 19 2024-11-22 11:00:00 01:00:00.0 01:00:00.0 00:00:00.0 55.7 41.5 11:02:09 74.2 11:57:46 62.8 58.7 55.7 53.3 48.6 44.1 20 2024-11-22 12:00:00 01:00:00.0 01:00:00.0 00:00:00.0 55.9 42.4 12:58:04 72.7 12:54:21 63.6 59.1 55.6 53.4 48.7 44.3 21 2024-11-22 13:00:00 01:00:00.0 01:00:00.0 00:00:00.0 56.3 43.6 13:15:53 75.5 13:06:52 62.7 59.2 56.0 53.8 49.3 45.8 22 2024-11-22 14:00:00 01:00:00.0 01:00:00.0 00:00:00.0 57.4 43.0 14:14:16 78.2 14:58:49 64.9 59.8 56.8 54.6 50.4 46.8 23 2024-11-22 15:00:00 01:00:00.0 01:00:00.0 00:00:00.0 60.5 48.1 15:09:24 86.1 15:36:44 66.0 61.3 58.4 56.6 53.0 50.1 24 2024-11-22 16:00:00 01:00:00.0 01:00:00.0 00:00:00.0 61.7 48.0 16:23:06 83.4 16:48:00 69.8 62.9 59.5 57.6 54.9 52.2 Apx-45








 




!"#$%&# '


 




!((()(**+,(,$--,- -.((((+
!"#$%&#
/0


- ((()(** 1
,#$($ 2
 3 4/1/ 5

67


8


- )$9 :,:#*,;
--.9,%.#-:;< =
0 "
8

 ,$ 7
 




 > ,$  - 7
 ?


5// @
A
8 B -*..,
4' 

7

C D
 
/ 2
E 'F
G 
 D 
,(,$+--+,- -.H((H(( "
 ,$H((H((#( 4/ 
,(,$+--+,, -.H((H((
 
@

(H((H((#(

IJI KL


8
M
N &.#& /O
M4 -(:#% /O D4M +++ /O 4M &#) @P7
M & :-#- /O 4M% -#% @P7 4M$( %#* @P7
M

Q -(:#( /O ,(,$+--+,- ,-H)&H,,
MD %:#- /O ,(,$+--+,, -&H):H$$  )*#- /O ,(,$+--+,, (-H)(H&& M
N &.#& /O
' :*#$ /O
'
N +
M
N -,#( /O
M3
N &*#( /O
M3
N +
M
N -#& /O 48

/8
 '
 "

MD R :&#( /O ,:% (H,&H(.#,
MD R %&#( /O - (H((H(-#$
M

Q R -)&#( /O ( (H((H((#(
M

Q R -).#( /O
M

Q R -$(#( /O '
F



"

"F

67 +++ /O +++ /O (#( /O
"4

"F
4L

67 +++ /O +++ /O +++ /O +++ /O MF " M ' S

L


D

L


D

L


D

N &.#& /O :*#$ /O +++ /O
>? %:#- /O ,(,$+--+,, -&H):H$$ +++ /O +++ /O
D>? )*#- /O ,(,$+--+,, (-H)(H&& +++ /O +++ /O
@
Q>? -(:#( /O ,(,$+--+,- ,-H)&H,, +++ /O +++ /O KL


/ '
 "
 KOM '
 KOM "
 ( (H((H((#( ( (H((H((#( D8
MD ,#( :)#% /O
MD %#( :(#$ /O
MD ,&#( &.#: /O
MD &(#( &$#. /O
MD *(#( $%#- /O
MD **#( $,#$ /O
Apx-46








 
     
    




 

 ! ! "!  
     
# !
# $
# $
# 




  %&
 ! ! "!  
     
# !
# $
# $
#
Apx-47






 
 
 
  
  










!


 
 
 
  
  




!








!
"#

 
 
 
  
  




!





Apx-48







 
 
 
  
 
 






!
! !
Apx-49

APPENDIX D

CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODEL WORKSHEETS
Apx-50
Construction Phase Equipment Item # of Items Item Lmax at 50 feet, dBA1 Distance to Receptor3 Item Usage Percent Usage Factor Dist. Correction dB Usage Adj. dB Receptor Item Lmax, dBA Receptor Item Leq, dBA Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 90 476 20 0.20 -19.6 -7.0 70.4 63.4 Excavators 3 81 476 40 1.20 -19.6 0.8 61.4 62.2
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 82 476 40 0.80 -19.6 -1.0 62.4 61.5 Log Sum 67.2
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 84 476 40 1.60 -19.6 2.0 64.4 66.5 Rubber Tired Dozers 3 82 476 40 1.20 -19.6 0.8 62.4 63.2 Log Sum 68.2
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 82 476 40 0.40 -19.6 -4.0 62.4 58.4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 84 476 40 1.20 -19.6 0.8 64.4 65.2 Excavators 1 81 476 40 0.40 -19.6 -4.0 61.4 57.4
Graders 1 85 476 40 0.40 -19.6 -4.0 65.4 61.4
Log Sum 67.8
Cranes 1 81 476 16 0.16 -19.6 -8.0 61.4 53.5
Forklifts2
3 48 476 40 1.20 -19.6 0.8 28.4 29.2
Generator Sets 1 81 476 50 0.50 -19.6 -3.0 61.4 58.4
Welders 1 74 476 40 0.40 -19.6 -4.0 54.4 50.4
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 84 476 40 1.20 -19.6 0.8 64.4 65.2 Log Sum 66.4
Pavers 1 77 476 50 0.50 -19.6 -3.0 57.4 54.4
Paving Equipment 2 77 476 50 1.00 -19.6 0.0 57.4 57.4
Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 79 476 40 0.80 -19.6 -1.0 59.4 58.5 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 84 476 40 0.40 -19.6 -4.0 64.4 60.4 Rollers 2 80 476 20 0.40 -19.6 -4.0 60.4 56.4
Log Sum 64.9
Air Compressors 1 78 476 40 0.40 -19.6 -4.0 58.4 54.4
Log Sum 54.4
Notes:
(1) Source: Referenced noise levels from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018) and the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide (January 2006) (2) Source: SoundPLAN reference list.
(3) Distance to receptor calculated from center of site. Construction noise projected from the center of the project site to nearest sensitive use (property line).

Paving
Architectural Coating
Grading
Building Construction
Receptor - Residential to North (15475 Vanilla Bean Lane, Fontana) Demolition
Site Preparation
Apx-51
Construction Phase Equipment Item # of Items Item Lmax at 50 feet, dBA1 Distance to Receptor3 Item Usage Percent Usage Factor Dist. Correction dB Usage Adj. dB Receptor Item Lmax, dBA Receptor Item Leq, dBA Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 90 224 20 0.20 -13.0 -7.0 77.0 70.0 Excavators 3 81 224 40 1.20 -13.0 0.8 68.0 68.8
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 82 224 40 0.80 -13.0 -1.0 69.0 68.0 Log Sum 73.8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 84 224 40 1.60 -13.0 2.0 71.0 73.0 Rubber Tired Dozers 3 82 224 40 1.20 -13.0 0.8 69.0 69.8 Log Sum 74.7
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 82 224 40 0.40 -13.0 -4.0 69.0 65.0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 84 224 40 1.20 -13.0 0.8 71.0 71.8 Excavators 1 81 224 40 0.40 -13.0 -4.0 68.0 64.0
Graders 1 85 224 40 0.40 -13.0 -4.0 72.0 68.0
Log Sum 74.3
Cranes 1 81 224 16 0.16 -13.0 -8.0 68.0 60.0
Forklifts2
3 48 224 40 1.20 -13.0 0.8 35.0 35.8
Generator Sets 1 81 224 50 0.50 -13.0 -3.0 68.0 65.0
Welders 1 74 224 40 0.40 -13.0 -4.0 61.0 57.0
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 84 224 40 1.20 -13.0 0.8 71.0 71.8 Log Sum 72.9
Pavers 1 77 224 50 0.50 -13.0 -3.0 64.0 61.0
Paving Equipment 2 77 224 50 1.00 -13.0 0.0 64.0 64.0
Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 79 224 40 0.80 -13.0 -1.0 66.0 65.0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 84 224 40 0.40 -13.0 -4.0 71.0 67.0 Rollers 2 80 224 20 0.40 -13.0 -4.0 67.0 63.0
Log Sum 71.4
Air Compressors 1 78 224 40 0.40 -13.0 -4.0 65.0 61.0
Log Sum 61.0
Notes:
(1) Source: Referenced noise levels from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018) and the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide (January 2006) (2) Source: SoundPLAN reference list.
(3) Distance to receptor calculated from center of site. Construction noise projected from the center of the project site to nearest sensitive use (property line).

