HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPA Draft SEIR
Ventana at Duncan Canyon
Specific Plan Amendment
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
SCH #2021100400
prepared by
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Contact: Salvador Quintanilla, Associate Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
April 2022
Ventana at Duncan Canyon
Specific Plan Amendment
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
SCH #2021100400
prepared by
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Contact: Salvador Quintanilla, Associate Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
April 2022
This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.
Table of Contents
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................ES-1
Project Synopsis .........................................................................................................................ES-1
Project Objectives ......................................................................................................................ES-3
Alternatives ................................................................................................................................ES-3
Areas of Known Controversy .....................................................................................................ES-4
Issues to be Resolved .................................................................................................................ES-4
Issues Not Studied in Detail in the SEIR .....................................................................................ES-4
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ES-4
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Notice of Preparation and Scoping ................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority ........................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Scope and Content .......................................................................................................... 1-3
1.3.1 Drafting of Supplemental EIR ......................................................................... 1-3
1.4 Issues Not Studied in Detail in the SEIR .......................................................................... 1-5
1.5 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies ....................................................................... 1-6
1.6 Environmental Review Process ....................................................................................... 1-6
2 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Project Applicant ............................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Lead Agency Contact Person ........................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Project Location .............................................................................................................. 2-1
2.4 Existing Site Characteristics ............................................................................................ 2-1
2.5 Existing Land Use Designation and Zoning ..................................................................... 2-4
2.6 Project Setting and Surrounding Land Uses .................................................................... 2-4
2.7 Existing Specific Plan Characteristics .............................................................................. 2-6
2.8 Proposed Project Land Use Plan ..................................................................................... 2-6
2.8.1 Changes from the Existing Specific Plan ......................................................... 2-8
2.8.2 Project Characteristics .................................................................................... 2-9
2.9 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................... 2-17
2.10 Required Approvals ....................................................................................................... 2-17
2.10.1 City of Fontana .............................................................................................. 2-17
2.10.2 Other Agency Approvals ............................................................................... 2-17
3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Regional Setting .............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Project Site Setting .......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.3 Cumulative Development ............................................................................................... 3-2
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
ii
4 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Aesthetics/Visual Resources ........................................................................................ 4.1-1
4.1.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.1.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.1-5
4.1.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 4.1-6
4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.1-12
4.2 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 4.2-1
4.2.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.2-1
4.2.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.2-5
4.2.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 4.2-8
4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.2-24
4.3 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.3.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.3.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.3-11
4.3.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.3-15
4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.3-22
4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources ....................................................... 4.4-1
4.4.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.4-1
4.4.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.4-5
4.4.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 4.4-7
4.4.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.4-22
4.5 Energy .......................................................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.5.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.5.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.5-3
4.5.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 4.5-8
4.5.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.5-13
4.6 Geology and Soils ......................................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.6.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.6.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.6-5
4.6.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 4.6-7
4.6.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.6-11
4.7 Greenhouse Gas ........................................................................................................... 4.7-1
4.7.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.7-1
4.7.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.7-6
4.7.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.7-11
4.7.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.7-19
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................... 4.8-1
4.8.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.8-1
4.8.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.8-8
Table of Contents
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report iii
4.8.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.8-12
4.8.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.8-21
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................... 4.9-1
4.9.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.9-1
4.9.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.9-8
4.9.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.9-15
4.9.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.9-22
4.10 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................... 4.10-1
4.10.1 Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.10-1
4.10.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.10-2
4.10.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.10-4
4.10.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.10-8
4.11 Noise .......................................................................................................................... 4.11-1
4.11.1 Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.11-1
4.11.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.11-6
4.11.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.11-9
4.11.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.11-24
4.12 Population and Housing ............................................................................................. 4.12-1
4.12.1 Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.12-1
4.12.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.12-2
4.12.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.12-4
4.12.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.12-6
4.13 Public Services and Recreation .................................................................................. 4.13-1
4.13.1 Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.13-1
4.13.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.13-4
4.13.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.13-7
4.13.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.13-15
4.14 Transportation ........................................................................................................... 4.14-1
4.14.1 Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.14-1
4.14.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.14-2
4.14.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.14-8
4.14.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.14-13
4.15 Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................... 4.15-1
4.15.1 Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.15-1
4.15.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.15-7
4.15.3 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.15-11
4.15.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.15-19
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
iv
4.16 Wildfire ...................................................................................................................... 4.16-1
4.16.1 Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.16-1
4.16.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.16-4
4.16.3 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.16-10
4.16.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.16-13
5 Other CEQA Required Discussions .............................................................................................. 5-1
5.1 Effects Found Not to be Significant................................................................................. 5-1
5.2 Growth Inducement ........................................................................................................ 5-2
5.2.1 Population Growth ......................................................................................... 5-2
5.2.2 Economic Growth ........................................................................................... 5-3
5.2.3 Removal of Obstacles to Growth .................................................................... 5-4
5.3 Irreversible Environmental Effects .................................................................................. 5-4
6 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Project .............................................................................. 6-2
6.2.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Existing Specific Plan ............................................. 6-3
6.2.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Density Alternative ................................................... 6-8
6.3 Alternatives Considered but Rejected .......................................................................... 6-13
6.3.1 No Build ........................................................................................................ 6-13
6.3.2 Alternative Project Site ................................................................................. 6-14
6.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative .......................................................................... 6-14
7 References .................................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.1 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 List of Preparers ............................................................................................................ 7-12
Tables
Table ES-1 Proposed Land Use Summary ...................................................................................ES-2
Table ES-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and ResidualImpacts ..ES-5
Table 1-1 NOP Comments and EIR Response ............................................................................ 1-2
Table 1-2 Issues Not Studied in the SEIR .................................................................................... 1-5
Table 2-1 Land Use Descriptions ................................................................................................ 2-6
Table 2-2 Proposed Land Use Summary .................................................................................... 2-8
Table 2-3 Comparison of Existing Specific Plan and Proposed Project ...................................... 2-9
Table 2-4 Planning Area Key Elements ...................................................................................... 2-9
Table 3-1 Cumulative Projects List ............................................................................................. 3-2
Table 4.2-1 Ambient Air Quality at the Nearest Monitoring Station ......................................... 4.2-4
Table 4.2-2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards .................................................. 4.2-5
Table 4.2-3 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds ............................................................ 4.2-8
Table 4.2-4 SCAQMD LSTs for Construction 1 .......................................................................... 4.2-10
Table of Contents
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report v
Table 4.2-5 Project Summary for the Specific Plan Amendment ............................................. 4.2-10
Table 4.2-6 Construction Schedule .......................................................................................... 4.2-11
Table 4.2-7 Maximum Daily Project Construction Emissions in (lbs/day) ............................... 4.2-15
Table 4.2-8 Planning Areas 1 and 2 Operational Emissions- Maximum Daily
Emissions (lbs/day) ............................................................................................... 4.2-16
Table 4.2-9 2030 Project Operational Emissions – Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day) ........ 4.2-16
Table 4.2-10 Maximum On site Construction Emissions (lbs/day)1 .......................................... 4.2-22
Table 4.3-1 Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur on the Project Site .......... 4.3-5
Table 4.4-1 Previously Recorded Resources within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area ..... 4.4-9
Table 4.5-1 Project Construction Fuel Consumption ............................................................... 4.5-10
Table 4.5-2 Project Operational Energy Usage per Year .......................................................... 4.5-11
Table 4.5-3 Project Consistency with the Fontana General Plan ............................................. 4.5-12
Table 4.6-1 Regional Faults in Relation to the Project Site ........................................................ 4.6-3
Table 4.7-1 GHG Performance Threshold Determination........................................................ 4.7-12
Table 4.7-2 Service Population for Proposed Project .............................................................. 4.7-14
Table 4.7-3 Construction GHG Emissions ................................................................................. 4.7-15
Table 4.7-4 Construction GHG Emissions ................................................................................. 4.7-15
Table 4.7-5 Project Consistency with Applicable SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Strategies .......... 4.7-17
Table 4.8-1 Historical Use of the Specific Plan Area and Surrounding Properties ..................... 4.8-6
Table 4.9-1 Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison ....................................................... 4.9-5
Table 4.9-2 Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison ................................................... 4.9-5
Table 4.9-3 Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison ............................................... 4.9-6
Table 4.10-1 Comparison of Existing Specific Plan and Proposed Project ................................. 4.10-5
Table 4.10-2 Project Consistency with Applicable SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Strategies .......... 4.10-6
Table 4.11-1 Project Site Vicinity Sound Level Monitoring Results ........................................... 4.11-3
Table 4.11-2 Sound Level Monitoring Traffic Counts ................................................................. 4.11-4
Table 4.11-3 Noise Standards .................................................................................................... 4.11-9
Table 4.11-4 Vibration Levels Measured during Construction Activities ................................. 4.11-12
Table 4.11-5 AASHTO Maximum Vibration Levels for Preventing Damage ............................. 4.11-12
Table 4.11-6 Human Response to Steady State Vibration ....................................................... 4.11-13
Table 4.11-7 Human Response to Transient Vibration ............................................................ 4.11-13
Table 4.11-8 Construction Noise Levels at Noise Sensitive Receivers ..................................... 4.11-14
Table 4.11-9 Operational Noise Levels at Off-Site Land Uses .................................................. 4.11-15
Table 4.11-10 Offsite Traffic Noise Levels (dBA CNEL at 100 Feet) ........................................... 4.11-17
Table 4.11-11 Traffic Noise Levels ............................................................................................. 4.11-19
Table 4.12-1 City of Fontana Historical Population Growth ...................................................... 4.12-1
Table 4.12-2 City of Fontana Historical Housing Growth ........................................................... 4.12-2
Table 4.13-1 Protected Open Space in Fontana ........................................................................ 4.13-3
Table 4.13-2 FUSD Fees by Construction Type .......................................................................... 4.13-5
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
vi
Table 4.13-3 Fontana Development Impact Fees ...................................................................... 4.13-6
Table 4.13-4 Student Generation Factors and Resulting Student Population in Specific Plan
Area ..................................................................................................................... 4.13-12
Table 4.13-5 Current Capacity vs. Enrollment ......................................................................... 4.13-12
Table 4.14-1 Project VMT Per Service Population ................................................................... 4.14-12
Table 4.14-2 Project VMT Per Service Population Comparison ............................................... 4.14-12
Table 4.15-1 WVWD Water Supplies – Current and Projected .................................................. 4.15-4
Table 4.15-2 Supply and Demand in Multiple Dry Years ........................................................... 4.15-5
Table 4.15-3 Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity ............................................................... 4.15-13
Table 4.15-4 Project Share of WVWD Normal Year Supply and Demand ................................ 4.15-16
Table 4.15-5 Project Share of WVWD Single-Dry Year Supply and Demand ........................... 4.15-16
Table 5-1 Impacts Found to be Less than Significant Impacts or No Impacts ........................... 5-1
Table 5-2 Employment Generated by Proposed Project ........................................................... 5-4
Table 6-1 Comparison of Project Alternatives’ Buildout Characteristics ................................... 6-2
Table 6-2 Impact Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................... 6-14
Figures
Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process .................................................................................. 1-7
Figure 2-1 Regional Location ....................................................................................................... 2-2
Figure 2-2 Project Site Location .................................................................................................. 2-3
Figure 2-3 Photographs of the Project Site ................................................................................. 2-5
Figure 2-4 Existing and Proposed Land Use Plans ....................................................................... 2-7
Figure 2-5 Conceptual Site Plan for Planning Areas 1, 2 and 5 ................................................. 2-10
Figure 2-6 Conceptual Site Plan for Planning Area 3 ................................................................. 2-11
Figure 2-7 Conceptual Site Plan for Planning Area 4 ................................................................. 2-12
Figure 2-8 Conceptual Site Plan for Planning Area 6 ................................................................. 2-13
Figure 2-9 Conceptual Site Plan for Proposed Project .............................................................. 2-14
Figure 3-1 Cumulative Projects ................................................................................................... 3-5
Figure 4.1-1 Northern Site Photographs ..................................................................................... 4.1-3
Figure 4.1-2 Southern Site Photographs ..................................................................................... 4.1-4
Figure 4.1-3 Tuscan Village Concept Photographs .................................................................... 4.1-10
Figure 4.3-1 Critical Habitat......................................................................................................... 4.3-9
Figure 4.6-1 Reqional Earthquake Fault Zones ........................................................................... 4.6-4
Figure 4.8-1 Fire Hazard Severity Zones Near the Project .......................................................... 4.8-5
Figure 4.9-1 Surface Waters ........................................................................................................ 4.9-2
Figure 4.9-2 Groundwater Subbasins .......................................................................................... 4.9-3
Figure 4.9-3 FEMA Flood Hazard Zones ...................................................................................... 4.9-7
Figure 4.11-1 Noise Measurement Locations ............................................................................. 4.11-5
Figure 4.11-2 HVAC Contours .................................................................................................... 4.11-16
Figure 4.11-3 Traffic Noise Contours ......................................................................................... 4.11-22
Table of Contents
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report vii
Figure 4.14-1 Bicycle Facilities in Fontana .................................................................................. 4.14-3
Figure 4.14-2 Existing Transit Routes .......................................................................................... 4.14-4
Figure 4.15-1 West Valley Water District Service Area ............................................................... 4.15-2
Figure 4.15-2 Groundwater Basins .............................................................................................. 4.15-3
Figure 4.16-1 Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone ..................................................................... 4.16-3
Appendices
Appendix A-1 Notice of Preparation – Scoping Comments
Appendix A-2 Initial Study
Appendix B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
Appendix C-1 Habitat Assessment
Appendix C-2 Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Appendix D Cultural Resources Assessment Report
Appendix E Energy Calculations
Appendix F Hazardous Materials Review Letter
Appendix G Water Supply Assessment
Appendix H Noise and Vibration Study
Appendix I Traffic Study
Appendix J Fire Protection Plan
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
viii
This page intentionally left blank
Executive Summary
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-1
Executive Summary
This document is a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) analyzing the environmental
effects of the proposed Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment (hereafter referred to
as “proposed project” or “project”). This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed
project, alternatives to the proposed project, and the environmental impacts and mitigation
measures associated with the proposed project.
Project Synopsis
Project Applicant
Frontier Enterprises
2151 East Convention Center Drive, Suite 114
Ontario, California 91764
Lead Agency Contact Person
Salvador Quintanilla, Associate Planner
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
(909) 350-7625
Project Location and Description
This SEIR has been prepared to examine the potential environmental effects of proposed project.
The following is a summary of the full project description, which can be found in Section 2, Project
Description.
The project site is comprised of approximately 102-acres located in the northern part of the City of
Fontana, within San Bernardino County, California. The project is bound by Interstate 15 (I-15) to
the north and west, Citrus Avenue to the east, and a Southern California Edison (SCE) Transmission
Line Corridor to the south. The project site is currently undeveloped and relatively flat, and consists
of Assessor Parcel Numbers 022607531, 022607545, 022607538, 022607546, 022607546,
110726208, 110726207, 110726206, 110726205, and 110726204.
The City’s Zoning District map designates the project area as the Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific
Plan (i.e., existing Specific Plan). The existing Specific Plan area has two designations of General
Commercial (C-G) and Multi Family Residential (R-MF). The existing Specific Plan includes allows for
the following uses: Medium Density Residential (MDR), Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR),
Mixed Use (MU), and Commercial (C). The existing Specific Plan identified ten Planning Areas (PA)
and included the development of up to 574,500 square feet of commercial uses and 842 dwelling
units. The Final EIR for the existing Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2005111048) was certified
and the project approved by the City of Fontana on March 27, 2007.
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA 21-0006) to remove the existing
Multi Family Residential (R-MF) land use designation, modify the locations of the existing
Commercial (C-G) land use designation, and add the Regional Mixed Use (RMU) and Residential
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
ES-2
Multi Family Medium/High (R-MFMH) land use designations for consistency with the proposed
Specific Plan Amendment (SPA 21-001). The proposed Specific Plan Amendment includes a
comprehensive modification and update to the overall development plan under the existing Specific
Plan to reflect current planning and market demands. Notably, the Specific Plan Amendment
includes a change from Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) to High Density Residential (HDR).