Paving
Architectural Coating
Grading
Building Construction
Receptor - Trail to North (Pacific Electric Trail, Fontana) Demolition
Site Preparation
Apx-52
Construction Phase Equipment Item # of Items Item Lmax at 50 feet, dBA1 Distance to Receptor3 Item Usage Percent Usage Factor Dist. Correction dB Usage Adj. dB Receptor Item Lmax, dBA Receptor Item Leq, dBA Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 90 806 20 0.20 -24.1 -7.0 65.9 58.9 Excavators 3 81 806 40 1.20 -24.1 0.8 56.9 57.6
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 82 806 40 0.80 -24.1 -1.0 57.9 56.9 Log Sum 62.6
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 84 806 40 1.60 -24.1 2.0 59.9 61.9 Rubber Tired Dozers 3 82 806 40 1.20 -24.1 0.8 57.9 58.6 Log Sum 63.6
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 82 806 40 0.40 -24.1 -4.0 57.9 53.9 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 84 806 40 1.20 -24.1 0.8 59.9 60.6 Excavators 1 81 806 40 0.40 -24.1 -4.0 56.9 52.9
Graders 1 85 806 40 0.40 -24.1 -4.0 60.9 56.9
Log Sum 63.2
Cranes 1 81 806 16 0.16 -24.1 -8.0 56.9 48.9
Forklifts2
3 48 806 40 1.20 -24.1 0.8 23.9 24.6
Generator Sets 1 81 806 50 0.50 -24.1 -3.0 56.9 53.8
Welders 1 74 806 40 0.40 -24.1 -4.0 49.9 45.9
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 84 806 40 1.20 -24.1 0.8 59.9 60.6 Log Sum 61.8
Pavers 1 77 806 50 0.50 -24.1 -3.0 52.9 49.8
Paving Equipment 2 77 806 50 1.00 -24.1 0.0 52.9 52.9
Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 79 806 40 0.80 -24.1 -1.0 54.9 53.9 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 84 806 40 0.40 -24.1 -4.0 59.9 55.9 Rollers 2 80 806 20 0.40 -24.1 -4.0 55.9 51.9
Log Sum 60.3
Air Compressors 1 78 806 40 0.40 -24.1 -4.0 53.9 49.9
Log Sum 49.9
Notes:
(1) Source: Referenced noise levels from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018) and the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide (January 2006) (2) Source: SoundPLAN reference list.
(3) Distance to receptor calculated from center of site. Construction noise projected from the center of the project site to nearest sensitive use (property line).

Paving
Architectural Coating
Grading
Building Construction
Receptor - Park Use to Northeast (Energy Prime, 8005 Sultana Avenue, Fontana) Demolition
Site Preparation
Apx-53
Construction Phase Equipment Item # of Items Item Lmax at 50 feet, dBA1 Distance to Receptor3 Item Usage Percent Usage Factor Dist. Correction dB Usage Adj. dB Receptor Item Lmax, dBA Receptor Item Leq, dBA Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 90 327 20 0.20 -16.3 -7.0 73.7 66.7 Excavators 3 81 327 40 1.20 -16.3 0.8 64.7 65.5
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 82 327 40 0.80 -16.3 -1.0 65.7 64.7 Log Sum 70.5
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 84 327 40 1.60 -16.3 2.0 67.7 69.7 Rubber Tired Dozers 3 82 327 40 1.20 -16.3 0.8 65.7 66.5 Log Sum 71.4
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 82 327 40 0.40 -16.3 -4.0 65.7 61.7 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 84 327 40 1.20 -16.3 0.8 67.7 68.5 Excavators 1 81 327 40 0.40 -16.3 -4.0 64.7 60.7
Graders 1 85 327 40 0.40 -16.3 -4.0 68.7 64.7
Log Sum 71.0
Cranes 1 81 327 16 0.16 -16.3 -8.0 64.7 56.7
Forklifts2
3 48 327 40 1.20 -16.3 0.8 31.7 32.5
Generator Sets 1 81 327 50 0.50 -16.3 -3.0 64.7 61.7
Welders 1 74 327 40 0.40 -16.3 -4.0 57.7 53.7
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 84 327 40 1.20 -16.3 0.8 67.7 68.5 Log Sum 69.7
Pavers 1 77 327 50 0.50 -16.3 -3.0 60.7 57.7
Paving Equipment 2 77 327 50 1.00 -16.3 0.0 60.7 60.7
Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 79 327 40 0.80 -16.3 -1.0 62.7 61.7 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 84 327 40 0.40 -16.3 -4.0 67.7 63.7 Rollers 2 80 327 20 0.40 -16.3 -4.0 63.7 59.7
Log Sum 68.1
Air Compressors 1 78 327 40 0.40 -16.3 -4.0 61.7 57.7
Log Sum 57.7
Notes:
(1) Source: Referenced noise levels from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018) and the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide (January 2006) (2) Source: SoundPLAN reference list.
(3) Distance to receptor calculated from center of site. Construction noise projected from the center of the project site to nearest sensitive use (property line).

Paving
Architectural Coating
Grading
Building Construction
Receptor - Residential to Northeast (15523 Sesame Seed Avenue, Fontana) Demolition
Site Preparation
Apx-54
Construction Phase Equipment Item # of Items Item Lmax at 50 feet, dBA1 Distance to Receptor3 Item Usage Percent Usage Factor Dist. Correction dB Usage Adj. dB Receptor Item Lmax, dBA Receptor Item Leq, dBA Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 90 379 20 0.20 -17.6 -7.0 72.4 65.4 Excavators 3 81 379 40 1.20 -17.6 0.8 63.4 64.2
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 82 379 40 0.80 -17.6 -1.0 64.4 63.4 Log Sum 69.2
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 84 379 40 1.60 -17.6 2.0 66.4 68.4 Rubber Tired Dozers 3 82 379 40 1.20 -17.6 0.8 64.4 65.2 Log Sum 70.1
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 82 379 40 0.40 -17.6 -4.0 64.4 60.4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 84 379 40 1.20 -17.6 0.8 66.4 67.2 Excavators 1 81 379 40 0.40 -17.6 -4.0 63.4 59.4
Graders 1 85 379 40 0.40 -17.6 -4.0 67.4 63.4
Log Sum 69.7
Cranes 1 81 379 16 0.16 -17.6 -8.0 63.4 55.4
Forklifts2
3 48 379 40 1.20 -17.6 0.8 30.4 31.2
Generator Sets 1 81 379 50 0.50 -17.6 -3.0 63.4 60.4
Welders 1 74 379 40 0.40 -17.6 -4.0 56.4 52.4
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 84 379 40 1.20 -17.6 0.8 66.4 67.2 Log Sum 68.4
Pavers 1 77 379 50 0.50 -17.6 -3.0 59.4 56.4
Paving Equipment 2 77 379 50 1.00 -17.6 0.0 59.4 59.4
Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 79 379 40 0.80 -17.6 -1.0 61.4 60.4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 84 379 40 0.40 -17.6 -4.0 66.4 62.4 Rollers 2 80 379 20 0.40 -17.6 -4.0 62.4 58.4
Log Sum 66.9
Air Compressors 1 78 379 40 0.40 -17.6 -4.0 60.4 56.4
Log Sum 56.4
Notes:
(1) Source: Referenced noise levels from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018) and the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide (January 2006) (2) Source: SoundPLAN reference list.
(3) Distance to receptor calculated from center of site. Construction noise projected from the center of the project site to nearest sensitive use (property line).