Project Characteristics
The proposed project re-envisions the project site with six PA instead of ten, when compared to the
existing Specific Plan. The project would include the development of up to 476,500 square feet of
commercial uses, 1,671 dwelling units in three separate residential villages, a focal point piazza
(public square), and the construction of the realigned Lytle Creek Road, on an approximately
102-acre site. Project characteristics are summarized in Table ES-1.
Table ES-1 Proposed Land Use Summary
Plan Area Use Acres Dwelling Units Gross Floor Area (sf)
1 Medium Density Residential 20.7 538 –
2 Commercial 9.7 – 180,000
3 High Density Residential 13.2 396 –
4 Mixed Use 25.0 600 104,000
5a Commercial 2.4 – 60,000
5b Commercial 4.8 – 32,500
6a Mixed Use 5.7 1371 74,000
6b Commercial 2.5 – 26,000
Arterial Roads 7.2 – –
Backbone Roads 10.3 – –
Total 101.5 1,671 476,500
sf = square feet
1 Dwelling units in PA6 are allotted as “non-applicant” units. While the total number of units analyzed herein is 1,671, the total number of units classified as “applicant” units are 1,534.
Permitted commercial uses (COM) would include, but not be limited to, offices, corporate and
professional services, hotels, restaurants, banks, research and development, light manufacturing,
food courts, retail shops, sports clubs, salons, spas, and art galleries. Principal permitted mixed-uses
(MU) would include similar commercial with the addition of attached condominiums, townhomes,
and multi-family residential units. Furthermore, principal permitted medium and high density
residential (MDR and HDR) would include attached condominiums, townhomes, and multi-family
residential units with accessory uses (e.g., swimming pools, recreation centers).
Development of the proposed project would have many of the same features contemplated under
the existing Specific Plan, including residential villages, commercial uses, a focal point piazza, a
campanile tower feature, and the construction of Lytle Creek Road through the project site. The
greatest difference between the existing Specific Plan and the proposed project is the overall
increase of 1,671 residential units compared to 842 residential units under the existing Specific Plan.
This increase of 829 units represents an increase of 98 percent, or nearly double the residential
Executive Summary
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-3
units. In addition, the total commercial area would be reduced by 98,000 square feet (17 percent),
from 574,500 square feet under the existing Specific Plan to 476,500 square feet for the proposed
project.
Project Objectives
The proposed project is intended to achieve the following objectives:
To support the area demand for housing and contribute residential units to meet the City’s
housing goal of 17,519 units;
To create a master-planned, mixed-use community that creates a unique sense of place;
To provide quality housing with various size options to accommodate different housing needs;
To actualize the City’s vision for the Regional Mixed-Use designation in north Fontana;
To establish a unique window into North Fontana from I-15;
To introduce a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented activity center in this area of the city;
To integrate a mix of commercial, office and residential uses both vertically and horizontally;
To create a protected urban village environment that is unique to Fontana and the Inland
Empire;
To enhance the northern Fontana visual environment;
To contribute to the jobs/housing balance;
To facilitate revenue generating uses; and
To facilitate a walkable village environment.
Alternatives
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this SEIR examines alternatives to
the proposed project, consisting of the following two alternatives. Based on the alternatives
analysis, Alternative 2 was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative:
Alternative 1 (No Project/Existing Specific Plan) assumes that the proposed project would not
be implemented, and the project site would be developed under the existing Specific Plan.
Under the existing Specific Plan, on-site development would consist of 842 housing units and
574,500 square feet of total commercial area rather than 1,671 units and 476,500 square feet
under the proposed project. The existing Specific Plan would consist of retail commercial, office,
hotel, restaurant, and research and development uses on the central section and northwestern
boundary and residential uses on the southwestern and eastern sections of the site. Many of
the same features from the proposed project would remain under the existing Specific Plan,
including residential villages, a focal point piazza, a campanile tower, and the construction of
Lytle Creek Road through the project site.
Alternative 2 (Reduced Density Alternative) would include the development of 476,500 square
feet of commercial uses, dwelling units in three separate residential villages with accompanying
amenities, a focal point piazza (public square), and the realignment of Lytle Creek Road on an
approximately 102-acre site, similar to the proposed project. Alternative 2 would also have the
same footprint and location as the proposed project. However, Alternative 2 would include
1,257 residential units (rather than 1,671 residential units under the proposed project), which is
an approximately 25 percent reduction in units.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
ES-4
Refer to Section 6, Alternatives, for the complete alternatives analysis.
Areas of Known Controversy
The SEIR scoping process did not identify any areas of known controversy for the proposed project.
Responses to the Notice of Preparation of a Draft SEIR and input received at the SEIR scoping
meeting held by the City are summarized in Section 1, Introduction. As discussed in Section 4.2, Air
Quality, of the Draft SEIR, the proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable impact
(even with implementation of mitigation) related to air quality emissions from mobile sources at
operation (i.e., Impact AQ-2). However, this finding is consistent with the significant and
unavoidable air quality impact associated with operation of the existing Specific Plan, as previously
identified in the 2007 EIR.
Issues to be Resolved
The proposed project would require approval of a Specific Plan Amendment to change the land
uses, planning areas, and other elements of the Specific Plan, including a change from Medium-High
Density Residential (MHDR) to High Density Residential (HDR). The project would also require
approval of a General Plan Amendment to amend a portion of the site’s current land use
designations from Commercial (C-G) and Multi Family Residential (R-MF) to Regional Mixed Use
(RMU) and Residential Multi Family Medium/High (R-MFMH).
Issues Not Studied in Detail in the SEIR
Table 1-2 in Section 1, Introduction, summarizes issues from the environmental checklist that were
addressed in the Initial Study (Appendix A-2). As indicated in the Initial Study, there is no substantial
evidence that significant impacts would occur to the following issue areas: Agricultural Resources
and Mineral Resources. However, various issue areas related to Aesthetics/Visual Resources, Air
Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and
Soils, Greenhouse Gas, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use
and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services and Recreation, Transportation,
Utilities, and Wildfire are further analyzed in this SEIR for the purposes of public review and
comment.
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table ES-2 summarizes the environmental impacts of the proposed project, proposed mitigation
measures, and residual impacts (the impact after application of mitigation, if required).
Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level
given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a
Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved per Section
15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An impact that can be reduced to below the
threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact
requires findings under Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse but does not exceed the threshold levels
and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further
lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable.
No Impact: The proposed project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would
reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.
Executive Summary
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-5
Table ES-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Aesthetics/Visual Resources
Impact AES-1. The project would not affect the gateway to the City at Sierra
Avenue and Interstate 15, nor would it affect views of the mountains along the
Sierra Avenue view corridor. Building setback requirements for individual structures would preserve distant mountain views and prevent total view obstruction on area roads. Impacts related to scenic vistas would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Impact AES-2. The Specific Plan Amendment would not adversely degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings with compliance with the Specific Plan Amendment design
guidelines. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Impact AES-3. Compliance with the outdoor lighting guidelines in the Specific Plan Amendment and the City’s development regulations regarding glare would prevent the creation of significant adverse light and glare impacts. Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. Light and glare impacts would not be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Air Quality
Impact AQ-1. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2016 AQMP. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required Less than significant
Impacts AQ-2. Construction of the project would not result in an increase of a
criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an
applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. However, mobile
emissions from operation of the Specific Plan Amendment at full buildout would
potentially exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds even with mitigation, which was
an impact already identified in the 2007 EIR from operation of the existing
Specific Plan. Therefore, even with implementation of mitigation, operational
emissions from mobile sources would remain significant and unavoidable.
AQ-2 Transportation Control Measures
The proposed project shall implement transportation
control measures (TCMs) to reduce vehicular emissions
to and from the site, which may include the following:
Ridesharing Programs
▫ Area-wide Carpooling and Vanpooling – The
developer/building managers shall provide
information brochures on carpooling and
vanpooling.
▫ Modified Work Schedules – The
developer/building managers shall encourage
commercial and office tenants to allow modified
work schedules for employees.
Significant and unavoidable
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
ES-6
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
▫ Park and Ride Facilities – The developer/building
managers shall accommodate the parking of
vehicles to promote carpooling and vanpooling.
Ares for future bus stops shall be reserved,
where feasible.
Parking Management
▫ Off-street Parking Controls – Measures to
discourage single-occupant vehicles shall be
implemented through parking controls.
▫ Parking Management Programs – Measures to
discourage single-occupant vehicles (SOV) shall
be implemented.
Non-Motorized Strategies
▫ Bicycle Lanes and Storage Facilities – Bicycle
paths and bike racks shall be provided on-site.
▫ Pedestrian Improvements – Sidewalks and pedestrian walkways shall be provided throughout the site.
Telecommunications
▫ Adequate system connections in all homes – Telecommunication systems shall be provided in residential villages.
▫ Wi-Fi “hot-spots” within the Community – High-speed wireless local area network shall be provided at select locations on-site.
▫ The developer shall incorporate the TCMs above to facilitate the option to select a non- SOV transportation option.
Impact AQ-3. The project would not increase carbon monoxide concentrations
such that it would create carbon monoxide hotspots. construction and
operation of the project would not result in emissions of TACs sufficient to
exceed applicable health risk criteria. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Executive Summary
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-7
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1. Implementation of the project could result in direct or indirect
impacts to Burrowing Owl and nesting birds and raptors through removal of
ground cover and habitat, and from construction during the breeding season.
However, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
BIO-1A Burrowing Owl Preconstruction Survey
A burrowing owl pre-construction clearance survey shall
be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or
vegetation removal activities to ensure that burrowing
owls remain absent from the project site. In accordance
with the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation (2012), two pre-construction clearance
surveys shall be conducted 14- 30 days, and 24 hours
prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal
activities.
BIO-1B Burrowing Owl Avoidance Measures
A burrowing owl survey shall be conducted no more
than 30 days prior to the onset of construction to ensure avoidance of this species. If no occupied burrows are found, a report shall be submitted to the City and construction may begin without further actions. If owl burrows are found, a 300-foot buffer zone shall be established around each burrow with an active nest until the young have fledged and are able to exit the burrow. For occupied burrows without active nesting or active burrows after the young have fledged, passive relocation of the owls would be performed. This shall involve installation of a one-way door at the burrow entrance. The Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (California Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993) shall be utilized for current methods for passive relocation of any owls found during the survey. A qualified biologist shall conduct the relocation activities and provide construction monitoring during construction activities near the burrows.
BIO-1C Nesting Bird Avoidance
All construction activities shall comply with the MBTA
and CFGC Sections 3503, 3511 and 3513. The MBTA
governs the taking and killing of migratory birds, their
eggs, parts, and nests and prohibits the take of any
migratory bird, their eggs, parts, and nests. Prior to
less than significant with
mitigation incorporated
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
ES-8
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
issuance of grading permits, the following measures
shall be implemented:
To avoid disturbance of nesting and special-status
bird species protected by the MBTA and California
Fish and Game Commission, construction activities
related to the project, including but not limited to,
vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and
construction and demolition shall occur outside of
the bird breeding season (February 1 through August
31). If construction must begin during the breeding
season, then a pre-construction nesting bird survey
shall be conducted no more than 30 days prior to
initiation of construction activities. The nesting bird
pre-construction survey shall be conducted on foot
inside the project site disturbance areas. If an active
avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction
clearance survey, construction activities shall stay
outside of a 300-foot buffer around the active nest.
For listed and raptor species, this buffer shall be
expanded to 500 feet.
Inaccessible areas (e.g., private lands) shall be
surveyed from afar using binoculars to the extent
practical. The survey shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist familiar with the identification of
avian species known to occur in the valley/foothill
areas of San Bernardino County. If nests are found,
an appropriate avoidance buffer shall be determined
by a qualified biologist and demarcated by a
qualified biologist with bright orange construction
fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means
to mark the boundary. Effective buffer distances are
highly variable and based on specific project stage,
bird species, stage of nesting cycle, work type, and
the tolerance of a particular bird pair. The buffer
may be up to 500 feet in diameter, depending on the
species of nesting bird found and the biologist’s
observations.
Executive Summary
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-9
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Impact BIO-2. Construction and operation of the project would not impact any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS. In addition, the
project site does not contain any regulated waters, nor would construction
activities adversely affect protected wetlands. Impacts would be less than
significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Impact BIO-3. No proposed or existing MSHCP core areas, linkages, or habitat
blocks are on or near the project site. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required Less than significant
Impact BIO-4. The project would not conflict with local policies and ordinances
protecting biological resources such as trees, or with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Impacts
would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1. Due to lack of integrity of known historical resources, the project
would not create an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Impact CUL-2. Implementation of the project could result in direct or indirect impacts to archaeological resources pursuant to Section 15064.5. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
CUL-2A Archaeological Resources
a. The City shall designate a qualified archaeologist to monitor all project-related ground disturbing activities. Archaeological monitoring shall be performed under the guidance and direction of a Project Archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archeology (National Park Service 1983). A Native American monitor from the consulting tribes (those tribes that have consulted on the project under AB 52) shall also be retained to monitor ground disturbing activities. Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity (50 feet) of the
find shall cease until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural and archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be
evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal
monitor/consultant from a consulting tribe. If the
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
ES-10
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
resources are Native American in origin, interested
Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area
Tribes) shall coordinate with the landowner
regarding treatment (including evaluations for CRHR
listing) and curation of these resources. Work may
continue on other parts of the project while
evaluation takes place.
b. Monitors shall have the authority to halt and redirect
work should any archaeological resources be
identified during monitoring. If archaeological
resources are encountered during ground-disturbing
activities, work in the immediate area must halt and
the find evaluated for listing in the California
Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Construction monitoring may be reduced or halted at the discretion of the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the lead agency, as warranted by conditions that include, but are not limited to encountering bedrock, non-native sediments (infill), or negative findings. Should archaeological spot-checking be recommended by the Project Archaeologist, it will only occur in areas of new construction, where ground disturbance will extend to depths not previously reached (unless those depths are within bedrock). Upon completion of project related ground disturbance and monitoring efforts, a monitoring report should be submitted to the City for review and approval. The final report should be transmitted to the South-Central Coastal Information Center housed at California State University, Fullerton. c. Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner
of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible,
treatment may include implementation of
archaeological data recovery excavation to remove
the resource from its current location for reburial
elsewhere on the project site. Any historic
archaeological material that is not Native American
in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit
Executive Summary
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-11
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
institution with a research interest in the materials, if
such an institution agrees to accept the material. If
no institution accepts the archaeological material,
they shall be reburied on the project site.
CUL-2B Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program
A qualified archaeologist who meets or exceeds the
Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications
Standards for archeology (National Park Service [NPS]
1983) shall conduct worker environmental awareness
program (WEAP) training, prior to the commencement
of any ground-disturbing activities. The sensitivity
training shall include a description of the types of
cultural material that may be encountered, cultural
sensitivity issues, the regulatory environment, and the
proper protocol for treatment and disposition of cultural materials in the event of a find. The training shall be required for all earthmoving construction personnel and a sign-in-sheet shall also be required
Impact CUL-3. There are no known cemeteries within the project site. In the
event of the discovery of human remains adherence to existing regulations
would reduce project impacts to a less than significant level.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Impact CUL-4. No tribal cultural resources have been identified at the project site; however, per AB 52 consultation, Native American tribes have identified that the site is within ancestral territory with proximity to known tribal cultural resources. Construction of the project would involve ground-disturbing activities, including grading and excavation, which have the potential to impact unknown subsurface tribal cultural resources. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
CUL-2A and CUL-2B Less than significant with mitigation incorporated
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
ES-12
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Energy
Impact E-1. The project would consume electricity, natural gas, and fuel during
construction and operation. However, the project would not place significant
additional demand on SCE or SCG and would comply with applicable
conservation standards. Neither project construction nor operation would result
in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Impacts would
be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Impact E-2. Development facilitated by the project would not conflict with or
obstruct an applicable renewable energy or energy efficiency plan. This impact
would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-1. The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone and
no fault lines traverse directly under the site. Though there is potential for both
earthquakes and groundshaking in the project area, compliance with City
General Plan goals and policies and the CBC would reduce potential impacts
related to seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Impact GEO-2. The project site is underlain by soils possessing moderate collapse potential and low expansive potential. However, impacts associated with soil characteristics would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.
GEO-2 Implement Engineering Recommendations
Final design for each planning area shall incorporate engineering recommendations based on site specific soil investigations, and shall consider collapsible soils, protection from corrosive soils, and other applicable soil conditions. More specifically, final design shall incorporate recommendations from the Preliminary Geological Investigation Approximately 81.1-Acre Site Duncan Canyon, City of Fontana California, prepared by Converse Consultants in September 2005, or subsequent analysis.
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated
Impact GEO-3. The project site is underlain by geologic units possessing
paleontological sensitivity ranging from low to high. Potential for paleontological
resources may occur during ground-disturbing activities for certain projects.
Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce impacts in the event of an
unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources. Impacts would be less
than significant with mitigation.
GEO-3 Paleontological Monitoring
Monitoring shall be conducted for excavation activities
extending to estimated depths of eight feet or more
below the existing ground surface. If required, the
paleontologic monitor shall be equipped to salvage
fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction
delays and to remove samples of sediments that are
likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates
and vertebrates. Monitors are empowered to
Less than significant with
mitigation incorporated
Executive Summary
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-13
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of
abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be
reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not
present in the subsurface, or if present, are determined
upon exposure and examination by qualified
paleontologic personnel to have low potential to contain
fossil resources. Also, the following measures shall be
made during the monitoring of excavation activities on
undisturbed subsurface Pleistocene sediments.
During monitoring, preparation of recovered
specimens to a point of identification and permanent
preservation, including washing of sediments to
recover small invertebrates and vertebrates should occur.
During monitoring, identification and curation of specimens into a museum repository with permanent retrievable storage should occur. The paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities.
During monitoring, preparation of a report of findings with an itemized inventory of specimens should occur. The report and inventory, when submitted to the City of Fontana (as the Lead Agency), will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources.
Greenhouse Gas
Impact GHG-1. Construction and operation of the proposed project would
generate temporary and long-term increases in GHG emissions that would not result in a significant impact on the environment related to climate change. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Impact GHG-2. The project would be consistent with the goals and GHG
reduction measures of the SCAG’s 2040 RTP/SCS, as well as with applicable
measures in the 2008 and 2017 Scoping Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
ES-14
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1. Project construction would potentially create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the
environment. Project operation would not create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment. Impacts would be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.
HAZ-1A Soil Sampling – Phase II ESA
Prior to the start of construction (demolition or grading),
the project applicant will retain a qualified
environmental consultant, California Professional
Geologist (PG) or California Professional Engineer (PE),
to prepare a Phase II ESA of the project site that will be
developed, to determine whether the soil has been
impacted at concentrations exceeding regulatory
screening levels for residential/commercial land uses.
The Phase II ESA will be completed prior to construction
and will be focused on the former agricultural use of the
property (all Planning Areas), potential presence of aerially deposited lead (Planning Areas 3, 4, 5b, and 6), and the onsite presence of undocumented soil
piles/trash (Planning Areas 4 and 6).
As part of the Phase II ESA, the qualified environmental consultant will screen the analytical results against the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board environmental screening levels (ESL). These ESLs are risk-based screening levels for direct exposure of a construction worker under various depth and land use scenarios. The lead agency will review and approve the Phase II ESA prior to demolition and grading (construction).
If the Phase II ESA for the development site indicates that contaminants are detected in the subsurface at the project site, the project applicant will take appropriate steps to protect site workers and the public. This may include the preparation of a Soil Management Plan for Impacted Soils (see Mitigation Measure HAZ-1B) prior to project construction.
If the Phase II ESA for the contaminant site indicates
that contaminants are present at concentrations
exceeding hazardous waste screening thresholds for
contaminants in soil and/or groundwater (California
Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 22, Section 66261.24
Less than significant with
mitigation incorporated
Executive Summary
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-15
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Characteristics of Toxicity), the project applicant will
take appropriate steps to protect site workers and the
public. This may include the completion of remediation
(see Mitigation Measure HAZ-1C) at the proposed
project prior to onsite construction.
HAZ-1B Soil Management Plan for Impacted Soils
If impacted soils or other impacted wastes are present
at the project site, the project applicant will retain a
qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE), to
prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP) prior to
construction. The SMP, or equivalent document, will be
prepared to address onsite handling and management
of impacted soils or other impacted wastes, and reduce
hazards to construction workers and offsite receptors
during construction. The plan must establish remedial
measures and/or soil management practices to ensure
construction worker safety, the health of future workers
and visitors, and the off-site migration of contaminants
from the site. These measures and practices may
include, but are not limited to:
Stockpile management including stormwater
pollution prevention and the installation of BMPs
Proper disposal procedures of contaminated
materials
Monitoring and reporting
A health and safety plan for contractors working at
the site that addresses the safety and health hazards
of each phase of site construction activities with the
requirements and procedures for employee
protection
The health and safety plan will also outline proper
soil handling procedures and health and safety
requirements to minimize worker and public
exposure to hazardous materials during
construction.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
ES-16
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
The lead agency will review and approve the
development site Soil Management Plan for Impacted
Soils prior to demolition and grading (construction).
HAZ-1C Remediation
If soil present within the construction envelope at the
development site contains chemicals at concentrations
exceeding hazardous waste screening thresholds for
contaminants in soil (California Code of Regulations
[CCR] Title 22, Section 66261.24), the project applicant
will retain a qualified environmental consultant (PG or
PE), to conduct additional analytical testing and
recommend soil disposal recommendations, or consider
other remedial engineering controls, as necessary.
The qualified environmental consultant will utilize the
development site analytical results for waste
characterization purposes prior to offsite transportation
or disposal of potentially impacted soils or other
impacted wastes. The qualified environmental
consultant will provide disposal recommendations and
arrange for proper disposal of the waste soils or other
impacted wastes (as necessary), and/or provide
recommendations for remedial engineering controls, if
appropriate.
The project applicant will review and approve the
disposal recommendations prior to transportation of
waste soils offsite, and review and approve remedial
engineering controls, prior to construction.
Remediation of impacted soils and/or implementation
of remedial engineering controls, may require additional
delineation of impacts; additional analytical testing per
landfill or recycling facility requirements; soil excavation;
and offsite disposal or recycling.
The lead agency will review and approve the
development site disposal recommendations prior to
transportation of waste soils offsite and review and
approve remedial engineering controls, prior to
construction.
Executive Summary
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-17
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Impact HAZ-2. The project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. However, mitigation would
ensure that contamination soils present on the project site are investigated,
remediated, and handled according applicable State and federal requirements.
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
HAZ-1A and HAZ-1B Less than significant with
mitigation incorporated
Impact HAZ-3. The project would not interfere with vehicular circulation routes
or the ability of emergency response services. Therefore, it would not impair
implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Impact HAZ-4. The project would comply with the California Building Code and
California Fire Code and would undergo procedural review by the City of
Fontana and Fontana Fire Protection District. The project would not expose
people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires and impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HWQ-1. Construction and operation of the project could increase
erosion and stormwater runoff due to site disturbance and increased impervious
surface area. Compliance with applicable regulations and policies, including
preparation of a SWPPP during construction and on-site capture and treatment
of stormwater runoff through biofiltration systems and detention basins during
operation, would reduce water quality impacts. Impacts would be less than
significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Impact HWQ-2. The proposed project would not involve on-site groundwater extraction because the project would be served by WVWD’s existing and planned supplies, reducing potential impacts to groundwater levels. Impervious surface cover would increase on the project site under the proposed project, reducing the potential for recharge of the underlying aquifer. However, on-site runoff would continue to discharge to Lytle Creek, and Etiwanda Creek, where additional potential for infiltration and recharge exists. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Impact HWQ-3. Under the proposed project, on-site stormwater runoff would
be captured and treated via stormwater drainage system consisting of
catchment basins, biofiltration systems, and detention basins. The proposed
project would not result in substantial on- or off-site hydromodification impacts
and would not alter the course of a river or stream given that the project would
No mitigation is required Less than significant
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
ES-18
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
comply with applicable water quality standards, waste discharge requirements,
BMPs and would include project-specific design features. This impact would be
less than significant.
Impact HWQ-4. The proposed project would implement water quality BMPs in
accordance with applicable local and regional requirements, reducing potential
downstream water quality impacts. As such, the proposed project would not
conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan for
the Santa Ana Region. The project site overlies an adjudicated groundwater
basin and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable
groundwater management plan. This impact would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Land Use and Planning
Impact LU-1. The project would not cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect due to project
compliance with the development and design standards in the existing Ventana
at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan and consistency with 2020 RTP/SCS goals.
Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Noise
Impact N-1. Temporary construction activities would be restricted to the hours
specified by the City’s Noise Ordinance and would not exceed the FTA noise
limits. Temporary construction-related noise impacts would be less than
significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Impact N-2. Operation of the project would generate on-site noise from mechanical equipment (i.e., HVAC units) that may periodically be audible to existing noise-sensitive receivers in the vicinity and on the project site. However, operational noise sources would not exceed the noise standards identified in the City’s Noise Ordinance and impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Impact N-3. Operation of the project would generate new vehicle trips that
would increase noise levels on nearby roadways. However, project traffic would
not increase the ambient noise environment of noise-sensitive land uses in
excess of applicable noise standards. Nonetheless, where building façade noise
levels would exceed 65 dBA CNEL (i.e., residential units adjacent to I-15 and
Duncan Canyon Road), interior noise levels for the project would not comply
with the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL for residential uses.
Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.
N-3 Exterior-to-Interior Noise Analysis
For residential units where exterior noise levels exceed
65 dBA CNEL, the project applicant shall coordinate with
the project architects and other contractors to ensure
compliance with the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level
standard. This shall be achieved through additional
exterior-to-interior noise analysis and incorporation of
noise attenuation features once specific building plan
information is available. The information in the analysis
Less than significant with
mitigation incorporated
Executive Summary
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-19
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
shall include wall heights and lengths, room volumes,
window and door tables typical for a building plan, as
well as information on other openings in the building
shell. With this specific building plan information, the
analysis shall determine the predicted interior noise
levels at the planned on-site buildings. If predicted noise
levels are found to be in excess of the applicable limit,
the report shall identify architectural materials or
techniques that could be included to reduce noise levels
to the applicable limit. The project applicant shall
comply with mitigation measures included in the interior
noise report to reduce interior noise levels where
applicable noise limits are exceeded.
Impact N-4. Project construction would generate ground-borne vibration on and
adjacent to the site. However, vibration levels at sensitive receivers would not
exceed applicable thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Population and Housing
Impact PH-1. Development of the proposed project may directly and indirectly
increase the City’s population. However, this population growth would be
consistent with and fall within the City’s Housing Element and SCAG population
forecasts. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce population growth
beyond that already planned. Impacts related to inducement of substantial
population growth would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Public Services and Recreation
Impact PS-1. SBCFD has the capacity and facilities to serve the project, and
implementation of the project would not result in the need for expanded fire
protection facilities. Additionally, building and site plan review by the SBCFD and
development impact fees would offset project demand for new fire protection
facilities. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Impact PS-2. The project would increase the service population of police protection services. However, project contributions to development impact fees
and Adherence to Crime Prevention through Environmental Design would offset the incremental demand for new police protection facilities. The project would have a less than significant impact.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
ES-20
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Impact PS-3. The project would increase the need for school services. However,
project contributions to development impact offset the incremental demand for
new school facilities. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant
impact.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Impacts PS-4. The project would increase the use of parks and recreation
facilities. However, the City maintains a high parkland to population ratio, and
the project would contribute development impact fees to offset impacts to
parks and recreation facilities. Therefore, project impacts would be less than
significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Impact PS-5. The project would increase the use of library facilities, and the
project would contribute development impact fees to offset impacts to library
facilities. Therefore, project impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Transportation
Impact TRA-1. The proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Impact TRA-2. The project would not exceed the City’s adopted impact
threshold of 15 percent below the baseline County of San Bernardino VMT per
service population in both the Baseline plus project and Cumulative scenarios.
As such, the project’s VMT impact is less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Utilities and Service Systems
Impact U-1 The project would involve the relocation of electrical and
telecommunications facilities and construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment, and stormwater drainage facilities on the project site.
However, such relocation and construction would not cause significant
environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Impact U-2. The project would demand approximately 358 AFY of water, which would represent less than five percent of WVWD’s projected excess water supply for all normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry year scenarios through 2040. Based on WVWD’s water supply and demand projections, projected water supplies are sufficient to meet the anticipated water demand of the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple
dry years. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Executive Summary
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ES-21
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Impact U-3. Project-generated wastewater would be treated at IEUA’s regional
wastewater plant that’s located in Ranch Cucamonga (RP-4) plant. The plant
would have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected wastewater
generation in addition to its existing wastewater treatment commitments.
Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Impact U-4. The project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, including the
Mid-Valley Landfill. The project would not impair the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals and would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Wildfire
Impact W-1. The project is located near areas designated as a VHFHSZ.
However, the project site’s flat terrain and compliance with codes, regulations,
and proposed polices would prevent the exacerbation of wildfire risks and
subsequent exposure of project occupants to pollutant concentrations. Impacts
would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Impact W-2. The project site is located near areas designated as a VHFHSZ. However, the project would not require new or unique infrastructure to respond to a potential wildfire hazard and no impacts would occur from fire-related infrastructure. Furthermore, compliance with the California Building Code and California Fire Code, as well as the procedural review by the City of Fontana and FFPD, would minimize potential impacts implementation of utility infrastructure. The project would not exacerbate fire risk and impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
Impact W-3. With adherence to Best Management Practices, building codes,
and all applicable federal, regional, and local regulations, the project would not
result in exposure of people or structures to significant risks, including
downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, associated with post-fire
runoff and slope instability as well as drainage changes. Impacts would be less
than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than significant
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
ES-22
This page intentionally left blank.
Introduction
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-1
Introduction
This document is a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Ventana at Duncan
Canyon Specific Plan Amendment (hereafter referred to as “proposed project” or “project”). The
proposed project includes a request for a modification to the Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific
Plan (hereafter referred to as “existing Specific Plan”), originally approved by the City of Fontana on
March 27, 2007. The existing Specific Plan was established in March 2007 to create a unique master
planned development that captured the City’s vision for the “Regional Mixed Use” zoning
classification in northern Fontana, and the City’s vision for a “Corporate Corridor” along
Interstate 15 (I-15). The proposed project includes a comprehensive Specific Plan Amendment to
modify and update the overall development plan to reflect current planning and market demands.
The project re-envisions the project site with six Planning Areas.
The project would include the development of up to 476,500 square feet (sf) of commercial uses,
1,671 dwelling units in three separate residential villages with accompanying amenities, a focal
point piazza (public square), and the construction of the realigned Lytle Creek Road, on an
approximately 102-acre site.
The proposed project would have many of the same features as envisioned under the existing
Specific Plan, including residential villages, commercial uses, a focal point piazza, a campanile tower
feature, and the construction of Lytle Creek Road through the project site.
The greatest difference between the existing Specific Plan and the proposed project is the overall
increase of 1,671 residential units compared to 842 residential units under the existing Specific Plan.
This increase of 829 units represents an increase of 98 percent, or nearly double the residential
units. The additional units are accommodated via an increase in density from 15.0 to 25.9 units per
acre, as well as a small increase in residential acreage of 8.6 acres (15 percent). In addition, the total
commercial area would be reduced by 98,000 sf (17 percent), from 574,500 sf under the existing
Specific Plan, to 476,500 sf for the proposed project.
This section discusses (1) the project and SEIR background; (2) the legal basis for preparing an EIR;
(3) the scope and content of the SEIR; (4) issue areas found not to be significant by the Initial Study;
(5) the lead, responsible, and trustee agencies; and (6) the environmental review process required
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is described in detail
in Section 2, Project Description.
1.1 Notice of Preparation and Scoping
The City of Fontana issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR in October 2021. The NOP also
included notice of a scoping meeting for the proposed EIR and provided a link to the Initial Study
prepared for the project on the City’s website.
The City of Fontana distributed the NOP for a 30-day agency and public review period starting on
October 20, 2021 and ending on November 19, 2021. The City held a Scoping Meeting on
October 27, 2021 from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. via an on-line meeting. The meeting included a
presentation providing information about the proposed project and the CEQA process to members
of public agencies, interested stakeholders and residents/community members, and invited
comments and questions. Approximately eight parties participated in the scoping meeting, including
planning staff from the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
1-2
The City received letters from three agencies and one tribal group in response to the NOP during the
public review period. There were no verbal comments received during the SEIR Scoping Meeting.