Paving
Architectural Coating
Grading
Building Construction
Receptor - Industrial to South (Taylored Services Warehouse, 8375 Sultana Avenue, Fontana) Demolition
Site Preparation
Apx-55
Construction Phase Equipment Item # of Items Item Lmax at 50 feet, dBA1 Distance to Receptor3 Item Usage Percent Usage Factor Dist. Correction dB Usage Adj. dB Receptor Item Lmax, dBA Receptor Item Leq, dBA Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 90 558 20 0.20 -21.0 -7.0 69.0 62.1 Excavators 3 81 558 40 1.20 -21.0 0.8 60.0 60.8
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 82 558 40 0.80 -21.0 -1.0 61.0 60.1 Log Sum 65.8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 84 558 40 1.60 -21.0 2.0 63.0 65.1 Rubber Tired Dozers 3 82 558 40 1.20 -21.0 0.8 61.0 61.8 Log Sum 66.8
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 82 558 40 0.40 -21.0 -4.0 61.0 57.1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 84 558 40 1.20 -21.0 0.8 63.0 63.8 Excavators 1 81 558 40 0.40 -21.0 -4.0 60.0 56.1
Graders 1 85 558 40 0.40 -21.0 -4.0 64.0 60.1
Log Sum 66.4
Cranes 1 81 558 16 0.16 -21.0 -8.0 60.0 52.1
Forklifts2
3 48 558 40 1.20 -21.0 0.8 27.0 27.8
Generator Sets 1 81 558 50 0.50 -21.0 -3.0 60.0 57.0
Welders 1 74 558 40 0.40 -21.0 -4.0 53.0 49.1
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 84 558 40 1.20 -21.0 0.8 63.0 63.8 Log Sum 65.0
Pavers 1 77 558 50 0.50 -21.0 -3.0 56.0 53.0
Paving Equipment 2 77 558 50 1.00 -21.0 0.0 56.0 56.0
Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 79 558 40 0.80 -21.0 -1.0 58.0 57.1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 84 558 40 0.40 -21.0 -4.0 63.0 59.1 Rollers 2 80 558 20 0.40 -21.0 -4.0 59.0 55.1
Log Sum 63.5
Air Compressors 1 78 558 40 0.40 -21.0 -4.0 57.0 53.1
Log Sum 53.1
Notes:
(1) Source: Referenced noise levels from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018) and the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide (January 2006) (2) Source: SoundPLAN reference list.
(3) Distance to receptor calculated from center of site. Construction noise projected from the center of the project site to nearest sensitive use (property line).

Paving
Architectural Coating
Grading
Building Construction
Receptor - Residential to Southwest (8134 Sultana Avenue, Fontana) Demolition
Site Preparation
Apx-56
Construction Phase Equipment Item # of Items Item Lmax at 50 feet, dBA1 Distance to Receptor3 Item Usage Percent Usage Factor Dist. Correction dB Usage Adj. dB Receptor Item Lmax, dBA Receptor Item Leq, dBA Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 90 445 20 0.20 -19.0 -7.0 71.0 64.0 Excavators 3 81 445 40 1.20 -19.0 0.8 62.0 62.8
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 82 445 40 0.80 -19.0 -1.0 63.0 62.0 Log Sum 67.8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 84 445 40 1.60 -19.0 2.0 65.0 67.1 Rubber Tired Dozers 3 82 445 40 1.20 -19.0 0.8 63.0 63.8 Log Sum 68.7
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 82 445 40 0.40 -19.0 -4.0 63.0 59.0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 84 445 40 1.20 -19.0 0.8 65.0 65.8 Excavators 1 81 445 40 0.40 -19.0 -4.0 62.0 58.0
Graders 1 85 445 40 0.40 -19.0 -4.0 66.0 62.0
Log Sum 68.3
Cranes 1 81 445 16 0.16 -19.0 -8.0 62.0 54.1
Forklifts2
3 48 445 40 1.20 -19.0 0.8 29.0 29.8
Generator Sets 1 81 445 50 0.50 -19.0 -3.0 62.0 59.0
Welders 1 74 445 40 0.40 -19.0 -4.0 55.0 51.0
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 84 445 40 1.20 -19.0 0.8 65.0 65.8 Log Sum 67.0
Pavers 1 77 445 50 0.50 -19.0 -3.0 58.0 55.0
Paving Equipment 2 77 445 50 1.00 -19.0 0.0 58.0 58.0
Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 79 445 40 0.80 -19.0 -1.0 60.0 59.0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 84 445 40 0.40 -19.0 -4.0 65.0 61.0 Rollers 2 80 445 20 0.40 -19.0 -4.0 61.0 57.0
Log Sum 65.5
Air Compressors 1 78 445 40 0.40 -19.0 -4.0 59.0 55.0
Log Sum 55.0
Notes:
(1) Source: Referenced noise levels from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018) and the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide (January 2006) (2) Source: SoundPLAN reference list.
(3) Distance to receptor calculated from center of site. Construction noise projected from the center of the project site to nearest sensitive use (property line).

Paving
Architectural Coating
Grading
Building Construction
Receptor - Commercial to Southwest (15395 Foothill Boulevard, Fontana) Demolition
Site Preparation
Apx-57
Construction Phase Equipment Item # of Items Item Lmax at 50 feet, dBA1 Distance to Receptor3 Item Usage Percent Usage Factor Dist. Correction dB Usage Adj. dB Receptor Item Lmax, dBA Receptor Item Leq, dBA Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 90 310 20 0.20 -15.8 -7.0 74.2 67.2 Excavators 3 81 310 40 1.20 -15.8 0.8 65.2 65.9
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 82 310 40 0.80 -15.8 -1.0 66.2 65.2 Log Sum 70.9
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 84 310 40 1.60 -15.8 2.0 68.2 70.2 Rubber Tired Dozers 3 82 310 40 1.20 -15.8 0.8 66.2 66.9 Log Sum 71.9
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 82 310 40 0.40 -15.8 -4.0 66.2 62.2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 84 310 40 1.20 -15.8 0.8 68.2 68.9 Excavators 1 81 310 40 0.40 -15.8 -4.0 65.2 61.2
Graders 1 85 310 40 0.40 -15.8 -4.0 69.2 65.2
Log Sum 71.5
Cranes 1 81 310 16 0.16 -15.8 -8.0 65.2 57.2
Forklifts2
3 48 310 40 1.20 -15.8 0.8 32.2 32.9
Generator Sets 1 81 310 50 0.50 -15.8 -3.0 65.2 62.1
Welders 1 74 310 40 0.40 -15.8 -4.0 58.2 54.2
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 84 310 40 1.20 -15.8 0.8 68.2 68.9 Log Sum 70.1
Pavers 1 77 310 50 0.50 -15.8 -3.0 61.2 58.1
Paving Equipment 2 77 310 50 1.00 -15.8 0.0 61.2 61.2
Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 79 310 40 0.80 -15.8 -1.0 63.2 62.2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 84 310 40 0.40 -15.8 -4.0 68.2 64.2 Rollers 2 80 310 20 0.40 -15.8 -4.0 64.2 60.2
Log Sum 68.6
Air Compressors 1 78 310 40 0.40 -15.8 -4.0 62.2 58.2
Log Sum 58.2
Notes:
(1) Source: Referenced noise levels from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018) and the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide (January 2006) (2) Source: SoundPLAN reference list.
(3) Distance to receptor calculated from center of site. Construction noise projected from the center of the project site to nearest sensitive use (property line).

Paving
Architectural Coating
Grading
Building Construction
Receptor - Commercial to West (Fontana Nursery, 15380 Foothill Boulevard, Fontana) Demolition
Site Preparation
Apx-58
Construction Phase Equipment Item # of Items Item Lmax at 50 feet, dBA1 Distance to Receptor3 Item Usage Percent Usage Factor Dist. Correction dB Usage Adj. dB Receptor Item Lmax, dBA Receptor Item Leq, dBA Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 90 324 20 0.20 -16.2 -7.0 73.8 66.8 Excavators 3 81 324 40 1.20 -16.2 0.8 64.8 65.6
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 82 324 40 0.80 -16.2 -1.0 65.8 64.8 Log Sum 70.6
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 84 324 40 1.60 -16.2 2.0 67.8 69.8 Rubber Tired Dozers 3 82 324 40 1.20 -16.2 0.8 65.8 66.6 Log Sum 71.5
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 82 324 40 0.40 -16.2 -4.0 65.8 61.8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 84 324 40 1.20 -16.2 0.8 67.8 68.6 Excavators 1 81 324 40 0.40 -16.2 -4.0 64.8 60.8
Graders 1 85 324 40 0.40 -16.2 -4.0 68.8 64.8
Log Sum 71.1
Cranes 1 81 324 16 0.16 -16.2 -8.0 64.8 56.8
Forklifts2
3 48 324 40 1.20 -16.2 0.8 31.8 32.6
Generator Sets 1 81 324 50 0.50 -16.2 -3.0 64.8 61.8
Welders 1 74 324 40 0.40 -16.2 -4.0 57.8 53.8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 84 324 40 1.20 -16.2 0.8 67.8 68.6 Log Sum 69.7
Pavers 1 77 324 50 0.50 -16.2 -3.0 60.8 57.8
Paving Equipment 2 77 324 50 1.00 -16.2 0.0 60.8 60.8
Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 79 324 40 0.80 -16.2 -1.0 62.8 61.8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 84 324 40 0.40 -16.2 -4.0 67.8 63.8 Rollers 2 80 324 20 0.40 -16.2 -4.0 63.8 59.8
Log Sum 68.2
Air Compressors 1 78 324 40 0.40 -16.2 -4.0 61.8 57.8
Log Sum 57.8
Notes:
(1) Source: Referenced noise levels from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018) and the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide (January 2006) (2) Source: SoundPLAN reference list.
(3) Distance to receptor calculated from center of site. Construction noise projected from the center of the project site to nearest sensitive use (property line).