Table 1-1 summarizes the content of the letters and indicates where the issues raised are addressed
in the EIR. Scoping documents including the NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A-1,
whereas the Initial Study is included in Appendix A-2.
Table 1-1 NOP Comments and EIR Response
Commenter Comment/Request How and Where It Was Addressed
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
States that the proposed project is within Ancestral Tribal Territory and requests consultation with the City as Lead Agency to discuss the project and the surrounding location per Assembly Bill (AB 52).
Consultation required by AB 52 was carried out by the City of Fontana. Subsequent issues are discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, and a Cultural Resources Assessment Report is provided as Appendix D.
San Bernardino County
Department of Public
Works
Emphasizes that the SEIR discuss potential
impacts and any required mitigation associated
with construction of new, or alterations to,
existing storm drains as part of the project.
Comments are addressed in Section 4.9,
Hydrology and Water Quality.
Advises that any encroachments on San Bernardino County Flood Control District’s (SBCFCD) right-of-way or facilities will require a permit from the SBCFCD prior to start of construction.
South Coast Air Quality
Management District
(SCAQMD)
Recommends use of CEQA Air Quality Handbook
and SCAQMD resources for guidance in preparing
air quality and greenhouse gas analyses. Also
recommends using CalEEMod for analysis.
Comments are addressed in Section 4.2,
Air Quality, Section 4.7, Greenhouse
Gas.
Provides recommendations for air quality impacts
and mitigation measures.
West Valley Water
District (WVWD)
States that the project will be required to
complete several off-site water improvements on
Citrus Avenue, Duncan Canyon Road, and Lytle
Creek Road to provide adequate water service to
the project.
Comments are addressed in Section 4.9,
Hydrology and Water Quality, and
Section 4.15, Utilities and Service
Systems.
States that additional water facilities may be
needed pending a review of proposed plans, fire
department requirements, and updated water
demands.
States that the project Developer will be required to install all water improvements utilizing the District’s preapproved contractors list.
1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority
The proposed project requires the discretionary approval of the Fontana City Council as the CEQA
lead agency. Therefore, the project is subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA. In
accordance with Section 15121(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14),
the purpose of this EIR is to serve as an informational document that:
Introduction
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-3
...will inform public agency decision makers and the public generally of the significant
environmental effect of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and
describe reasonable alternatives to the project.
This EIR has been prepared as a SEIR pursuant to Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines. A SEIR is an
appropriate CEQA document rather than a subsequent EIR if any of the conditions for a subsequent
EIR are met, but only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR
adequate for the project in the changed situation. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162
and 15163, a supplement to an EIR may be distinguished from a subsequent EIR. A supplement
augments a previously certified EIR to the extent necessary to address the conditions described in
Section 15162, and to examine mitigation and project alternatives accordingly. It is intended to
revise the previous EIR through supplementation.
This SEIR serves as an informational document for the public, City of Fontana decision-makers and
any responsible agencies. Prior to making a decision on the project itself, the Fontana City Council
will be required to certify that the Final SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; the City
Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final SEIR; and the Final SEIR
reflects, as the lead agency, the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis.
1.3 Scope and Content
1.3.1 Drafting of Supplemental EIR
As stated in Section 1.2, Purpose and Legal Authority, an SEIR will be prepared for this project. A
description of this CEQA documentation option and reasoning for its selection is described below.
Environmental Impact Review Determination Following Initial Study
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15063 (b)(1) states that if the lead agency determines that there is
substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a
significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is
adverse or beneficial, the lead agency shall do one of the following:
a. Prepare an EIR, or
b. Use a previously prepared EIR which the Lead Agency determines would adequately analyze the
project at hand, or
c. Determine, pursuant to a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process, which of a
project’s effects were adequately examined by an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Another
appropriate process may include, for example, a master EIR, a master environmental
assessment, approval of housing and neighborhood commercial facilities in urban areas,
approval of residential projects pursuant to a specific plan described in Section 15182, approval
of residential projects consistent with a community plan, general plan or zoning as described in
Section 15183, or an environmental document prepared under a State certified regulatory
program. The lead agency shall then ascertain which effects, if any, should be analyzed in a later
EIR or negative declaration.
The Initial Study determined the following issues could include potentially significant impacts or are
areas of public concern and are therefore studied in the SEIR:
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
1-4
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soil
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land use and Planning
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire
In preparing the SEIR, use was made of pertinent City policies and guidelines, certified EIRs and
adopted CEQA documents, and other background documents. A full reference list is contained in
Section 7, References, of the SEIR.
The alternatives section of the SEIR (Section 6) was prepared in accordance with Section 15126.6 of
the CEQA Guidelines and focuses on alternatives that are capable of eliminating or reducing
significant adverse effects associated with the project while feasibly attaining most of the basic
project objectives. In addition, the alternatives section identifies the “environmentally superior”
alternative among the alternatives assessed. The alternatives evaluated include the CEQA-required
“No Project” alternative and three alternative development scenarios for the project area.
Supplemental EIR
The CEQA Guidelines provide for preparation of a supplemental EIR in appropriate circumstances, as
follows:
(a) The Lead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than
a subsequent EIR if:
(1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a
subsequent EIR, and
(2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR
adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.
(b) The supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the
previous EIR adequate for the project as revised.
(c) A supplement to an EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and public review as is given
to a draft EIR under Section 15087.
(d) A supplement to an EIR may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous draft
or final EIR.
(e) When the agency decides whether to approve the project, the decision-making body shall
consider the previous EIR as revised by the supplemental EIR. A finding under Section 15091
shall be made for each significant effect shown in the previous EIR as revised.
The level of detail contained throughout this SEIR is consistent with the requirements of CEQA and
applicable court decisions. Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines provides the standard of adequacy
on which this document is based:
Introduction
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-5
An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with
information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of
environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed project
need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably
feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should
summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for
perfection, but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.
1.4 Issues Not Studied in Detail in the SEIR
Table 1-2 summarizes issues from the environmental checklist that were addressed in the Initial
Study (Appendix A-2). As indicated in the Initial Study, there is no substantial evidence that
significant impacts would occur in any of these issues.
Table 1-2 Issues Not Studied in the SEIR
Topic Subtopic
Aesthetics Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a State scenic highway
Agricultural Resources Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland)
to non-agricultural use
Agricultural Resources Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract
Agricultural Resources Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land; timberland; or timberland
zoned Timberland Production
Agricultural Resources Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use
Agricultural Resources Involve other changes in the existing environment which could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use
Air Quality Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people
Geology and Soils Cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving
seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction
Geology and Soils Cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides
Geology and Soils Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil
Geology and Soils Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse
Geology and Soils Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater
Hazards and
Hazardous Materials
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials
Hazards and
Hazardous Materials
Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment
Hazards and
Hazardous Materials
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
1-6
Topic Subtopic
Hydrology and Water Quality In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation
Land Use and Planning Physically divide an established community
Mineral Resources Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the State
Mineral Resources Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan
Noise For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels
Population and
Housing
Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere
Transportation Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)
Transportation Would the project result in inadequate emergency access
Wildfire If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan
1.5 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies
The CEQA Guidelines define lead, responsible and trustee agencies. The City of Fontana is the lead
agency for the project because it holds principal responsibility for approving the project. A
responsible agency refers to a public agency other than the lead agency that has discretionary
approval over the project. The West Valley Water District is a Responsible Agency for the proposed
project.
A Trustee Agency is defined as a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources
affected by a project which are held in trust for the people of the State of California. Based on
review of approvals and resources that are present on the site, no trustee agencies have been
identified for the project.
1.6 Environmental Review Process
The environmental impact review process, as required under CEQA, is summarized as follows, and is
illustrated in Figure 1-1. The steps are presented in sequential order.
Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study. After deciding that an SEIR is required through
the preparation of the Initial Study, the lead agency (City of Fontana) must file a NOP soliciting
input on the SEIR scope to the State Clearinghouse, other concerned agencies, and parties
previously requesting notice in writing (CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; Public Resources Code
[PRC] Section 21092.2). The NOP must be posted in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days. The
NOP may be accompanied by an Initial Study that identifies the issue areas for which the project
could create significant environmental impacts. See Section 1.1, Notice or Preparation and
Scoping, for a description of this process as it relates to the project.
Introduction
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-7
Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
1-8
Draft SEIR Prepared. After the NOP and Initial Study have been circulated for public review and
comment, the Draft SEIR is prepared. Per the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15122 through 15131,
the Draft SEIR contains: (a) table of contents or index; (b) summary; (c) project description; (d)
environmental setting; (e) discussion of significant impacts (direct, indirect, cumulative, growth-
inducing, and unavoidable impacts); (f) a discussion of alternatives; (g) mitigation measures; and
(h) discussion of irreversible changes. In addition, organizations and persons consulted and
references used in the preparation of the SEIR are required.
Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion (NOA/NOC). The lead agency must file a NOC with
the State Clearinghouse when it completes a Draft SEIR and prepare a Public NOA of a Draft
SEIR. The lead agency must place the NOA in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days and send a
copy of the NOA to anyone requesting it (CEQA Guidelines Section 15087; PRC Section 21092.3).
Additionally, public notice of Draft SEIR availability must be given through at least one of the
following procedures: (a) publication in a newspaper of general circulation; (b) posting on and
off the project site; or (c) direct mailing to owners and occupants of contiguous properties. The
lead agency must solicit input from other agencies and the public and respond in writing to all
comments received (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15087 and 15088). The public review period for a
Draft SEIR ranges from 30 to 45 days depending upon project characteristics. When a Draft SEIR
is sent to the State Clearinghouse for review, the public review period must be a minimum of 45
days unless the State Clearinghouse approves a shorter period (CEQA Guidelines Section 15105;
PRC Section 21091).
Final SEIR. Upon circulation and receipt of comments on the Draft SEIR, the lead agency must
prepare a Final SEIR. A Final SEIR includes: (a) the Draft SEIR; (b) copies of comments received
during public review; (c) list of persons and entities commenting; and (d) responses to
comments, including any revisions to the text in the body of the Draft SEIR based on comments
received, if applicable.
Certification of Final SEIR. Prior to making a decision on a proposed project, the lead agency
must certify that: (a) the Final SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (b) the Final
SEIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency; and (c) the decision-making
body reviewed and considered the information in the Final SEIR prior to approving a project
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15090).
Lead Agency Project Decision. The lead agency may: (a) disapprove the project because of its
significant environmental effects; (b) require changes to the project to reduce or avoid
significant environmental effects; or (c) approve the project despite its significant environmental
effects, if the proper Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are adopted (CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15042 and 15043).
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations. For each significant impact of the project
identified in the SEIR, the lead agency must find, based on substantial evidence, that either:
(a) the project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact;
(b) changes to the project are within another agency's jurisdiction and such changes have or
should be adopted; or (c) specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation
measures or project alternatives infeasible (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). If an agency
approves a project with unavoidable significant environmental effects, it must prepare a written
Statement of Overriding Considerations that sets forth the specific social, economic, or other
reasons supporting the agency’s decision.
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. When the lead agency makes Findings on significant
effects identified in the SEIR, it must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation
Introduction
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-9
measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval to mitigate significant
effects.
Notice of Determination (NOD). The lead agency must file a NOD after deciding to approve a
project for which an SEIR is prepared. A local agency must file the NOD with the County Clerk.
The NOD must be posted for 30 days and sent to anyone previously requesting notice. Posting
of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on CEQA legal challenges (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15094).
Use of Certified Final Supplemental EIR by Responsible Agencies. Once the lead agency has
certified the Final SEIR in this case, that document may be used by a CEQA Responsible Agency
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15096.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
1-10
This page intentionally left blank.
Project Description
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-1
2 Project Description
This section describes the Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment (hereafter referred
to as “proposed project” or “project”), including the project applicant, the project site and
surrounding land uses, major project characteristics, project objectives, and discretionary actions
needed for approval.
2.1 Project Applicant
Frontier Enterprises
2151 East Convention Center Drive, Suite 114
Ontario, California 91764
2.2 Lead Agency Contact Person
Salvador Quintanilla, Associate Planner
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
(909) 350-7625
2.3 Project Location
The project site is located within the City of Fontana, east of Interstate 15 (I-15), west of Citrus
Avenue, and both north and south of Duncan Canyon Road. The approximately 102-acre project site
is in the northern part of the City of Fontana, within San Bernardino County, California. The project
is bound by I-15 to the north and west, Citrus Avenue to the east, and a Southern California Edison
(SCE) Transmission Line Corridor to the south. Figure 2-1 shows the regional context of the project
site, and Figure 2-2 shows the project site in its vicinity context.
Regional access to the project site is available via I-15, which is adjacent to the site. Direct access to
the project site is provided by Duncan Canyon Road, which bisects the project area to the west to
the east and Citrus Avenue, which provides north and south access. Citrus Avenue currently
terminates to the north at the intersection of Duncan Canyon Road, while Duncan Canyon Road
terminates to the east of Citrus Avenue.
2.4 Existing Site Characteristics
The project site is currently undeveloped. The project area includes five eucalyptus windrows
containing approximately 185 trees, which are located on the triangular parcel north of Duncan
Canyon Road. In addition, there are distribution lines located along Duncan Canyon Road and Citrus
Avenue. The site is predominately flat, with a gentle slope from approximately 1,835 above mean
sea level (amsl) at the northern edge of the project to approximately 1,675 amsl at the southern
edge along Lytle Creek Road and I-15. The site drains from the northeast to the southwest. The
project area is located on an alluvial plain formed by Lytle Creek, which is the primary collector for a
significant watershed that includes large portions of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
2-2
Figure 2-1 Regional Location
Project Description
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-3
Figure 2-2 Project Site Location
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
2-4
2.5 Existing Land Use Designation and Zoning
The City’s Zoning District map designates the project area as the Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific
Plan (i.e., existing Specific Plan). According to the City’s General Plan Land Use Map, the existing
Specific Plan area has two designations of General Commercial (C-G) and Multi Family Residential
(R-MF). The C-G designation land use designation generally allows a 0.1-1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
for commercial uses and the R-MF land use designation generally allows 12.1-24 dwelling units per
acre (du/ac). Areas designated C-G include retail, malls, wholesale, auto dealerships and offices,
including medical offices and clinics, that can serve a broader, regional population. Areas designated
R-MF include multi-family developments, from duplexes and townhouses to condos and rental
apartments with required amenities.
The existing Specific Plan allows for the following uses:
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR)
Commercial (C)
Mixed Use (MU)
Areas designated Commercial include retail, restaurant, hotel, office, research and development,
and light manufacturing, and included up to 462,500 square feet of development. Areas designated
Mixed Use include retail, restaurant, office, and residential, and included up to 112,000 square feet
of commercial development and 45 dwelling units. Areas designated Medium Density Residential or
Medium-High Density Residential include up to 797 dwelling units.
2.6 Project Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
Figure 2-3 shows the project site and surrounding land uses, which is currently undeveloped.
Surrounding land uses include neighboring specific plan areas such as Arboretum (east), Summit at
Rosena (southeast), Citrus Heights North (south), Westgate (southwest), Hunter’s Ridge
(southwest), and Coyote Canyon (west). Both the Arboretum and Citrus Heights feature residential
development near the Plan area. Other surrounding land uses include the following:
Land to the north and northeast is vacant.
Coyote Canyon Park is located west of, and adjacent to I-15, south of Duncan Canyon Road.
Vacant and residential uses are located to the east of the project site.
Land to the south is vacant.
I-15 and the Duncan Canyon Road interchange is adjacent to the northwestern project
boundary.
An SCE transmission line corridor is adjacent to the southeaster project boundary.
Project Description
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-5
Figure 2-3 Photographs of the Project Site
A. View from southwest portion of site
looking south
B. View north from the middle of the site
C. View of Duncan Canyon Road looking west
within the site
D. View of I-15, looking east from within site
E. View west from middle site F. View east from eastern boundary of the site
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
2-6
2.7 Existing Specific Plan Characteristics
The existing Specific Plan was established in March 2007 to create a unique master planned
development that captured the City’s vision for the “Regional Mixed Use” zoning classification in
northern Fontana, and the City’s vision for a Corporate Corridor along I-15. Ten distinct
development areas, designated as “Planning Areas,” were established to implement the goals and
objectives of the Specific Plan.
The ten Planning Areas consisted of four types of land use designations including Commercial,
Mixed Use, Medium Density Residential, and Medium-High Density Residential, as discussed in
Section 2.5. The existing Specific Plan included the development of up to 574,500 square feet of
commercial uses; 842 dwelling units in three separate residential villages; a Corporate Office
Corridor, including mid-rise office buildings, a multi-story hotel, quality business restaurants; a focal
point “Piazza;” a “campanile” tower feature; pedestrian corridors and bridges; and the construction
of the realigned Lytle Creek Road on a 105-acre project site.
The Final EIR for the Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2005111048)
was certified and the project approved by the City of Fontana on March 27, 2007.
2.8 Proposed Project Land Use Plan
The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA 21-0006) to remove the existing
Multi Family Residential (R-MF) land use designation, modify the locations of the existing
Commercial (C-G) land use designation, and add the Regional Mixed Use (RMU) and Residential
Multi Family Medium/High (R-MFMH) land use designations for consistency with the proposed
Specific Plan Amendment (SPA 21-001). The proposed Specific Plan Amendment includes a
comprehensive modification and update to the overall development plan under the existing Specific
Plan to reflect current planning and market demands. The project also re-envisions the project site
with six Planning Areas (PA) instead of ten when compared to the existing Specific Plan, involving
the following uses described in Table 2-1 and shown as PA1 through PA6 in Figure 2-4. Notably, the
Specific Plan Amendment includes a change from Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) to High
Density Residential (HDR). In reference to Figure 2.0-4, areas designated “AR” and “BR” consist of
arterial roads and backbone roads, respectively.
Table 2-1 Land Use Descriptions
Use Description
Medium Density Residential (MDR) Areas designated MDR include up to 538 dwelling units at a maximum of 26
du/ac, amenities, and open space.
High Density Residential (HDR) Areas designated HDR include up to 396 dwelling units at a maximum of 30 du/ac,
amenities, and open space.
Mixed-Use (MU) Areas designated for MU include up to 600 dwelling units at a maximum of 24
du/ac; commercial uses including restaurants, retail, office space up to 104,000
square feet, and amenities.
Commercial (COM) Areas designated for COM include up to a total of 344,000 square feet. The southernmost COM area is a remainder space between Lytle Creek Road and the SCE Transmission Line Corridor and would be integrated with future improvements within the SCE Transmission Line Corridor that runs along the southern edge of the Plan Area.
Project Description
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-7
Figure 2-4 Existing and Proposed Land Use Plans
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
2-8
Notably, development of PA6, as identified under the existing Specific Plan (identified as PA1 under
the Specific Plan Amendment), was recently reviewed as part of an addendum to the 2007 EIR and
was approved by the City in September 2021. This area of the project site is already under
construction at the time of this writing. Nonetheless, proposed development (i.e., up to 538
residential units) within this PA is still incorporated into the impact analysis in this Draft SEIR for a
conservative view of impacts associated with full buildout of the Specific Plan Amendment.
The proposed project would include the development of up to 476,500 square feet of commercial
uses, 1,671 dwelling units in three separate residential villages, a focal point piazza (public square),
and the construction of the realigned Lytle Creek Road, on an approximately 102-acre site. Table 2-2
provides a breakdown of proposed land use by planning area.
Table 2-2 Proposed Land Use Summary
Plan Area Use Acres Dwelling Units Gross Floor Area (sf)
1 Medium Density Residential 20.7 538 –
2 Commercial 9.7 – 180,000
3 High Density Residential 13.2 396 –
4 Mixed Use 25.0 600 104,000
5a Commercial 2.4 – 60,000
5b Commercial 4.8 – 32,500
6a Mixed Use 5.7 1371 74,000
6b Commercial 2.5 – 26,000
Arterial Roads 7.2 – –
Backbone Roads 10.3 – –
Total 101.5 1,671 476,500
sf = square feet 1 Dwelling units in PA6 are allotted as “non-applicant” units. While the total number of units analyzed herein is 1,671, the total number
of units classified as “applicant” units are 1,534.
Principal permitted commercial uses (COM) would include, but not be limited to, offices, corporate
and professional services, hotels, restaurants, banks, research and development, light
manufacturing, food courts, retail shops, sports clubs, salons, spas, and art galleries that do not
exceed 65 feet in height. Principal permitted mixed-uses (MU) would include similar commercial
with the addition of attached condominiums, townhomes, and multi-family residential units that do
not exceed 65 feet in height. Furthermore, principal permitted medium and high density residential
(MDR and HDR) would include attached condominiums, townhomes, and multi-family residential
units with accessory uses (e.g., swimming pools, recreation centers) that do not exceed 50 feet in
height if designated medium density or 60 feet in height if designated high density.
2.8.1 Changes from the Existing Specific Plan
The proposed project would have many of the same features as envisioned under the existing
Specific Plan, including residential villages, commercial uses, a focal point piazza, a campanile tower
feature, and the construction of Lytle Creek Road through the project site. Table 2-3 on the
following page illustrates the key differences between the approved project, and the proposed
project, in terms of land use, dwelling units and square footage for commercial development.
Project Description
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-9
Table 2-3 Comparison of Existing Specific Plan and Proposed Project
Residential Acres Dwelling Units Residential Density Commercial GFA
Existing Specific Plan 56.0 842 15.0 du/ac 574,500
Proposed Project 64.6 1,671 25.9 du/ac 476,500
Change 8.6 829 10.9 du/ac -98,000
GFA=gross floor area in square feet; du/ac = dwelling units per acre
The greatest difference between the existing Specific Plan and the proposed project is the overall
increase of 1,671 residential units compared to 842 residential units under the existing Specific Plan.
This increase of 829 units represents an increase of 98 percent, or nearly double the residential
units. The additional units are accommodated via an increase in density from 15.0 to 25.9 units per
acre, as well as a small increase in residential acreage of 8.6 acres (15 percent). In addition, the total
commercial area would be reduced by 98,000 square feet (17 percent), from 574,500 square feet
under the existing Specific Plan, to 476,500 square feet for the proposed project.
2.8.2 Project Characteristics
Table 2-4 provides key elements located in each planning area. In addition, Figure 2-5 through
Figure 2-9 show the conceptual site plans for the planning areas.
Table 2-4 Planning Area Key Elements
Plan Area Key Elements
1 Residential units, campanile tower feature, recreation center, outdoor pool
2 Offices, research and development, light manufacturing
3 Residential units, recreation center, outdoor pool
4 Mixed uses, residential units, commercial/retail uses (e.g., market, pharmacy, restaurant), piazza,
outdoor pool
5 Commercial/retail uses, hotel, restaurant
6 Mixed uses, residential units, commercial/retail uses, offices, research and development, light
manufacturing
The piazza would be surrounded by mixed uses including retail commercial and residential lofts, and
a campanile tower feature would serve as a major monument and landmark visible from I-15 and
the surrounding area. The residential villages would include a variant of units including studio, one-,
two-, and three-bedroom units. Pedestrian paseos would connect the residential villages and
commercial uses to the piazza through pedestrian corridors, gardens, and small plazas.
Architecture
Proposed building design would implement a Mediterranean architectural theme and would focus
on a mixed-use, Tuscan village environment. The architecture would incorporate modest scales,
precast arches, decorative doors, decorative iron work, concrete roof tiles, brick and sand stucco
walls, and fabricated metal railing. The architecture is built from the ground up to progress from
intimate street to grand plaza. Architecture would also incorporate exposed brick structural, in
addition to metal, decorative elements. The design would be visually distinct and would create a
view into Fontana from I-15.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
2-10
Figure 2-5 Conceptual Site Plan for Planning Areas 1, 2 and 5
Project Description
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-11
Figure 2-6 Conceptual Site Plan for Planning Area 3
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
2-12
Figure 2-7 Conceptual Site Plan for Planning Area 4
Project Description
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-13
Figure 2-8 Conceptual Site Plan for Planning Area 6
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
2-14
Figure 2-9 Conceptual Site Plan for Proposed Project
Project Description
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-15
Landscaping
Proposed landscaping would include shade trees, shrubs, plants, grasses and hardscape selected
from the Specific Plan Amendment plant palette or as supplemented by the City. In general, the
plant material designs should provide a layered appearance, with lower growing plants in the
foreground and larger growing plants in the background. The plants and planting methods would be
selected based on compatibility with the soil and climate conditions to maximize efficient water use.
Irrigation systems would be designed to conserve water and accommodate hydrozones accordingly,
separating high, medium, and low water-use plants.
Green Building Features
Development facilitated by the project would comply with the 2019 California Building Energy
Efficiency Standards and CALGreen (CCR Title 24, Parts 6 and 11) or later versions, which are
anticipated to be more stringent than the 2019 codes. The 2019 standards require the provision of
electric vehicle charging equipment, water-efficient plumbing fixtures and fittings, recycling
services, solar on low-rise residential development, and other energy efficiency measures that
would reduce the potential for the inefficient use of energy.
Road Improvements and Site Access
Similar to the existing Specific Plan, the project would be responsible for the development of roads
within the Specific Plan area. Two primary roads and a collector road currently provide access to the
project site. The two primary roads—Duncan Canyon Road and Citrus Avenue—directly connect the
site to I-15 and would be fully developed to General Plan requirements through the project site.
Lytle Creek Road would be developed diagonally through the project area and offers improved
internal connection from the primary roads to each of the individual planning areas. As detailed n
the Specific Plan Amendment, the project would include the following roadway improvements as
design features, which would be constructed in conjunction with development of the site:
Construction of Duncan Canyon Road at its ultimate half-width (north side) as a Major Highway
(134-foot right-of-way) from the western project boundary to Citrus Avenue consistent with the
City’s standards; and at its ultimate half-width (south side) as a Major Highway (134-foot right-
of-way) from the western project boundary to Citrus Avenue consistent with the City’s
standards.
Construction of Citrus Avenue at its ultimate half-width as a Primary Highway (104-foot right-of-
way) from the northern Project boundary to Duncan Canyon Road consistent with the City’s
standards; and at its ultimate half-width as a Primary Highway (104-foot right-of-way) from the
southern project boundary to Duncan Canyon Road consistent with the City’s standards.
Construction of Lytle Creek Road at its ultimate full-width as a Local Street (68-foot right-of-
way) between Duncan Canyon Road to Citrus Avenue consistent with the City’s standards; and
at its ultimate full-width as a Secondary (92-foot right-of-way) between Duncan Canyon Road to
Citrus Avenue consistent with the City’s standards.
In addition, on‐site and site-adjacent traffic signing and striping would be implemented consistent
with the provisions of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and in conjunction
with detailed construction plans for the project site.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
2-16
Sidewalk and paseos are the two main categories of pedestrian access serving the project area. The
sidewalks would serve as a backbone to the site’s pedestrian traffic while the paseos would
establish a network of experiential pedestrian corridors inspired by Tuscan villages.
Utilities
Utility design and development would proceed similar to the existing Specific Plan.
Water service to the project area would be provided by the West San Bernardino County Water
District. Duncan Canyon Road, and Citrus Avenue south of Duncan Canyon Road, have existing water
infrastructure. Planned water infrastructure on Citrus Avenue is anticipated to be completed as part
of the nearby Monterado development. A new water main line is expected to follow the alignment
of Lytle Creek Road. The main line would create a loop connection with the planned infrastructure
on Citrus Avenue to the north and would connect to an existing line along I-15, south of Duncan
Canyon Road. Laterals would be provided to each Planning Area as needed.
Sewer service for the project area is provided by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). A sewer
main line is expected to follow the Lytle Creek Road alignment and gravity flow to the southwest,
connecting to an existing sewer line south of the project area. Points of Connection (POC) would be
provided to each Planning Area as needed.
Dry utility services (i.e., electrical, gas, telecommunication) would be extended north and south
along Lytle Creek Road from existing facilities on Duncan Canyon Road. Electrical services would be
provided by SCE, gas service would be provided by SoCal Gas, and telecommunication services
would be provided by AT&T.
New storm drain lines would be installed on Citrus Avenue north of Duncan Canyon Road and on
Duncan Canyon Road between the project area’s western edge and Citrus Avenue. The new lines
would intercept a main line that follows the Lytle Creek Road alignment north of Duncan Canyon
Road. The area south of Duncan Canyon Road would drain to a main line in Lytle Creek Road that
connects to an existing storm drain south of the project area. In addition, lateral lines would be
extended to each Planning Area as needed.
Construction and Grading
The project would be built out in six complete phases with construction estimated to begin in late
2022 and be completed by 2030. The arterial roads (Duncan Canyon Road and Citrus Avenue) and
backbone road (Lytle Creek Road) would be developed together during the first phase of
development. Once this backbone infrastructure is in place, the remaining Planning Areas have the
flexibility to be developed at any time. Actual build-out would be subject to market and economic
conditions, jurisdictional processing of approvals, and infrastructure timing, and may vary from the
construction phasing currently anticipated.
The project site would be rough graded into a series of development pads with a two percent slope
that respond to individual development areas. Development pads would be further fine graded in
response to specific development typologies. In addition, the proposed design can accommodate a
minimum of three entry and exit points per Planning Area. Based on preliminary earthwork
estimates, project grading would require approximately 150,000 cubic yards (cy) of combined cut
and fill. All material would be balanced on site. As stated above, the proposed project would have
many of the same features as envisioned under the existing Specific Plan. The greatest difference
between the existing Specific Plan and the proposed project is the overall increase in density.
Project Description
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-17
2.9 Project Objectives
The proposed project is intended to achieve the following objectives:
To support the area demand for housing, and contribute residential units to meet the City’s
housing goal of 17,519 units;
To create a master-planned, mixed-use community that creates a unique sense of place;
To provide quality housing with various size options to accommodate different housing needs;
To actualize the City’s vision for the Regional Mixed-Use designation in north Fontana;
To establish a unique window into North Fontana from I-15;
To introduce a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented activity center in this area of the city;
To integrate a mix of commercial, office and residential uses both vertically and horizontally;
To create a protected urban village environment that is unique to Fontana and the Inland
Empire;
To enhance the northern Fontana visual environment;
To contribute to the jobs/housing balance;
To facilitate revenue generating uses; and
To facilitate a walkable village environment.
2.10 Required Approvals
2.10.1 City of Fontana
The project would require the following approvals by the Fontana City Council:
A Specific Plan Amendment (SPA 21-0001) to change the land uses, planning areas, and other
elements of the Specific Plan, including a change from Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR)
to High Density Residential (HDR).
A General Plan Amendment (GPA 21-0006) to amend a portion of the site’s current land use
designations from Commercial (C-G) and Multi Family Residential (R-MF) to Regional Mixed Use
(RMU) and Residential Multi Family Medium/High (R-MFMH).
A tree removal permit for removal of on-site “heritage trees” per Section 28-64 of the Fontana
Municipal Code.
Design review of the development plan for each planning area associated with the Specific Plan.
Certification an EIR prepared in accordance with CEQA. The City of Fontana will consider
certification of the EIR prior to taking action on the other requested approvals.
2.10.2 Other Agency Approvals
West Valley Water District: Approval of a Water Supply Assessment for the project (Approved
on December 17, 2020).
Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc: Approval of trash enclosure and bin placements.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
2-18
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Setting
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-1
3 Environmental Setting
This section provides a general overview of the environmental setting for the proposed project.
More detailed descriptions of the environmental setting for each environmental issue area can be
found in Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis.
3.1 Regional Setting
The project site is in the City of Fontana, east of Interstate 15 (I-15), west of Citrus Avenue, and both
north and south of Duncan Canyon Road. The approximately 102-acre project site is located in the
northern part of the City of Fontana, within San Bernardino County, California. The project is bound
by I-15 to the north and west, Citrus Avenue to the east, and a Southern California Edison (SCE)
Transmission Line Corridor to the south. Figure 2-1 in Section 2, Project Description, shows the
location of the project site in the region and Figure 2-2 shows the location of the project site in
relationship to the surrounding neighborhood.
A grid system of east-west and north-south roadways, including arterials, collectors, and local
streets, provide vehicular access throughout the City. The major roadways near the project site
include Citrus Avenue, Summit Avenue, Duncan Canyon Road, and Coyote Canyon Road. The closest
freeways are I-15, State Route 210 (SR-210) and Interstate 10 (I-10). The SR-210 is located
approximately two miles south of the project site while the SR-210 is located approximately seven
miles south.