Paving
Architectural Coating
Grading
Building Construction
Receptor - Commercial/Public Works to Northwest (7980 Sultana Avenue, Fontana) Demolition
Site Preparation
Apx-59

APPENDIX E

SOUNDPLAN WORKSHEETS
Apx-60
Traffic values ControlConstr. Affect. Gradient
Station ADT Vehicles type Vehicle name day evening night Speed deviceSpeedveh. Road surface Min / Max km Veh/24h Veh/h Veh/h Veh/h km/h km/h % %
Sultana Avenue Traffic direction: In entry direction
0+00027001 Total
Automobiles
Medium trucks
Heavy trucks
Buses
Motorcycles
Auxiliary vehicle
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1650
1564
32 54
-
-
-
1175
1161
5 9
-
-
-
408
288
45 75
-
-
-
-
64 64
64 -
-
-
none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 0.0
W. Foothill Boulevard West Traffic direction: In entry direction 0+00040500 Total
Automobiles
Medium trucks
Heavy trucks
Buses
Motorcycles
Auxiliary vehicle
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2475
2346
49 81
-
-
-
1763
1742
8 14
-
-
-
612
432
68 113
-
-
-
-
72 72
72 -
-
-
none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 0.0
W. Foothill Boulevard East Traffic direction: In entry direction 0+19540500 Total
Automobiles
Medium trucks
Heavy trucks
Buses
Motorcycles
Auxiliary vehicle
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2475
2346
49 81
-
-
-
1763
1742
8 14
-
-
-
612
432
68 113
-
-
-
-
72 72
72 -
-
-
none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 0.0
Noise emissions of road traffic
GANDDINI GROUP, INC. 555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225 Santa Ana CA 92705 USA Apx-61
Building Limit Level Conflict
No. Receiver name side Floor Lden Lden Lden
dB(A) dB(A) dB
1 1 West EG - 74.3 -

1.OG - 74.3 -

2.OG - 73.8 -

3.OG - 73.4 -
2 2 West EG - 74.2 -

1.OG - 74.2 -

2.OG - 73.9 -

3.OG - 73.4 -
3 3 West EG - 74.4 -

1.OG - 74.4 -

2.OG - 74.0 -

3.OG - 73.7 -
4 4 South EG - 73.7 -

1.OG - 73.8 -

2.OG - 73.8 -

3.OG - 73.4 -
5 5 South EG - 57.7 -

1.OG - 58.1 -

2.OG - 65.7 -

3.OG - 71.5 -
6 6 South EG - 67.6 -

1.OG - 67.6 -

2.OG - 69.4 -

3.OG - 71.6 -
7 7 East EG - 66.8 -

1.OG - 66.6 -

2.OG - 67.0 -

3.OG - 67.2 -
8 8 East EG - 64.8 -

1.OG - 64.5 -

2.OG - 64.7 -

3.OG - 65.1 -
9 9 North EG - 69.2 -

1.OG - 69.5 -

2.OG - 69.1 -

3.OG - 68.8 -
10 10 North EG - 64.8 -

1.OG - 64.6 -

2.OG - 65.0 -

3.OG - 65.2 -
11 11 South EG - 74.9 -
Receiver list
GANDDINI GROUP, INC. 555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225 Santa Ana CA 92705 USA Apx-62

APPENDIX F

FHWA TRAFFIC NOISE MODEL WORKSHEETS
Apx-63
:Id ADT 13175
:Road
Motor-Vehicle
Type
Daytime %
(7 AM - 7 PM)
Evening %
(7 PM - 10 PM)
Night %
(10 PM - 7 AM)
Total % of
Traffic Flow Speed 45
Automobiles 75.54 14.02 10.43 92.00 Distance 66
Medium Trucks 48.00 2.00 50.00 3.00 Left Angle -90
Heavy Trucks 48.00 2.00 50.00 5.00 Right Angle 90
Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks

INPUT PARAMETERS
Vehicles per hour 763.02 15.81 26.35 566.45 2.64 4.39 140.47 21.96 36.60 Speed in MPH 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 Left angle -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 Right angle 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00

NOISE CALCULATIONS
Reference levels 69.34 77.62 82.14 69.34 77.62 82.14 69.34 77.62 82.14

ADJUSTMENTS
Flow 21.99 5.15 7.37 20.69 -2.63 -0.41 14.64 6.58 8.80
Distance -1.28 -1.28 -1.28 -1.28 -1.28 -1.28 -1.28 -1.28 -1.28 Finite Roadway 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Barrier 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Constant -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 LEQ 65.06 56.50 63.24 63.76 48.72 55.45 57.71 57.92 64.66 DAY LEQ 67.60 EVENING LEQ 64.48 NIGHT LEQ 66.17
F CNEL 72.90 Day hour 89.00
DAY LEQ 67.60 Absorptive? no
Use hour? no
GRADE dB 0.00
Notes:
(1) FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model FHWA-RD-77-108
(2) Vehicle percentages based on County of Riverside heavy truck mix.

Noise Parameters
In the vicinity of the project site
Existing Traffic Noise
1 Vehicle Distribution (Heavy Truck Mix)
Foothill Boulevard
Daytime Evening Night
:Segment
Apx-64
:Id ADT 14779
:Road
Motor-Vehicle
Type
Daytime %
(7 AM - 7 PM)
Evening %
(7 PM - 10 PM)
Night %
(10 PM - 7 AM)
Total % of
Traffic Flow Speed 45
Automobiles 75.54 14.02 10.43 92.00 Distance 66
Medium Trucks 48.00 2.00 50.00 3.00 Left Angle -90
Heavy Trucks 48.00 2.00 50.00 5.00 Right Angle 90
Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks

INPUT PARAMETERS
Vehicles per hour 855.91 17.73 29.56 635.42 2.96 4.93 157.57 24.63 41.05 Speed in MPH 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 Left angle -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 Right angle 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00

NOISE CALCULATIONS
Reference levels 69.34 77.62 82.14 69.34 77.62 82.14 69.34 77.62 82.14

ADJUSTMENTS
Flow 22.49 5.65 7.87 21.19 -2.13 0.09 15.14 7.08 9.30
Distance -1.28 -1.28 -1.28 -1.28 -1.28 -1.28 -1.28 -1.28 -1.28 Finite Roadway 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Barrier 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Constant -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 LEQ 65.56 57.00 63.73 64.26 49.22 55.95 58.21 58.42 65.16 DAY LEQ 68.10 EVENING LEQ 64.98 NIGHT LEQ 66.66
CNEL 73.40 Day hour 89.00
DAY LEQ 68.10 Absorptive? no
Use hour? no
GRADE dB 0.00
Notes:
(1) FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model FHWA-RD-77-108
(2) Vehicle percentages based on County of Riverside heavy truck mix.

Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise
Vehicle Distribution (Heavy Truck Mix)
Daytime Evening Night
Noise Parameters
1 Foothill Boulevard
In the vicinity of the project site :Segment
Apx-65
:Id ADT 3210
:Road
Motor-Vehicle
Type
Daytime %
(7 AM - 7 PM)
Evening %
(7 PM - 10 PM)
Night %
(10 PM - 7 AM)
Total % of
Traffic Flow Speed 40
Automobiles 75.56 13.96 10.49 97.40 Distance 40
Medium Trucks 48.91 2.17 48.91 1.84 Left Angle -90
Heavy Trucks 47.30 5.41 47.30 0.74 Right Angle 90
Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks

INPUT PARAMETERS
Vehicles per hour 196.87 2.41 0.94 145.49 0.43 0.43 36.44 3.21 1.25 Speed in MPH 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 Left angle -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 Right angle 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00

NOISE CALCULATIONS
Reference levels 67.36 76.31 81.16 67.36 76.31 81.16 67.36 76.31 81.16

ADJUSTMENTS
Flow 16.62 -2.51 -6.61 15.30 -10.02 -10.01 9.29 -1.26 -5.36 Distance 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Finite Roadway 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Barrier 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Constant -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 LEQ 59.87 49.70 50.45 58.56 42.19 47.05 52.55 50.95 51.70 DAY LEQ 60.70 EVENING LEQ 58.95 NIGHT LEQ 56.55
CNEL 64.14 Day hour 90.00
DAY LEQ 60.70 Absorptive? no
Use hour? no
GRADE dB 1.00
Notes:
(1) FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model FHWA-RD-77-108
(2) Vehicle percentages based on County of Riverside light truck mix.

Noise Parameters
Existing Traffic Noise
2 Vehicle Distribution (Light Truck Mix)
Sultana Avenue
In the vicinity of the project site
Daytime Evening Night
:Segment
Apx-66
:Id ADT 4814
:Road
Motor-Vehicle
Type
Daytime %
(7 AM - 7 PM)
Evening %
(7 PM - 10 PM)
Night %
(10 PM - 7 AM)
Total % of
Traffic Flow Speed 40
Automobiles 75.56 13.96 10.49 97.40 Distance 40
Medium Trucks 48.91 2.17 48.91 1.84 Left Angle -90
Heavy Trucks 47.30 5.41 47.30 0.74 Right Angle 90
Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks

INPUT PARAMETERS
Vehicles per hour 295.24 3.61 1.40 218.19 0.64 0.64 54.65 4.81 1.87 Speed in MPH 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 Left angle -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 -90.00 Right angle 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00

NOISE CALCULATIONS
Reference levels 67.36 76.31 81.16 67.36 76.31 81.16 67.36 76.31 81.16

ADJUSTMENTS
Flow 18.38 -0.75 -4.85 17.06 -8.26 -8.25 11.05 0.50 -3.60 Distance 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Finite Roadway 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Barrier 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Constant -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 -25.00 LEQ 61.63 51.46 52.21 60.32 43.95 48.81 54.31 52.71 53.46 DAY LEQ 62.46 EVENING LEQ 60.71 NIGHT LEQ 58.31
CNEL 65.90 Day hour 90.00
DAY LEQ 62.46 Absorptive? no
Use hour? no
GRADE dB 1.00
Notes:
(1) FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model FHWA-RD-77-108
(2) Vehicle percentages based on County of Riverside light truck mix.

Noise Parameters
Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise
2 Vehicle Distribution (Light Truck Mix)
Sultana Avenue
In the vicinity of the project site
Daytime Evening Night
:Segment
Apx-67

APPENDIX G

GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION WORKSHEETS
Apx-68
Project: 19772 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed Use Date: 12/24/24 Source: Vibratory Roller
Scenario: Unmitigated
Location:

Address: 15459 Vanilla Bean Lane, Fontana
PPV = PPVref(25/D)^n (in/sec)
Equipment =
Type
PPVref = 0.21 Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 ft.

D = 143.00 Distance from Equipment to Receiver (ft)
n = 1.50 Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
PPV = 0.015 IN/SEC
Note: Based on reference equations from the Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, April 2020, pg 37.

RESULTS

OUTPUT IN BLUE

GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Residential to North
INPUT
1 Vibratory Roller INPUT SECTION IN GREEN
Apx-69
Project: 19772 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed Use Date: 12/24/24 Source: Large Bulldozer
Scenario: Unmitigated
Location:

Address: 15459 Vanilla Bean Lane, Fontana
PPV = PPVref(25/D)^n (in/sec)
Equipment =
Type
PPVref = 0.089 Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 ft.

D = 143.00 Distance from Equipment to Receiver (ft)
n = 1.50 Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
PPV = 0.007 IN/SEC
Note: Based on reference equations from the Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, April 2020, pg 37.

RESULTS

OUTPUT IN BLUE

GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Residential to North
INPUT
2 Large Bulldozer INPUT SECTION IN GREEN
Apx-70
Project: 19772 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed Use Date: 12/24/24 Source: Vibratory Roller
Scenario: Unmitigated
Location:

Address: 15523 Sesame Seed Avenue, Fontana
PPV = PPVref(25/D)^n (in/sec)
Equipment =
Type
PPVref = 0.21 Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 ft.

D = 95.00 Distance from Equipment to Receiver (ft)
n = 1.50 Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
PPV = 0.028 IN/SEC
Note: Based on reference equations from the Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, April 2020, pg 37.

RESULTS

OUTPUT IN BLUE

GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Residential to Northeast
INPUT
1 Vibratory Roller INPUT SECTION IN GREEN
Apx-71
Project: 19772 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed Use Date: 12/24/24 Source: Large Bulldozer
Scenario: Unmitigated
Location:

Address: 15523 Sesame Seed Avenue, Fontana
PPV = PPVref(25/D)^n (in/sec)
Equipment =
Type
PPVref = 0.089 Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 ft.

D = 95.00 Distance from Equipment to Receiver (ft)
n = 1.50 Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
PPV = 0.012 IN/SEC
Note: Based on reference equations from the Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, April 2020, pg 37.

RESULTS

OUTPUT IN BLUE

GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Residential to Northeast
INPUT
2 Large Bulldozer INPUT SECTION IN GREEN
Apx-72
Project: 19772 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed Use Date: 12/24/24 Source: Vibratory Roller
Scenario: Unmitigated
Location:

Address: Taylored Services Warehouse, 8375 Sultana Avenue, Fontana PPV = PPVref(25/D)^n (in/sec)
Equipment =
Type
PPVref = 0.21 Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 ft.

D = 202.00 Distance from Equipment to Receiver (ft)
n = 1.50 Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
PPV = 0.009 IN/SEC
Note: Based on reference equations from the Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, April 2020, pg 37.

RESULTS

OUTPUT IN BLUE

GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Industrial to South
INPUT
1 Vibratory Roller INPUT SECTION IN GREEN
Apx-73
Project: 19772 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed Use Date: 12/24/24 Source: Large Bulldozer
Scenario: Unmitigated
Location:

Address: Taylored Services Warehouse, 8375 Sultana Avenue, Fontana PPV = PPVref(25/D)^n (in/sec)
Equipment =
Type
PPVref = 0.089 Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 ft.

D = 202.00 Distance from Equipment to Receiver (ft)
n = 1.50 Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
PPV = 0.004 IN/SEC
Note: Based on reference equations from the Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, April 2020, pg 37.

RESULTS

OUTPUT IN BLUE

GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Industrial to South
INPUT
2 Large Bulldozer INPUT SECTION IN GREEN
Apx-74
Project: 19772 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed Use Date: 12/24/24 Source: Vibratory Roller
Scenario: Unmitigated
Location:

Address: 15395 Foothill Boulevard, Fontana
PPV = PPVref(25/D)^n (in/sec)
Equipment =
Type
PPVref = 0.21 Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 ft.

D = 184.00 Distance from Equipment to Receiver (ft)
n = 1.50 Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
PPV = 0.011 IN/SEC
Note: Based on reference equations from the Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, April 2020, pg 37.

RESULTS

OUTPUT IN BLUE

GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Commercial to Southwest
INPUT
1 Vibratory Roller INPUT SECTION IN GREEN
Apx-75
Project: 19772 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed Use Date: 12/24/24 Source: Large Bulldozer
Scenario: Unmitigated
Location:

Address: 15395 Foothill Boulevard, Fontana
PPV = PPVref(25/D)^n (in/sec)
Equipment =
Type
PPVref = 0.089 Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 ft.

D = 184.00 Distance from Equipment to Receiver (ft)
n = 1.50 Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
PPV = 0.004 IN/SEC
Note: Based on reference equations from the Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, April 2020, pg 37.

RESULTS

OUTPUT IN BLUE

GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Commercial to Southwest
INPUT
2 Large Bulldozer INPUT SECTION IN GREEN
Apx-76
Project: 19772 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed Use Date: 12/24/24 Source: Vibratory Roller
Scenario: Unmitigated
Location:

Address: Fontana Nursery, 15380 Foothill Boulevard, Fontana PPV = PPVref(25/D)^n (in/sec)
Equipment =
Type
PPVref = 0.21 Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 ft.

D = 225.00 Distance from Equipment to Receiver (ft)
n = 1.50 Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
PPV = 0.008 IN/SEC
Note: Based on reference equations from the Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, April 2020, pg 37.

RESULTS

OUTPUT IN BLUE

GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Commercial to West
INPUT
1 Vibratory Roller INPUT SECTION IN GREEN
Apx-77
Project: 19772 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed Use Date: 12/24/24 Source: Large Bulldozer
Scenario: Unmitigated
Location:

Address: Fontana Nursery, 15380 Foothill Boulevard, Fontana PPV = PPVref(25/D)^n (in/sec)
Equipment =
Type
PPVref = 0.089 Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 ft.

D = 225.00 Distance from Equipment to Receiver (ft)
n = 1.50 Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
PPV = 0.003 IN/SEC
Note: Based on reference equations from the Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, April 2020, pg 37.

RESULTS

OUTPUT IN BLUE

GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Commercial to West
INPUT
2 Large Bulldozer INPUT SECTION IN GREEN
Apx-78
Project: 19772 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed Use Date: 12/24/24 Source: Vibratory Roller
Scenario: Unmitigated
Location:

Address: 7980 Sultana Avenue, Fontana
PPV = PPVref(25/D)^n (in/sec)
Equipment =
Type
PPVref = 0.21 Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 ft.

D = 58.00 Distance from Equipment to Receiver (ft)
n = 1.50 Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
PPV = 0.059 IN/SEC
Note: Based on reference equations from the Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, April 2020, pg 37.