Fontana is in southwestern San Bernardino County, within the Inland Valley region of southern
California surrounded by the San Bernardino Mountains to the north and San Gabriel Mountains to
the west. The climate is typical of San Bernardino County and surrounding cities: hot, dry summers
and mild, relatively wet winters with rainfall concentrated in the winter months. The City of Fontana
is located approximately 47 miles inland from the coastline of the Pacific Ocean.
3.2 Project Site Setting
As shown in Figure 2-2 in Section 2, Project Description, the project site is bordered by neighboring
Specific Plan areas such as Arboretum (east), Summit at Rosena (southeast), Citrus Heights North
(south), Westgate (southwest), Hunter’s Ridge (southwest), and Coyote Canyon (west). Both the
Arboretum and Citrus Heights feature residential development near the plan area. Furthermore,
lands to the north and northeast are vacant. Coyote Canyon Park is located west of, and adjacent to
I-15, south of Duncan Canyon Road. The I-15 and the Duncan Canyon Road interchange is adjacent
to the northwestern project boundary. An SCE transmission line corridor is adjacent to the
southeaster project boundary.
The project site is currently undeveloped. The project area includes five eucalyptus windrows
containing approximately 185 trees, which are located on the triangular parcel north of Duncan
Canyon Road. In addition, there are distribution lines located along Duncan Canyon Road and Citrus
Avenue. The site is predominately flat, with a gentle slope from approximately 1,835 above mean
sea level (amsl) at the northern edge of the project to approximately 1,675 amsl at the southern
edge along Lytle Creek Road and I-15. The site drains from the northeast to the southwest. The
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
3-2
project area is located on an alluvial plain formed by Lytle Creek, which is the primary collector for a
significant watershed that includes large portions of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north.
3.3 Cumulative Development
In addition to the specific impacts of individual projects, CEQA requires EIRs to consider potential
cumulative impacts of the proposed project. CEQA defines “cumulative impacts” as two or more
individual impacts that, when considered together, are substantial or will compound other
environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts are the combined changes in the environment that
result from the incremental impact of development of the proposed project and other nearby
projects. For example, traffic impacts of two nearby projects may be less than significant when
analyzed separately but could have a significant impact when analyzed together. Cumulative impact
analysis allows the EIR to provide a reasonable forecast of future environmental conditions and can
more accurately gauge the effects of a series of projects.
CEQA requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider either a list of planned and pending
projects that may contribute to cumulative effects or a forecast of future development potential.
Currently planned and pending projects in Fontana and surrounding areas such as the City of Rialto,
are listed in Table 3-1. In particular, the Hunter’s Ridge Project, Monarch Hills Project, Monterado
Project, and the North Fontana Industrial Complex (Acacia and Shea Projects) are either located in
proximity or along the same major arterial as the project site and construction schedules may
overlap. These projects are considered in the cumulative analyses in Section 4, Environmental
Impact Analysis. Figure 3-1 displays where the cumulative projects are in the vicinity of the project.
Table 3-1 Cumulative Projects List
TAZ1 Project2 Project Location Land Use Quantity3
City of Fontana
F1 Hunter's Ridge Summit Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road Single Family Detached 20 DU
F2 Monarch Hills Near Lytle Creek Road Single Family
Detached
489 DU
F3 Monterado Northeast corner of Duncan Canyon Road and Citrus Avenue
Single Family Detached 198 DU
F4 PAM 20-062 City of Fontana Single Family
Detached
182 DU
F5 Sierra Crest II Sierra Avenue and Segovia Lane Single Family Detached 179 DU
F6 Frome 5253 Lytle Creek Road Single Family
Detached
155 DU
F7 Citrus Heights North (Shady Trails)
PA3 15800 S. Park Lane Single Family
Detached 99 DU
F8 Arboretum The Meadows Sierra Avenue and Casa
Grande Avenue
Single Family
Detached
585 DU
F9 Summit at Rosena PA 1, 10-19 Summit Avenue and Sierra
Avenue
Single Family
Detached
553 DU
F10 The Gardens at Arboretum PA G-5, G-
6, G-7
Sierra Avenue and Casa
Grande Avenue
Single Family
Detached
278 DU
Environmental Setting
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-3
TAZ1 Project2 Project Location Land Use Quantity3
F11 The Gardens at Arboretum PA G-8, G-9, G-10 Sierra Avenue and Casa Grande Avenue Single Family Detached 250 DU
F12 Summit at Rosena Summit Avenue and Sierra
Avenue
Single Family
Detached
227 DU
F13 Citrus Heights North (Shady Trails)
PA16,17
Summit Avenue and Citrus
Avenue
Single Family
Detached 290 DU
F14 Citrus Heights North (Shady Trails)
PA12
Summit Avenue and Citrus
Avenue
Single Family
Detached
102 DU
F15 Summit 18825 West of Beech Avenue Single Family
Detached 94 DU
F16 MCN 18-120 City of Fontana Single Family
Detached
86 DU
F17 MCN 14-043R1 City of Fontana Single Family
Detached
102 DU
F18 MCN 13-029 City of Fontana Single Family
Detached
96 DU
F19 MCN 18-91 TTM No. 18974 City of Fontana Single Family
Detached
5 DU
F20 MCN 18-062 City of Fontana Single Family
Detached
105 DU
F21 Stratham Homes 7010 North Heritage Circle Single Family
Detached
107 DU
F22 MCN 18-088 Strathem City of Fontana Single Family
Detached
94 DU
F23 North Fontana Industrial Complex
(Acacia and Shea)
City of Fontana Warehouse
Fulfillment Center
Storage
88.746 TSF
449.367 TSF
49.930 TSF
City of Rialto
R1 Golden Springs, LLC City of Rialto Warehouse 630.000 TSF
R2 Warehouse (Alder/Casmalia) Alder Avenue and Casmalia Street, City of Rialto
Warehouse 618.400 TSF
R3 Rialto Retail Center City of Rialto Auto Wash
Fast-Food
Shopping Center
Hotel
1.800 TSF
5.300 TSF
2.200 TSF
77 RM
1 Cumulative project details were sourced from the Traffic Study prepared for the project by Urban Crossroads in April 2022.
2 DU = dwelling units; TSF = thousand square feet; RM = rooms
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
3-4
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Setting
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-5
Figure 3-1 Cumulative Projects
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
3-6
This page intentionally left blank
Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-1
4 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses the possible environmental effects of the proposed project for the specific
topics that were identified through the scoping process as having the potential to experience
significant effects. A “significant effect” as defined by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15382:
means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions
within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient
noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself
shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change
related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is
significant.
The assessment of each issue area begins with a discussion of the environmental setting related to
the issue, which is followed by the impact analysis. In the impact analysis, the first subsection
identifies the methodologies used and the “significance thresholds,” which are those criteria
adopted by the City and other agencies, universally recognized, or developed specifically for this
analysis to determine whether potential effects are significant. The next subsection describes each
impact of the proposed project, mitigation measures for significant impacts, and the level of
significance after mitigation. Each effect under consideration for an issue area is separately listed in
bold text with the discussion of the effect and its significance. Each bolded impact statement also
contains a statement of the significance determination for the environmental impact as follows:
Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level
given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a
Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved per
Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An impact that can be reduced to below the
threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact
requires findings under Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse but does not exceed the threshold levels
and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further
lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable.
No Impact. The proposed project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would
reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.
Following each environmental impact discussion is a list of mitigation measures (if required) and the
residual effects or level of significance remaining after implementation of the measure(s). In cases
where the mitigation measure for an impact could have a significant environmental impact in
another issue area, this impact is discussed and evaluated as a secondary impact. The impact
analysis concludes with a discussion of cumulative effects, which evaluates the impacts associated
with the proposed project in conjunction with other planned and pending developments in the area
listed in Section 3, Environmental Setting.
The Executive Summary section of this SEIR summarizes all impacts and mitigation measures that
apply to the proposed project.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4-2
This page intentionally left blank
Environmental Impact Analysis Aesthetics/Visual Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-1
4.1 Aesthetics/Visual Resources
This section evaluates the project’s potential impacts to scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual
character or quality, and light or glare. The analysis consists of a description of the visual setting for
the project and the surrounding area, a discussion of potential impacts the project would have, and
any mitigation measures required to reduce impacts.
4.1.1 Setting
a. Existing Visual Setting
Visual quality is defined as the overall visual impression or attractiveness of an area based on the
scenic resources, both natural and built. The attributes of visual quality include variety, vividness,
coherence, uniqueness, harmony, and pattern. Viewshed is a term used to describe a range of
resources and their context that relate to what people can see in the immediate environment in
terms of foreground, middle ground, and background distances. Viewsheds refer to the visual
qualities of a geographical area defined by the horizon, topography, and other natural features that
give an area its visual boundary and context. Viewsheds are defined further by development that
forms a prominent visual component of the area. Public views are those available from publicly
accessible vantage points, such as streets, freeways, parks, and vista points. These views are
available to a greater number of persons than private views, which are those available from vantage
points on private property.
Visual Character of the Surrounding Area
The visual character of the surrounding area is a mix of natural features and residential. Sensitive
viewer groups include people who reside in the area, permanently or temporarily, and those who
pass through or otherwise appear in the area (e.g., commuters), who have the potential to be
affected by the area’s scenic features and visual quality, and by the character of scenic vistas and
viewsheds.
Immediate land surrounding the site include undeveloped, vacant land to the north and west and
paved roads to the east and south, including Interstate 15 (I-15). A Southern California Edison (SCE)
corridor and a new residential development is located to the south and east of the project site.
There are no native plant communities on or adjacent to the project site, and vegetation is
substantially limited to non-native grassland, and eucalyptus windrows.
Neighboring Specific Plan areas include Arboretum (east), Summit at Rosena (southeast), Citrus
Heights North (south), Westgate (southwest), Hunter’s Ridge (southwest), and Coyote Canyon
(west). Both the Arboretum and Citrus Heights feature residential development near the plan area.
The land to the northeast is vacant and Coyote Canyon Park is located west of, and adjacent to I-15,
south of Duncan Canyon Road.
Visual Character of the Project Site
The project site consists of a slightly sloping open area, supporting non-native grasses, with five
windrows of eucalyptus trees on the northern section. I-15 runs along the northwestern boundary
of the site, with Citrus Avenue on the east and the SCE transmission towers on the south.
Figure 4.1-1 and Figure 4.1-2, provide views of the open land on the northern and southern sections
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.1-2
of the project site from various viewpoints. As shown in these photographs, the project site is a
large open area. Trash and scattered debris are found at various locations along the roadsides.
Citrus Avenue is a two-lane roadway that runs north south along the eastern boundary of the site
and then turns northeasterly along I-15, see Figure 4.1-1, Photograph 1. The roadway has
undeveloped shoulders along the project site. Overhead power lines run along the eastern edge of
this road, tying into the SCE utility boxes and monitoring pole at the northern end of the site.
I-15 is visible to the northwest, with views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains beyond
as seen in Figure 4.1-1, Photographs 1 and 2. Views of the northern section of the site show an open
field, with low grasses and five rows of eucalyptus trees as seen in Figure 4.1-1, Photographs 2
and 3.
Southwest of the site, Lytle Creek Road runs north-south but starting at the southwestern corner of
the site, the road turns northeasterly following the edge of I-15 and ends at Duncan Canyon Road.
South of the site is the SCE right-of-way with high voltage power lines on steel trusses (see
Figure 4.1-2, Photographs 2 and 3). West of the site is I-15, with new single-family homes on the
west side of the freeway. East of the site is land being developed for residential use, with a water
tank farther northeast and a natural gas pumping facility east on Duncan Canyon Road. The
southern section of the site is largely vacant except for the area occupied by the residence and
accessory structures.
Duncan Canyon Road cuts through the site in an east-west direction, see Figure 4.1-1, Photograph 4
and Figure 4.1-2, Photograph 4. Duncan Canyon Road is a two-lane roadway, with a bridge over I-15
and an eastern terminus at Citrus Avenue. Overhead utility lines run along both sides of this road. A
curb is present along the residential parcel, but the roadway has soft shoulders at other locations.
Existing residences are located just east of Lytle Creek Road and south of Duncan Canyon Road. The
SCE right-of-way runs along the southern boundary of the site, with high-voltage transmission lines
on four steel towers within the right-of-way along the site. Further south of the SCE right-of-way is a
vacant land and land that is currently being developed as a residential tract.
Scenic Views and Vistas
Major views in the area include those of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains located
north and northwest of the project site.
Light and Glare
The project site is surrounded by residential development and is adjacent to I-15 and other
residential uses. The project site is largely vacant, and sources of light in the area are limited to
streetlights along Citrus Avenue, Lytle Creek Road, and Duncan Canyon Road, and exterior lighting at
the existing single-family residence. No sources of glare are present on the site. Other sources of
light in the project area include headlights from passing vehicles on I-15 and local roadways and
lights on freeway signs, as well as outdoor lighting at nearby residential tracts.
Environmental Impact Analysis Aesthetics/Visual Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-3
Figure 4.1-1 Northern Site Photographs
Photograph 1. View of I-17 from the northeast looking west Photograph 2. View from the northeast looking north
Photograph 3. View from the northeast looking northeast Photograph 4. Duncan Canyon Road looking northwest to I-15
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.1-4
Figure 4.1-2 Southern Site Photographs
Photograph 1. View from the southwest looking east off-site Photograph 2. View from the southeast looking west
Photograph 3. View from southwest looking south Photograph 4. Duncan Canyon Road looking west
Environmental Impact Analysis Aesthetics/Visual Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-5
4.1.2 Regulatory Setting
a. State Regulations
2019 California Green Building Standards Code
Section 5.106.8 of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), the California Green
Building Standards Code—Part 11, Title 24, California Code of Regulations—is the first-in-the-nation
mandatory green building standards code. CALGreen addresses policies for light pollution reduction.
It complies with lighting power requirements in the California Energy Code, California Code
Regulations (CCR), Part 6, and design interior and exterior lighting such that zero direct-beam
illumination leaves the building site. The 2018 Supplemental Update to CALGreen included a
clarified Section 5.106.8 on backlight, uplight, and glare, with references to new tables. Buildings
must meet or exceed exterior light levels and uniformity ratios for lighting zones 1-4 as defined in
Chapter 10 of the California Administrative Code, CCR, Part 1, using the strategies listed below. The
project would likely be in Lighting Zone 3 (Urban areas, as defined by the 2000 U.S. Census) which
allows moderately high ambient illumination.
1. Shield all luminaries or provide cutoff luminaries per Section 132 (b) of the California Energy
Code
2. Contain interior lighting within each source
3. Allow no more than .01 horizontal lumen foot-candles to escape 15 feet beyond the site
boundary
4. Automatically control exterior lighting dusk to dawn to turn off or lower light Levels during
incentive periods
CalGreen includes directions to the California Energy Code for ambient lighting regulations for
additions and alterations.
b. Local Regulations
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana General Plan expresses the community’s vision of its long-term physical form and
development in its Community and Neighborhood and Land Use, Zoning and Urban Development
chapters (City of Fontana 2018). The following objectives and policies pertaining to aesthetics from
the City’s General Plan are applicable to the proposed project:
Community and Neighborhood
This chapter focuses on attributes that contribute to the form, character and quality of life in the
communities and neighborhoods where people live.
Goal 5: New housing developments promote walkable neighborhoods with mixed-use amenities
and connections to city destinations.
Policy: Support regulations that promote creation of compact and walkable urban village-
style design in new developments.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.1-6
Goal 6: The safe, attractive, and lively central area of the city has new infill development and public
improvements.
Policy: Support revitalization of the central area of the city with an integrated approach,
including mixed-use development, infill housing, infrastructure improvements,
interconnections and placemaking programs that create great public amenities.
Land Use, Zoning and Urban Development
This chapter describes present and planned land uses and their relationship to Fontana’s goals for
development in terms of the City’s character.
Goal 7: Public and private development meets high standards of design.
Policy: Support high-quality development in design standards and in land use decisions.