RESULTS

OUTPUT IN BLUE

GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Commercial/Public Works to Northwest
INPUT
1 Vibratory Roller INPUT SECTION IN GREEN
Apx-79
Project: 19772 NEC Foothill & Sultana Mixed Use Date: 12/24/24 Source: Large Bulldozer
Scenario: Unmitigated
Location:

Address: 7980 Sultana Avenue, Fontana
PPV = PPVref(25/D)^n (in/sec)
Equipment =
Type
PPVref = 0.089 Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 ft.

D = 58.00 Distance from Equipment to Receiver (ft)
n = 1.50 Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
PPV = 0.025 IN/SEC
Note: Based on reference equations from the Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, April 2020, pg 37.

RESULTS

OUTPUT IN BLUE

GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Commercial/Public Works to Northwest
INPUT
2 Large Bulldozer INPUT SECTION IN GREEN
Apx-80
GANDDINI GROUP INC.
714.795.3100 | ganddini.com

APPENDIX D

CALEEMOD DETAILED REPORT
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
1 / 50
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
2 / 50

3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
3 / 50

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
4 / 50

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
5 / 50

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
6 / 50

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
7 / 50

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name TPM 23-015, Fontana
Construction Start Date 6/3/2025
Operational Year 2025
Lead Agency City of Fontana
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.80
Precipitation (days) 6.40
Location 34.107366, -117.468289
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Fontana
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5305
EDFZ 10
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.29

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Strip Mall 5.00 1000sqft 1.25 5,000 0.00 — — —
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
8 / 50
Apartments Low
Rise
204 Dwelling Unit 1.25 216,240 22,383 — 675 —
Parking Lot 45.0 1000sqft 1.03 0.00 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 74.6 74.6 31.7 31.5 0.05 1.37 7.89 9.26 1.26 3.99 5.25 — 5,542 5,542 0.24 0.20 9.72 5,564 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.13 1.78 12.0 22.2 0.03 0.44 2.13 2.58 0.41 0.51 0.92 — 5,014 5,014 0.24 0.20 0.25 5,080 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.57 4.45 5.85 9.21 0.01 0.23 0.86 1.09 0.21 0.25 0.46 — 1,951 1,951 0.09 0.07 1.37 1,975 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.83 0.81 1.07 1.68 < 0.005 0.04 0.16 0.20 0.04 0.05 0.08 — 323 323 0.02 0.01 0.23 327

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
9 / 50
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 4.03 3.39 31.7 31.5 0.05 1.37 7.89 9.26 1.26 3.99 5.25 — 5,542 5,542 0.24 0.20 9.72 5,564 2026 74.6 74.6 11.2 24.1 0.03 0.39 2.13 2.52 0.36 0.51 0.87 — 5,133 5,133 0.23 0.20 8.83 5,206 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 2.13 1.78 12.0 22.2 0.03 0.44 2.13 2.58 0.41 0.51 0.92 — 5,014 5,014 0.24 0.20 0.25 5,080 2026 2.02 1.68 11.3 21.4 0.03 0.39 2.13 2.52 0.36 0.51 0.87 — 4,963 4,963 0.18 0.20 0.23 5,027 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.94 0.79 5.85 9.21 0.01 0.23 0.86 1.09 0.21 0.25 0.46 — 1,951 1,951 0.09 0.07 1.37 1,975 2026 4.57 4.45 3.92 7.49 0.01 0.14 0.70 0.83 0.13 0.17 0.29 — 1,668 1,668 0.06 0.06 1.24 1,690 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.17 0.14 1.07 1.68 < 0.005 0.04 0.16 0.20 0.04 0.05 0.08 — 323 323 0.02 0.01 0.23 327 2026 0.83 0.81 0.71 1.37 < 0.005 0.02 0.13 0.15 0.02 0.03 0.05 — 276 276 0.01 0.01 0.21 280

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 13.2 12.5 6.17 60.3 0.12 0.15 9.42 9.58 0.15 2.39 2.54 101 13,589 13,690 10.9 0.59 43.8 14,184 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 11.6 11.0 6.43 41.3 0.11 0.15 9.42 9.57 0.14 2.39 2.54 101 12,846 12,947 11.0 0.61 2.67 13,406 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
10 / 50
Unmit. 12.3 11.7 6.60 50.8 0.11 0.15 9.39 9.54 0.15 2.38 2.53 101 12,978 13,080 11.0 0.62 19.8 13,557 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.25 2.13 1.20 9.27 0.02 0.03 1.71 1.74 0.03 0.44 0.46 16.7 2,149 2,165 1.81 0.10 3.28 2,244

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 6.84 6.28 5.19 48.2 0.11 0.08 9.42 9.50 0.07 2.39 2.47 — 11,402 11,402 0.58 0.54 42.2 11,618 Area 6.26 6.20 0.11 11.8 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 31.8 31.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 32.0 Energy 0.10 0.05 0.87 0.37 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 2,096 2,096 0.19 0.01 — 2,104 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 17.0 59.9 76.9 1.75 0.04 — 133 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 84.1 0.00 84.1 8.41 0.00 — 294 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.58 1.58
Total 13.2 12.5 6.17 60.3 0.12 0.15 9.42 9.58 0.15 2.39 2.54 101 13,589 13,690 10.9 0.59 43.8 14,184 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 6.38 5.80 5.57 40.9 0.10 0.08 9.42 9.50 0.07 2.39 2.47 — 10,691 10,691 0.61 0.56 1.09 10,872 Area 5.13 5.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.10 0.05 0.87 0.37 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 2,096 2,096 0.19 0.01 — 2,104 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 17.0 59.9 76.9 1.75 0.04 — 133 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 84.1 0.00 84.1 8.41 0.00 — 294 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.58 1.58
Total 11.6 11.0 6.43 41.3 0.11 0.15 9.42 9.57 0.14 2.39 2.54 101 12,846 12,947 11.0 0.61 2.67 13,406 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
11 / 50
Mobile 6.33 5.75 5.66 42.4 0.11 0.08 9.39 9.46 0.07 2.38 2.46 — 10,801 10,801 0.61 0.56 18.2 11,001 Area 5.90 5.86 0.08 8.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 21.8 21.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21.9 Energy 0.10 0.05 0.87 0.37 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 2,096 2,096 0.19 0.01 — 2,104 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 17.0 59.9 76.9 1.75 0.04 — 133 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 84.1 0.00 84.1 8.41 0.00 — 294 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.58 1.58
Total 12.3 11.7 6.60 50.8 0.11 0.15 9.39 9.54 0.15 2.38 2.53 101 12,978 13,080 11.0 0.62 19.8 13,557 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.15 1.05 1.03 7.73 0.02 0.01 1.71 1.73 0.01 0.44 0.45 — 1,788 1,788 0.10 0.09 3.02 1,821 Area 1.08 1.07 0.01 1.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 3.61 3.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.62 Energy 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 347 347 0.03 < 0.005 — 348 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.82 9.92 12.7 0.29 0.01 — 22.1 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 13.9 0.00 13.9 1.39 0.00 — 48.7 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.26
Total 2.25 2.13 1.20 9.27 0.02 0.03 1.71 1.74 0.03 0.44 0.46 16.7 2,149 2,165 1.81 0.10 3.28 2,244

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

2.86 2.40 22.2 19.9 0.03 0.92 — 0.92 0.84 — 0.84 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
12 / 50
Demoliti — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — on
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.16 0.13 1.22 1.09 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 — 188 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.02 0.22 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 31.1 31.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.2 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.07 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 211 211 0.01 0.01 0.78 215 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
13 / 50
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.8 10.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.78 1.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.81 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.94 3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
14 / 50
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.05 0.05 0.43 0.41 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 72.5 72.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 72.8 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.11 0.11 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 12.0 12.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.08 1.36 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 247 247 0.01 0.01 0.91 250 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.14 3.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.19 TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
15 / 50
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.52 0.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.53 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

2.07 1.74 16.3 17.9 0.03 0.72 — 0.72 0.66 — 0.66 — 2,959 2,959 0.12 0.02 — 2,970 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 2.76 2.76 — 1.34 1.34 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.05 0.04 0.36 0.39 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 64.9 64.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 65.1 TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
16 / 50
Dust — — — — — — 0.06 0.06 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.7 10.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.8 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.07 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 211 211 0.01 0.01 0.78 215 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.31 4.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.37 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.71 0.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.72 TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
17 / 50
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.43 0.36 3.33 4.16 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 — 765 765 0.03 0.01 — 767 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
18 / 50
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.08 0.07 0.61 0.76 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 127 127 0.01 < 0.005 — 127 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.75 0.68 0.65 11.6 0.00 0.00 1.94 1.94 0.00 0.45 0.45 — 2,092 2,092 0.09 0.07 7.76 2,124 Vendor 0.07 0.02 0.78 0.42 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 698 698 0.05 0.11 1.96 733 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.71 0.64 0.72 8.72 0.00 0.00 1.94 1.94 0.00 0.45 0.45 — 1,918 1,918 0.09 0.07 0.20 1,943 Vendor 0.07 0.02 0.81 0.42 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 698 698 0.05 0.11 0.05 731 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.20 0.25 2.93 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.14 0.14 — 621 621 0.03 0.02 1.07 629 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.26 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 223 223 0.02 0.03 0.27 233 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 103 103 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 104 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 36.9 36.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 38.7 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
19 / 50
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent

1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38— 0.38 0.35— 0.35— 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02— 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent

1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38— 0.38 0.35— 0.35— 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02— 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent

0.40 0.34 3.09 4.06 0.01 0.12— 0.12 0.11— 0.11— 751 751 0.03 0.01— 753 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent

0.07 0.06 0.56 0.74 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02— 124 124 0.01 < 0.005— 125 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
20 / 50
Worker 0.71 0.64 0.59 10.7 0.00 0.00 1.94 1.94 0.00 0.45 0.45 — 2,049 2,049 0.09 0.07 7.01 2,080 Vendor 0.07 0.01 0.74 0.40 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 686 686 0.05 0.11 1.81 721 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.67 0.60 0.65 8.07 0.00 0.00 1.94 1.94 0.00 0.45 0.45 — 1,879 1,879 0.03 0.07 0.18 1,902 Vendor 0.07 0.01 0.77 0.41 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.20 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 687 687 0.05 0.11 0.05 720 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.21 0.19 0.22 2.66 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.00 0.14 0.14 — 597 597 0.01 0.02 0.95 605 Vendor 0.02 < 0.005 0.24 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 215 215 0.02 0.03 0.24 225 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 98.8 98.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 100 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 35.6 35.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 37.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.81 0.68 6.23 8.81 0.01 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,350 1,350 0.05 0.01 — 1,355 Paving 0.15 0.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
21 / 50
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.04 0.03 0.31 0.43 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 66.6 66.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 66.8 Paving 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.06 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.0 11.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.1 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.08 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 276 276 0.01 0.01 0.94 280 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.7 12.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.8 TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
22 / 50
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.10 2.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.12 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s

74.3 74.3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.95 6.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.97 TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
23 / 50
Architect 3.87 3.87 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.15 1.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.15 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.71 0.71 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.13 0.12 2.14 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 410 410 0.02 0.01 1.40 416 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.8 19.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 20.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.29 3.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.33 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
24 / 50

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip
Mall

1.00 0.92 0.74 6.85 0.02 0.01 1.33 1.34 0.01 0.34 0.35 — 1,607 1,607 0.08 0.08 5.94 1,637 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

5.84 5.36 4.45 41.3 0.10 0.07 8.10 8.17 0.06 2.06 2.12 — 9,795 9,795 0.50 0.46 36.3 9,981 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 6.84 6.28 5.19 48.2 0.11 0.08 9.42 9.50 0.07 2.39 2.47 — 11,402 11,402 0.58 0.54 42.2 11,618 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip
Mall

0.93 0.85 0.79 5.84 0.01 0.01 1.33 1.34 0.01 0.34 0.35 — 1,507 1,507 0.09 0.08 0.15 1,532 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

5.44 4.95 4.77 35.1 0.09 0.07 8.10 8.17 0.06 2.06 2.12 — 9,184 9,184 0.52 0.48 0.94 9,340 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 6.38 5.80 5.57 40.9 0.10 0.08 9.42 9.50 0.07 2.39 2.47 — 10,691 10,691 0.61 0.56 1.09 10,872 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip
Mall

0.17 0.15 0.15 1.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24 0.24 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 — 252 252 0.01 0.01 0.42 257 TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
25 / 50
Apartme
Low
Rise

0.99 0.90 0.89 6.63 0.02 0.01 1.47 1.48 0.01 0.37 0.39 — 1,536 1,536 0.09 0.08 2.59 1,565 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.15 1.05 1.03 7.73 0.02 0.01 1.71 1.73 0.01 0.44 0.45 — 1,788 1,788 0.10 0.09 3.02 1,821

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — 46.5 46.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 46.7 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 913 913 0.09 0.01 — 918
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 37.7 37.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.9 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 997 997 0.09 0.01 — 1,003 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — 46.5 46.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 46.7 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 913 913 0.09 0.01 — 918
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 37.7 37.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.9 TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
26 / 50
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 997 997 0.09 0.01 — 1,003 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — 7.69 7.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.74 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 151 151 0.01 < 0.005 — 152
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 6.23 6.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.27 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 165 165 0.02 < 0.005 — 166

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip
Mall
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.45 9.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.47 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.10 0.05 0.86 0.37 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 1,089 1,089 0.10 < 0.005 — 1,092 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.10 0.05 0.87 0.37 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 1,098 1,098 0.10 < 0.005 — 1,101 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip
Mall
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.45 9.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.47 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.10 0.05 0.86 0.37 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 1,089 1,089 0.10 < 0.005 — 1,092 TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
27 / 50
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.10 0.05 0.87 0.37 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 1,098 1,098 0.10 < 0.005 — 1,101 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip
Mall
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.56 1.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.57 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.02 0.01 0.16 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 180 180 0.02 < 0.005 — 181 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 182 182 0.02 < 0.005 — 182

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s

4.74 4.74 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.39 0.39 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

1.14 1.08 0.11 11.8 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 31.8 31.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 32.0 TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
28 / 50
Total 6.26 6.20 0.11 11.8 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 31.8 31.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 32.0 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s

4.74 4.74 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.39 0.39 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 5.13 5.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s

0.86 0.86 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.07 0.07 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.14 0.13 0.01 1.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.61 3.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.62 Total 1.08 1.07 0.01 1.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 3.61 3.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.62

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
29 / 50
Land TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Use
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.71 2.41 3.12 0.07 < 0.005 — 5.47 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 16.3 57.5 73.8 1.68 0.04 — 128
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 17.0 59.9 76.9 1.75 0.04 — 133 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.71 2.41 3.12 0.07 < 0.005 — 5.47 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 16.3 57.5 73.8 1.68 0.04 — 128
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 17.0 59.9 76.9 1.75 0.04 — 133 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.12 0.40 0.52 0.01 < 0.005 — 0.91 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.70 9.52 12.2 0.28 0.01 — 21.1
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2.82 9.92 12.7 0.29 0.01 — 22.1 TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
30 / 50

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.83 0.00 2.83 0.28 0.00 — 9.90
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 81.3 0.00 81.3 8.12 0.00 — 284
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 84.1 0.00 84.1 8.41 0.00 — 294 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.83 0.00 2.83 0.28 0.00 — 9.90
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 81.3 0.00 81.3 8.12 0.00 — 284
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 84.1 0.00 84.1 8.41 0.00 — 294 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.47 0.00 0.47 0.05 0.00 — 1.64
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 13.5 0.00 13.5 1.34 0.00 — 47.1
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
31 / 50
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 13.9 0.00 13.9 1.39 0.00 — 48.7

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.55 1.55
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.58 1.58
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.55 1.55
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.58 1.58
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.26
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
32 / 50
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.26

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
33 / 50
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
34 / 50
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
35 / 50
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
36 / 50

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 6/3/2025 7/1/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 7/2/2025 7/9/2025 5.00 5.00 — Grading Grading 7/10/2025 7/21/2025 5.00 8.00 —
Building Construction Building Construction 7/22/2025 6/9/2026 5.00 230 — Paving Paving 6/10/2026 7/5/2026 5.00 18.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 7/6/2026 7/30/2026 5.00 19.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
37 / 50
Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
38 / 50
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 148 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 22.6 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 29.7 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 437,886 145,962 7,500 2,500 2,700 TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
39 / 50

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Site Preparation — — 7.50 0.00 —
Grading — — 8.00 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.03

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Strip Mall 0.00 0%
Apartments Low Rise — 0%
Parking Lot 1.03 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 349 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 346 0.03 < 0.005
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
40 / 50

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Strip Mall 238 238 238 86,870 1,870 1,870 1,870 682,378 Apartments Low
Rise
1,368 1,368 1,368 499,254 11,417 11,417 11,417 4,167,358 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Low Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 0
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
41 / 50
437886 145,962 7,500 2,500 2,700