4.1.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact
related to aesthetics if it would:
1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista
2. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning
and other regulations governing scenic quality
3. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or
nighttime views in the area
Impacts to aesthetics were analyzed in an Initial Study (see Appendix A-2). The Initial Study
determined that impacts related to substantial damage to scenic resources, including but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway would be
less than significant because the project site is not within or near a designated State scenic highway
and does not feature rock outcroppings or historic buildings. Therefore, impacts related to scenic
resources and State scenic highways are not further evaluated in this section.
b. Standard Conditions
The following standard conditions related to aesthetics, and identified in the 2007 EIR, remain
applicable to the proposed project:
Standard Condition 4.16.1: Future development on the project site shall be subject to site plan
and design review for compliance with the development regulations and design guidelines in
the adopted Specific Plan and applicable regulations in the City’s Zoning and Development Code.
Environmental Impact Analysis Aesthetics/Visual Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-7
c. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Impact AES-1 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT AFFECT THE GATEWAY TO THE CITY AT SIERRA AVENUE AND INTERSTATE 15, NOR WOULD IT AFFECT VIEWS OF THE MOUNTAINS ALONG THE SIERRA AVENUE VIEW
CORRIDOR. BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURES WOULD PRESERVE DISTANT
MOUNTAIN VIEWS AND PREVENT TOTAL VIEW OBSTRUCTION ON AREA ROADS. IMPACTS RELATED TO SCENIC
VISTAS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Scenic vistas can be impacted by development through the construction of a structure which blocks
the view of a vista or by impacting the vista itself, for example, through development of a scenic
hillside. Scenic vistas in the area include those inclusive of views of the San Bernardino and San
Gabriel Mountains, located north and northwest of the project site. The project site is not within a
scenic vista.
In the 2007 EIR, it was found that views from areas to the south of the site would change as the
proposed residential villages and commercial areas are built on the site. This development would
lead to structures up to four stories high that would change the foreground views from vacant land
to a mix of residential and commercial structures. The 2007 EIR concluded that with the proposed
maximum building height, changes in mountain views were not expected to be significant and
adverse. Additionally, the 2007 EIR states that the project would not have an impact on the
designated Sierra Avenue as a view corridor and that building separation/setback requirements for
individual structures would preserve distant mountain views and prevent total view obstruction.
The project would develop nearly double the residential units—1,671 units, compared to 842 units
under the existing Specific Plan. The additional units are accommodated via an increase in density
from 15.0 to 25.9 units per acre, as well as a small increase in residential acreage of 8.6 acres
(15 percent). In addition, the total commercial area would be reduced by 98,000 square-feet
(17 percent), from 574,500 square-feet under the existing Specific Plan, to 476,500 for the proposed
project. The increase in density would place buildings closer together and result in an increase in the
overall intensity of development in residential areas of the site.
Similar to what is stated in the 2007 EIR, development of the project site has the potential to change
and interrupt views of scenic vistas from local roads, especially Duncan Canyon Road east of I-15.
However, the project would not adversely affect views of vistas from I-15.
The City of Fontana has designated Sierra Avenue as a view corridor to allow for the preservation of
mountain views in North Fontana. The project would not affect the gateway to the City at Sierra
Avenue and I-15, nor would it affect views of the mountains along the Sierra Avenue view corridor.
Building setback requirements for individual structures would preserve distant mountain views and
prevent total view obstruction on area roads. Additionally, the construction of the realigned Lytle
Creek Road is expected to provide new views to the area. Impacts related to scenic vistas would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.1-8
Threshold 2: Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
Impact AES-2 THE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT WOULD NOT ADVERSELY DEGRADE THE EXISTING
VISUAL CHARACTER OR QUALITY OF PUBLIC VIEWS OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS WITH COMPLIANCE
WITH THE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DESIGN GUIDELINES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The visual character of the project site is composed of previously disturbed land, non-native grass,
SCE transmission lines, I-15, and eucalyptus windrows. The project site occurs in an area that consist
of a mosaic of undeveloped/vacant land and new residential developments. Immediate land uses
surrounding the site include undeveloped, vacant land to the north and west, and paved roads and
new residential development to the east and south, including I-15. An SCE corridor and a new
residential development is located to the south and east of the project site.
In the existing Specific Plan, as many as 842 condominium units and a total of 574,500 square feet of
retail commercial and office uses would have been developed. The 2007 EIR found that these
developments would change the open land characteristic of the site to one with several structures
surrounded by improved landscapes and streetscapes. However, determination of whether the
changes in visual quality of the site would degrade the site or its surroundings, and thus, be
significant and adverse, is highly subjective as some individuals prefer open and natural settings,
while others prefer urban and improved environments. Similarly, preferences for one architectural
style over another made it difficult to conclude that a development would have a negative or
positive aesthetic impact. Therefore, it was concluded that with the review and approval of site
plans by the City, the change in visual appearance related to implementation of the Specific Plan
was not expected to have an adverse aesthetic impact assuming development projects comply with
the Specific Plan design guidelines.
As previously discussed, the greatest difference between the existing Specific Plan and the proposed
project is the overall increase in residential units.
Similar to what is stated in the 2007 EIR, the proposed project would change the visual appearance
of the project site from a disturbed “natural” area to a more structured setting. The perception of
this change would be different from one person to another and visual preferences between the
existing and future conditions are highly subjective. However, with the site being devoid of native
plant species, notable outcroppings, buildings, and other defining features the development of the
project site will add defined edges between roads, parkways, improved landscaped areas, parking
lots, buildings, pathways and a cohesive aesthetic to the area.
The proposed project is designed to emulate charming Tuscan villages to add authentic character to
the area. Proposed building design would implement a Mediterranean architectural theme and
would focus on a mixed-use, Tuscan village environment as seem in Figure 4.1-3. The architecture
would incorporate precast arches, decorative doors, decorative iron work, concrete roof tiles, brick
and sand stucco walls, and fabricated metal railing. The architecture is built from the ground up to
progress from intimate street to grand plaza. Architecture would also incorporate exposed brick
structural, in addition to metal, decorative elements.
The design of the project would be visually distinct and would create a view into Fontana from I-15.
This visually distinct view into Fontana would be consistent with the City’s intent to define Duncan
Environmental Impact Analysis Aesthetics/Visual Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-9
Canyon Road as an entryway to the city. Furthermore, the project would support the transition of
the surrounding area from agricultural use to an urban setting. In order to maintain this consistent
look, all plans for development will be subject to review for consistency with the Specific Plan. Thus,
if the City approves the proposed design guidelines for the development of Tuscan Village on the
site, it is assumed that compliance with the design guidelines in the Specific Plan would be in
keeping with the aesthetic standards for future development on the site.
The City would review and approve the site plans for the commercial areas and residential villages
for compliance with development standards, sign regulations, and design guidelines in the proposed
Specific Plan, prior to the approval of building permits. Thus, with compliance with the Specific Plan
design guidelines, the project would not have an adverse impact on the quality of public views.
Therefore, the Specific Plan Amendment would not adversely degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.1-10
Figure 4.1-3 Tuscan Village Concept Photographs
Photograph 1. Photograph 2.
Environmental Impact Analysis Aesthetics/Visual Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-11
Threshold 3: Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area?
Impact AES-3 COMPLIANCE WITH THE OUTDOOR LIGHTING GUIDELINES IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE CITY’S DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS REGARDING GLARE WOULD PREVENT THE CREATION
OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE LIGHT AND GLARE IMPACTS. THEREFORE, THE PROJECT WOULD NOT CREATE A NEW
SOURCE OF SUBSTANTIAL GLARE THAT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT DAYTIME OR NIGHTTIME VIEWS IN THE AREA. LIGHT AND GLARE IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The project site is undeveloped and does not have any sources of light or glare. New sources of light
and glare from the project would come from windows, outdoor landscaping and safety lighting, and
light and glare from vehicles accessing the project site. Therefore, development of the project would
increase the intensity of lighting and add glare sources on the project site associated with the
commercial, mixed use, and residential uses.
The 2007 EIR found that future development would be accompanied by new sources of light and
glare. Increased lighting levels could impact the adjacent residential uses to the west and south.
However, it was determined that increased light levels would not lead to a significant adverse effect
on these residences since the homes are separated from the site by the SCE right-of-way and I-15.
Any light spillover would be within these corridors and not farther south or west. Furthermore, it
was found that with compliance to the outdoor lighting guidelines in the Specific Plan and the City’s
development regulations regarding lighting would prevent the creation of significant adverse light
and glare impacts.
The area around the project site has been further developed since Specific Plan approval, and the
surrounding area includes recent residential development, along with the reconstruction of the I-15
and Duncan Canyon Road interchange. The former emits daytime and nighttime light and glare in
the area typical for residential uses. Similarly, to what is stated in the 2007 EIR, the Specific Plan
Amendment would introduce new sources of light and glare. However, the proposed project is
largely consistent with the existing Specific Plan in terms of lighting. The Specific Plan includes
outdoor lighting guidelines that would provide a unified design within the developments. These
guidelines include the following:
The use of outdoor lighting that are focused, directed and arranged to minimize glare and light
spillover
The use of vandal-proof fixtures
Prohibition of neon lighting
Lighting of community entry areas and public plazas to develop a sense of place and arrival
Security lighting
Shielding of exterior lights to minimize spill light into the night sky and adjacent properties
As previously discussed, the greatest difference between the existing Specific Plan and the proposed
project is the overall increase in residential units. Similar to the existing Specific Plan, the proposed
project places commercial uses along I-15. Commercial lighting would be typical for the proposed
uses, and compatible with the freeway setting. Residential villages would be located between the
commercial uses, and adjacent residential projects to the east, and also separated by roads such as
Citrus Avenue. The residential villages would be denser than those under the existing Specific Plan,
but still typical of a multi-family residential area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project
would not significantly increase the ambient lighting compared to the existing Specific Plan.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.1-12
Similar to what is stated in the 2007 EIR, the project would comply with the lighting requirements in
the revised Specific Plan and the development standards in the City’s Zoning and Development
Code. The City’s Development Code requires all light sources to be directed and/or shielded to
prevent spillover and glare. Lighting plans would need to be reviewed by the City to ensure that
there is no spillover into adjacent properties. Section 30-471 states that all lights shall be
directed and/or shielded to prevent the light from adversely affecting adjacent properties. Future
development on the site would be required to submit lighting plans for design review and approval
by the City. Compliance with the outdoor lighting guidelines in the Specific Plan and the City’s
development regulations regarding lighting would prevent the creation of significant adverse light
and glare impacts. Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light that
would adversely affect nighttime views in the area.
Cars in parking lots could potentially produce glare under operational conditions, particularly on
bright, sunny days. The construction of the commercial areas would also create new sources of glare
in the form of glazed building surfaces, use of mirrors and glass as exterior building surfaces, and
other reflective materials that would reflect the sun or light sources and create glare. The project’s
Tuscan themed architectures emphasize the use of natural, textured, and colored materials and
would serve to further reduce sources of glare associated with buildings and structures.
As previously discussed, the project will be subject to the City’s Development Code requirements
such as Section 30-471, which states that no structure or feature shall be permitted that creates
adverse glare effects. Several additional development standards and design guidelines for parking
areas are set forth by Section 30-697. Compliance with the outdoor lighting guidelines in the
Specific Plan and the City’s development regulations regarding glare would prevent the creation of
significant adverse light and glare impacts. Therefore, the project would not create a new source of
substantial glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. Light and glare
impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts
Planned and pending projects in Fontana and surrounding areas are listed in Table 3-1 in Section 3,
Environmental Setting, and include residential, commercial, and industrial land uses.
As previously discussed, the project would continue the transition of the area and adjacent uses
from rural agricultural to urban non-agricultural use. All new development would be consistent with
applicable building regulations and guidelines from the Fontana General Plan and the Ventana at
Duncan Canyon Specific Plan. Adherence to these policies would reduce impacts associated with the
visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings and maintain visual
consistency and quality with surrounding development. Additionally, this would reduce cumulative
impacts to light, and glare.
Development of the proposed project and cumulative projects within north Fontana and adjacent
areas along the I-15 corridor would create an overall increase in nighttime ambient lighting
conditions, as well as glare associated with development compared to predevelopment conditions.
New development would be subject to design review and City design requirements for lighting and
architectural, as well as General Plan policy supporting high-quality development in design
standards and in land use decisions. Projects developed under a Specific Plan, such as the proposed
Environmental Impact Analysis Aesthetics/Visual Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.1-13
project, will provide additional guidance for quality design and cohesiveness in architecture across a
planning area. Compliance with such standards would result in less than significant cumulative
impacts related to increases in nighttime ambient lighting and daytime glare.
The project site and surrounding areas are not located near state-designated scenic highways, or
highways eligible for designation as a scenic highway. Additionally, the proposed project would not
impact Sierra Avenue as a view corridor. Development of the project site has the potential to
change and interrupt views of scenic vistas from local roads, especially Duncan Canyon Road east of
I-15. However, the project would not adversely affect views from I-15 of these vistas. Building
separation and setback requirements for individual structures would preserve distant mountain
views and prevent total view obstruction. Additionally, the construction of the realigned Lytle Creek
Road is expected to provide new scenic view to the area. Cumulative impacts to aesthetics, light,
and glare would be less than significant.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.1-14
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Impact Analysis Air Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-1
4.2 Air Quality
This section analyzes the potential air quality impacts of the proposed project related to both
temporary construction activity and long-term operation of the project. The analysis herein is
substantially based on the project-specific Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study prepared for the
proposed project (Rincon 2021a; Appendix B).
4.2.1 Setting
The project site is in the South Coast Air Basin (the Basin), which is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to
the west; the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountains to the north and east; and the
Riverside County/San Diego County border to the south. The Basin includes all of Orange County
and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, as well as the
San Gorgonio Pass in Riverside County. The regional climate in the Basin is considered semi-arid and
is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent seasonal rainfall, moderate daytime
onshore breezes, and moderate humidity. Air quality in the Basin is influenced primarily by
meteorology and a wide range of emissions sources, such as dense population centers, substantial
vehicular traffic, and industry.
Air pollutant emissions in the Basin are generated primarily by stationary and mobile sources.
Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point sources and area sources.
Point sources occur at a specific location and are often identified by an exhaust vent or stack.
Examples include boilers or combustion equipment that produce electricity or generate heat. Area
sources are distributed widely and include sources such as painting operations, lawn mowers,
agricultural fields, landfills, and some consumer products. Mobile sources refer to emissions from
motor vehicles and other modes of transportation, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and
are classified as either on-road or off-road. On-road sources may be legally operated on roadways
and highways. Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, and self-propelled construction
equipment. Air pollutants can also be generated by the natural environment, such as when high
winds suspend fine dust particles.
a. Air Pollutants of Primary Concern
Primary criteria pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust stack
of a factory, etc.) into the atmosphere. Primary criteria pollutants include CO, NO2, PM10, PM2.5, SO2,
and lead. Ozone is considered a secondary criteria pollutant because it is created by atmospheric
chemical and photochemical reactions between volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX). The following subsections describe the characteristics, sources, and health and
atmospheric effects of critical air contaminants.
Ozone
Ozone is produced by a photochemical reaction (triggered by sunlight) between NOX and VOC.1
Nitrogen oxides are formed during the combustion of fuels, while VOC are formed during
1 Organic compound precursors of ozone are routinely described by a number of variations of three terms: hydrocarbons (HC), organic
gases (OG), and organic compounds (OC). These terms are often modified by adjectives such as total, reactive, or volatile, and result in a
rather confusing array of acronyms: HC, THC (total hydrocarbons), RHC (reactive hydrocarbons), TOG (total organic gases), ROG (reactive
organic gases), TOC (total organic compounds), ROC (reactive organic compounds), and VOC (volatile organic compounds). While most of these differ in some significant way from a chemical perspective, two groups are important from an air quality perspective: non-
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.2-2
combustion and evaporation of organic solvents. Because ozone requires sunlight to form, it usually
occurs in substantial concentrations between the months of April and October. Ozone is a pungent,
colorless, toxic gas with direct health effects on humans including respiratory and eye irritation and
possible changes in lung functions. Groups most sensitive to ozone include children, the elderly,
people with respiratory disorders, and people who exercise strenuously outdoors.
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide is a local pollutant that is found in high concentrations only near fuel combustion
equipment and other sources of CO. The primary source of CO, a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas,
is automobile traffic. Therefore, elevated concentrations are usually only found near areas of high
traffic volumes. Carbon monoxide’s health effects are related to its affinity for hemoglobin in the
blood. At high concentrations, CO reduces the amount of oxygen in the blood, causing heart
difficulty in people with chronic diseases, reduced lung capacity, and impaired mental abilities.