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Strip Mall 48,642 349 0.0330 0.0040 29,477
Apartments Low Rise 955,893 349 0.0330 0.0040 3,397,938 Parking Lot 39,420 349 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Strip Mall 370,363 0.00
Apartments Low Rise 8,502,960 439,329
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
42 / 50
Strip Mall 5.25 —
Apartments Low Rise 151 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Low Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
43 / 50

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
44 / 50
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 21.7 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 5.25 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
45 / 50

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 97.0
AQ-PM 91.2
AQ-DPM 44.6
Drinking Water 66.7
Lead Risk Housing 17.7
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
46 / 50
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 70.1
Traffic 22.7
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 0.00
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 87.1
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 35.5
Cardio-vascular 74.9
Low Birth Weights 90.0
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 67.1
Housing 32.3
Linguistic 42.1
Poverty 46.6
Unemployment 60.6

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 73.87398948
Employed 66.08494803
Median HI 76.97934043
Education —
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
47 / 50
Bachelor's or higher 33.61991531
High school enrollment 16.64314128
Preschool enrollment 6.954959579
Transportation —
Auto Access 81.29090209
Active commuting 28.82073656
Social —
2-parent households 63.10791736
Voting 37.89298088
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 69.81906839
Park access 24.90696779
Retail density 29.59065828
Supermarket access 48.50506865
Tree canopy 11.20236109
Housing —
Homeownership 87.77107661
Housing habitability 74.22045425
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 66.09778006 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 33.49159502
Uncrowded housing 67.80443988
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 47.32452201
Arthritis 87.4
Asthma ER Admissions 59.8
High Blood Pressure 83.5
Cancer (excluding skin) 80.0
Asthma 58.2
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
48 / 50
Coronary Heart Disease 90.3
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 88.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 65.9
Life Expectancy at Birth 84.7
Cognitively Disabled 85.7
Physically Disabled 88.8
Heart Attack ER Admissions 27.3
Mental Health Not Good 56.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 79.8
Obesity 44.4
Pedestrian Injuries 39.5
Physical Health Not Good 65.0
Stroke 88.3
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 15.4
Current Smoker 63.1
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 61.9
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 45.9
Elderly 96.3
English Speaking 60.3
Foreign-born 41.2
Outdoor Workers 55.6
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 52.6
Traffic Density 33.7
TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
49 / 50
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 49.3
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 49.9

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 58.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 51.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Per Site Plan
Operations: Vehicle Data Per traffic analysis
Operations: Hearths No fireplaces or wood stoves proposed.

TPM 23-015, Fontana Detailed Report, 1/14/2025
50 / 50
Construction: Construction Phases .

APPENDIX E

HYDROLOGY HYDRAULICS
1 PRELIMINARY

HYDROLOGY-HYDRAULICS
REPORT
FOR

FOOTHILL-SULTANA APARTMENT COMPLEX
Northeast Corner-Foothill Boulevard and Sultana Avenue
Fontana, Ca. 92335
PREPARED BY:

HP ENGINEERING, INC.
1465 CRESTVIEW ROAD
REDLANDS, CA. 92374
(909) 335-8239
FAX (909) 335-9940 9/14/23
2 INTRODUCTION
STUDY LOCATION:

The study area is approximately 3.48 acres of land being proposed for 204-unit and five-storey Apartment Complex . The site is located at northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Sultana Avenue in the City of Fontana. It is also currently identified as APN: 1110-331-13 and 25. The project may be accessed via Citrus Avenue north from Interstate 10 freeway, thence west on Foothill Boulevard to the project site.

REPORT OBJECTIVE:

The entire area of this project will be developed into a 204-Unit, five-storey Apartment complex on a existing vacant land. This project will have one five-storey building with the ground level being used for parking spaces and additional improvements that is required by the City for a typical apartment complex. The objective of this report is to determine the basic hydrologic response of the proposed development to both onsite and offsite storm runoff and to established storm drain facility design criteria for this localized unit for review by the City of Fontana.

HYDROLOGY:

The rational method hydrology system used on the analysis of the subject site is the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual dated August, 1986
SUMMARY:

The site is currently vacant and has existing drainage flow pattern from north to the south and will remain the same for the post development condition.

The property to the west is an existing Sultana Avenue which is partially improved with its own drainage system, therefore there will be no significant impact to the project site.

The property to the north is a Railroad Right of Way which is converted into walking trail. The South side portion of this walking trail is draining into the project site which will be considered in the calculations and the north side portion of this trail drains to the north and will not have impact to the project site.

The property to the east is currently vacant and drains to the south, therefore there will be no significant impact to the project site.

To the south is Foothill Boulevard with its own drainage system, therefore there will be no significant impact to the project site.

The site is in Group “A” of the Hydrologic Soils Group Map.

The increased of storm runoff due to this proposed development, if there are any, will be retained onsite allowing the historical storm runoff or the 90% of its undeveloped condition as flowby thru an under sidewalk drain into Foothill Boulevard.
3 The following is a runoff summary for 25-year and 100-year storm frequencies for Pre-development and Post Development condition of the project.

The following is the resulting runoff flows and volumes Pre-Development
25-Year = 7.02 cfs
100-Year = 10.84 cfs
Post Development
25-Year = 10.44 cfs
100-Year = 14.09 cfs
Runoff Volume
100-Year Predevelopment = 1.9944 Ac-Ft
100-Year Post Development = 1.9154 Ac-Ft
Decrease in Volume = 0.079 Ac-Ft = 3,441 C,F.

The 100-year storm frequency will be used in this study to reflect the critical condition.

The amount of runoff to be retained by this development per City policy will be as follows: “The postdevelopment peak flow rate generated by the development shall be less than or equal to 90% of the pre-development peak flow rate from the site”.

Thus, 90% of 10.84 c.f.s. (Pre-Development) = 9.76 c.f.s.

Therefore, the total amount of runoff to be retained is 14.09 – 9.76 = 4.33 c.f.s.

The Flood Routing calculations shows that the calculated flow could easily contained by the proposed WQMP underground chambers.

An under sidewalk drain of 36 inches wide has a capacity of 12.61 cfs, which is more than enough to handle the calculated flow of 14.09 cfs cfs.

To satisfy the WQMP requirements, underground infiltration basin is incorporated into the project for water runoff treatment before it drains into the City’s storm drain system. This basin has enough treatment capacity as shown on the WQMP report.

The grated 48”x48” catch basin has a capacity of 24.88 cfs which is more than the calculated flow of

14.09 cfs.

It is our opinion that from Hydrology standpoint, the proposed project is safe provided that all recommended improvements are implement
4 UNDER SIDEWALK DRAIN

CAPACITY CALCULATION
|<--------( 3.00')---------->|
| |
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * *
* *^^^Water Surface ( 0.50')^^^* *
* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Rectangular Open Channel
------------------------
Flowrate .................. 12.610 CFS
Velocity .................. 8.407 fps
Depth of Flow ............. 0.500 feet
Critical Depth ............ 0.819 feet
Total Depth ............... 0.500 feet
Base Width ................ 3.000 feet
Slope of Channel .......... 2.000 %
X-Sectional Area .......... 1.500 sq. ft.

Wetted Perimeter .......... 4.000 feet
AR^(2/3) .................. 0.780
Mannings 'n' .............. 0.013
5 6
San Bernardino County Rational Hydrology Program
(Hydrology Manual Date - August 1986)
CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1989-2005 Version 7.1 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 09/14/23
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 25-YEAR

PREDEVELOPMENT

FOOTHILL-SULTANA APARTMENT COMPLEX
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Program License Serial Number 6260
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational hydrology study storm event year is 25.0
Computed rainfall intensity:

Storm year = 25.00 1 hour rainfall = 1.170 (In.)
Slope used for rainfall intensity curve b = 0.6000
Soil antecedent moisture condition (AMC) = 2
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
______________________________________________________________________ UNDEVELOPED (poor cover) subarea
Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000
SCS curve number for soil(AMC 2) = 67.00
Pervious ratio(Ap) = 1.0000 Max loss rate(Fm)= 0.578(In/Hr) Initial subarea data:

Initial area flow distance = 648.000(Ft.)
Top (of initial area) elevation = 85.000(Ft.)
Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 72.400(Ft.)
Difference in elevation = 12.600(Ft.)
Slope = 0.01944 s(%)= 1.94
TC = k(0.525)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2
Initial area time of concentration = 15.383 min.

Rainfall intensity = 2.648(In/Hr) for a 25.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.703 Subarea runoff = 7.021(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 3.770(Ac.)
Pervious area fraction = 1.000
Initial area Fm value = 0.578(In/Hr)
End of computations, Total Study Area = 3.77 (Ac.)
7 San Bernardino County Rational Hydrology Program
(Hydrology Manual Date - August 1986)
CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1989-2005 Version 7.1 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 09/14/23
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 100-YEAR

PREDEVELOPMENT