Nitrogen Dioxide
Nitrogen dioxide is a by-product of fuel combustion, with the primary source being motor vehicles
and industrial boilers and furnaces. The principal form of nitrogen oxide produced by combustion is
nitric oxide (NO), but NO reacts rapidly to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly
called NOX. Nitrogen dioxide is an acute irritant. A relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary
fibrosis may exist, and an increase in bronchitis in young children at concentrations below 0.3 parts
per million (ppm) may occur. Nitrogen dioxide absorbs blue light, gives a reddish-brown cast to the
atmosphere, and reduces visibility. It can also contribute to the formation of ozone/smog and acid
rain.
Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur dioxide is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-
containing fossil fuels. When SO2 oxidizes in the atmosphere, it forms sulfur trioxide. Collectively,
these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX). In humid atmospheres, SO2 can also form
sulfuric acid mist, which can eventually react to produce sulfate particulates that can inhibit
visibility. Combustion of high sulfur-content fuels is the major source of SO2, while chemical plants,
sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing are minor contributors. At sufficiently high
concentrations, SO2 irritates the upper respiratory tract. At lower concentrations, when in
conjunction with particulates, SO2 appears to do still greater harm by injuring lung tissues. This
compound also constricts the breathing passages, especially in people with asthma and people
involved in moderate to heavy exercise. Sulfur dioxide causes respiratory irritation, including
wheezing, shortness of breath, and coughing. Long-term SO2 exposure has been associated with
increased risk of mortality from respiratory or cardiovascular disease. Sulfur oxides, in combination
with moisture and oxygen, can yellow leaves on plants, dissolve marble, and eat away iron and
steel.
Suspended Particulates
Atmospheric particulate matter is comprised of finely divided solids and liquids such as dust, soot,
aerosols, fumes, and mists. The particulates that are of particular concern are PM10 (small
particulate matter that measures no more than 10 microns in diameter) and PM2.5 (fine particulate
photochemically reactive in the lower atmosphere, or photochemically reactive in the lower atmosphere (HC, RHC, ROG, ROC, and VOC). South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) uses the term VOC to denote organic precursors.
Environmental Impact Analysis Air Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-3
matter that measures no more than 2.5 microns in diameter). The characteristics, sources, and
potential health effects associated with PM10 and PM2.5 can be different. Major man-made sources
of PM10 are agricultural operations, industrial processes, combustion of fossil fuels, construction,
demolition operations, and entrainment of road dust into the atmosphere. Natural sources include
windblown dust, wildfire smoke, and sea spray salt. The finer PM2.5 particulates are generally
associated with combustion processes as well as formation in the atmosphere as a secondary
pollutant through chemical reactions. PM2.5 is more likely to penetrate deeply into the lungs and
poses a serious health threat to all groups, but particularly to the elderly, children, and those with
respiratory problems. More than half of the small and fine particulate matter that is inhaled into the
lungs remains there, which can cause permanent lung damage. These materials can damage health
by interfering with the body’s mechanisms for clearing the respiratory tract or by acting as carriers
of an absorbed toxic substance.
Lead
Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment, as well as in manufacturing products. Lead
occurs in the atmosphere as particulate matter. The major sources of lead emissions historically
have been mobile and industrial sources. In the early 1970s, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) set national regulations to gradually reduce the lead content in gasoline.
In 1975, unleaded gasoline was introduced for motor vehicles equipped with catalytic converters.
The USEPA completed the ban prohibiting the use of leaded gasoline in highway vehicles in
December 1995. As a result of the USEPA’s regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline,
atmospheric lead concentrations have declined substantially over the past several decades. The
most dramatic reductions in lead emissions occurred prior to 1990 due to the removal of lead from
gasoline sold for most highway vehicles. Lead emissions were further reduced substantially between
1990 and 2008, with reductions occurring in the metals industries in part due to national emissions
standards for hazardous air pollutants (USEPA 2013). As a result of phasing out leaded gasoline,
metal processing is currently the primary source of lead emissions. The highest levels of lead in the
air are generally found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources include waste incinerators,
utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers. Lead may cause a range of health effects, including
anemia, kidney disease, and neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction (in severe cases). The
proposed project does not include any stationary sources of lead emissions. Therefore,
implementation of the project would not result in substantial emissions of lead, and this pollutant is
not discussed further in this analysis.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are a diverse group of air pollutants that may cause or contribute to
an increase in deaths or serious illness or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human
health. TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances that may be emitted from a
variety of common sources, including gasoline stations, motor vehicles, dry cleaners, industrial
operations, painting operations, and research and teaching facilities. One of the main sources of
TACs in California is diesel engines that emit exhaust containing solid material known as diesel
particulate matter (DPM) (California Air Resources board [CARB] 2021a). TACs are different than the
criteria pollutants previously discussed because ambient air quality standards have not been
established for TACs. TACs occurring at extremely low levels may still cause health effects, and it is
typically difficult to identify levels of exposure that do not produce adverse health effects. TAC
impacts are described by carcinogenic risk and by chronic (i.e., of long duration) and acute (i.e.,
severe but of short duration) adverse effects on human health.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.2-4
b. Current Ambient Air Quality
The SCAQMD operates a network of air quality monitoring stations throughout the SCAB. The
purpose of the monitoring stations is to measure ambient concentrations of pollutants and to
determine whether ambient air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
and California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS). The monitoring station located closest to the
project site is the Fontana-Arrow Highway station (located at 14360 Arrow Boulevard in Fontana),
approximately five miles southwest of the project site. This station was used for the 8-hour ozone,
hourly ozone, PM10, PM2.5, and NO2 measurements. Table 4.2-1 indicates the number of days that
each of the standards has been exceeded at Fontana-Arrow Highway station. As shown therein, the
federal and State eight-hour ozone standards, the state worst ozone hour standard, and the state
PM10 standard were all exceeded in 2017, 2018, and 2019. The federal PM2.5 standard was exceeded
in 2017 and 2018. No other State or federal standards were exceeded at the closest monitoring
station.
Table 4.2-1 Ambient Air Quality at the Nearest Monitoring Station
Pollutant 2017 2018 2019
8 Hour Ozone (ppm), 8-Hour Average 0.119 0.111 0.109
Number of Days of state exceedances (>0.070 ppm 51 72 71
Number of days of federal exceedances (>0.070 ppm) 49 69 67
Ozone (ppm), Worst Hour 0.137 0.141 0.124
Number of days of state exceedances (>0.09 ppm) 33 38 41
Nitrogen Dioxide (ppm), Worst Hour 0.069 0.063 0.076
Number of days of state exceedances (>0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Number of days of federal exceedances (>0.10 ppm) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter 10 microns, µg/m3, Worst 24 Hours1 75.3 64.1 88.8
Number of days of state exceedances (>50 µg/m3) 8 8 11
Number of days above federal standard (>150 µg/m3) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter <2.5 microns, µg/m3, Worst 24 Hours2 39.2 29.2 81.3
Number of days above federal standard (>35 µg/m3) 1 0 3
Source: CARB 2021c
c. Sensitive Receptors
Ambient air quality standards have been established to represent the levels of air quality considered
sufficient, with a margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. They are designed to
protect that segment of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress, such as children under
14, the elderly over 65, persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, and people with
cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. The majority of sensitive receptor locations are,
therefore, schools, hospitals, and residences.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed project site include a single-family residential
neighborhood adjacent to the project’s western boundary and south of the Citrus Avenue and
Duncan Canyon Road intersection. The Coyote Canyon neighborhood is east of the project site
Environmental Impact Analysis Air Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-5
across Interstate 15 (I-15). The project would also facilitate new sensitive receptors (e.g., additional
mid-rise multi-family dwelling units) within the project area.
4.2.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
The Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990 [42 United States Code
(USC) 7401] for the purposes of protecting and enhancing the quality of the nation’s air resources to
benefit public health, welfare, and productivity. In 1971, to achieve the purposes of Section 109 of
the CAA [42 USC 7409], the USEPA developed primary and secondary NAAQS. NAAQS have been
designated for the following criteria pollutants of primary concern: O3, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5,
and Pb.
The federal and State governments have established ambient air quality standards for the
protection of public health. The USEPA is the federal agency designated to administer air quality
regulation, while CARB is the state equivalent within the California Environmental Protection Agency
(CalEPA). County-level air districts provide local management of air quality. CARB has established air
quality standards and is responsible for the control of mobile emission sources, while the local air
districts are responsible for enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources. CARB has
established 15 air basins statewide, including the SCAB.
The USEPA has set primary NAAQS for ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. Primary
standards are those levels of air quality deemed necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to
protect public health. In addition, California has established health-based ambient air quality
standards (CAAQS) for these and other pollutants, some of which are more stringent than the
federal standards. Table 4.2-2 lists the current federal and State standards for regulated pollutants.
Table 4.2-2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time Federal Primary Standards California Standards
Ozone 1-Hour – 0.09 ppm
8-Hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
CO 8-Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm
1-Hour 35.0 ppm 20.0 ppm
NO2 Annual 0.053 ppm 0.030 ppm
1-Hour 0.100 ppm 0.18 ppm
SO2 Annual .030 ppm –
24-Hour 0.14 ppm 0.04 ppm
1-Hour 0.075 ppm 0.25 ppm
PM10 Annual – 20 µg/m3
24-Hour 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3
PM2.5 Annual 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
24-Hour 35 µg/m3 –
Lead 30-Day Average – 1.5 µg/m3
3-Month Average 0.15 µg/m3 –
ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: CARB 2016
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.2-6
The SCAQMD is the designated air quality control agency in the SCAB, which is a non-attainment
area for the federal standards for ozone and PM2.5 and the State standards for ozone, PM10, and
PM2.5. The SCAB is designated unclassifiable or in attainment for all other federal and State
standards.
b. State Regulations
California Clean Air Act
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) was enacted in 1988 (California Health & Safety Code (H&SC)
Section 39000 et seq.). Under the CCAA, the State has developed the California Ambient Air Quality
Standards (CAAQS), some of which are more stringent than the NAAQS. Table 4.2-2 lists the current
state standards for regulated pollutants. In addition to the federal criteria pollutants, the CAAQS
also specify standards for visibility-reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride.
Similar to the federal CAA, the CCAA classifies specific geographic areas as either “attainment” or
“nonattainment” areas for each pollutant, based on the comparison of measured data within the
CAAQS.
Toxic Air Contaminants
In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and to
reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health (Assembly Bill [AB] 1807: H&SC
Sections 39650–39674). The Legislature established a two-step process to address the potential
health effects from TACs. The first step is the risk assessment (or identification) phase. The second
step is the risk management (or control) phase of the process.
The California Air Toxics Program establishes the process for the identification and control of TACs
and includes provisions to make the public aware of significant toxic exposures and for reducing risk.
Additionally, the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588, 1987, Connelly
Bill) was enacted in 1987 and requires stationary sources to report the types and quantities of
certain substances routinely released into the air. The goals of the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Act are to
collect emission data, identify facilities having localized impacts, ascertain health risks, notify nearby
residents of significant risks, and reduce those significant risks to acceptable levels. The Children's
Environmental Health Protection Act, California Senate Bill 25 (Chapter 731, Escutia, Statutes of
1999), focuses on children's exposure to air pollutants. The act requires CARB to review its air
quality standards from a children's health perspective, evaluate the statewide air quality monitoring
network, and develop any additional air toxic control measures needed to protect children's health.
The SCAQMD regulates TAC emissions in the SCAB. SCAQMD’s Rule 1401, New Source Review of
Toxic Air Contaminants, establishes limits for maximum individual cancer risk, cancer burden, and
non-cancer acute and chronic hazard indices from new permit units, relocations, or modifications to
existing permit units emitting various TACs.
State Implementation Plan
The SIP is a collection of documents that set forth the State’s strategies for achieving the NAAQS. In
California, the SIP is a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs (such as
monitoring, modeling, and permitting), district rules, state regulations, and federal controls. The
CARB is the lead agency for all purposes related to the SIP under state law. Local air districts and
other agencies, such as the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the Bureau of Automotive
Repair, prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. CARB then
Environmental Impact Analysis Air Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-7
forwards SIP revisions to the USEPA for approval and publication in the Federal Register. All of the
items included in the California SIP are listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at
40 CFR 52.220. As the regional air quality management district, the SCAQMD is responsible for
preparing and implementing the portion of the SIP applicable to the portion of the SCAB within its
jurisdiction. The air pollution control district for each county adopts rules, regulations, and programs
to attain federal and state air quality standards and appropriates money (including permit fees) to
achieve these objectives.
c. Regional Regulations
Air Quality Management Plan
Under State law, the SCAQMD is required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for
pollutants for which its jurisdiction is in non-compliance. Each iteration of the SCAQMD’s Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP) is an update of the previous plan and has a 20-year horizon. The latest
AQMP, the 2016 AQMP, was adopted on March 3, 2017. It incorporates new scientific data and
notable regulatory actions that have occurred since adoption of the 2012 AQMP, including the
approval of the new federal eight-hour ozone standard of 0.070 ppm that was finalized in 2015. The
Final 2016 AQMP addresses several state and federal planning requirements and incorporates new
scientific information, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient
measurements, and meteorological air quality models. The Southern California Association of
Governments’ (SCAG) projections for socio-economic data (e.g., population, housing, employment
by industry) and transportation activities from the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) are integrated into the 2016 AQMP. The 2016
AQMP builds upon the approaches taken in the 2012 AQMP for the attainment of federal PM and
ozone standards and highlights the significant amount of reduction to be achieved. It emphasizes
the need for interagency planning to identify additional strategies to achieve reductions within the
timeframes allowed under the federal Clean Air Act, especially in the area of mobile sources. The
2016 AQMP also includes a discussion of emerging issues and opportunities, such as fugitive toxic
particulate emissions, zero-emission mobile source control strategies, and the interacting dynamics
among climate, energy, and air pollution. The 2016 AQMP also demonstrates strategies for
attainment of the new federal eight-hour ozone standard and vehicle miles travelled (VMT)
emissions offsets, pursuant to recent USEPA requirements (SCAQMD 2017).
Ambient air quality standards have been established to represent the levels of air quality considered
sufficient, with a margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. They are designed to
protect that segment of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress, such as children
under 14; the elderly over 65; people engaged in strenuous work or exercise; and people with
cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Therefore, the majority of sensitive receptor
locations are schools, hospitals, and residences. Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity include
residences located north, east and west of the project site.
d. Local Regulations
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana General Plan Building and Healthier Fontana chapter includes the following goal and
policy pertaining to air quality that are applicable to the proposed project:
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.2-8
Goal 1: The average lifespan in Fontana is consistently within the top ten of all southern California
cities.
Policy: Support local and regional initiatives to improve air quality in order to reduce asthma
while actively discouraging development that may exacerbate asthma rates.
4.2.3 Impact Analysis
This air quality analysis conforms to the methodologies recommended in the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air
Quality Handbook (1993) and supplemental guidance provided by the SCAQMD, including
recommended thresholds for emissions associated with both construction and operation of the
project (SCAQMD 2019).
a. Significance Thresholds
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact
related to air quality if it would:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations
Impacts to air quality were analyzed in an Initial Study (see Appendix A-2). The Initial Study
determined that impacts related to odors would be less than significant since the project would
include residential and commercial developments, which are not major sources of odors and would
not create objectionable odors to surrounding sensitive land uses. Therefore, this impact is not
further evaluated in this section.
SCAQMD Thresholds
The SCAQMD recommends quantitative regional significance thresholds for temporary construction
activities and long-term project operation in the SCAB, shown in Table 4.2-3.
Table 4.2-3 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds
Pollutant Construction (Pounds per Day) Operation (Pounds per Day)
NOx 100 55
VOC 75 55
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
CO 550 550
NOx = Nitrogen Oxides; VOC = Volatile Organic Compounds; PM10 = Particulate Matter with a diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5
= Particulate Matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns; SOx = Sulfur Oxide; CO = Carbon Monoxide
Source: SCAQMD 2019
Localized Significance Thresholds
In addition to the above regional thresholds, the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significance
Thresholds (LSTs) in response to the Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Enhancement
Environmental Impact Analysis Air Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-9
Initiative (1-4), which was prepared to update the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). LSTs were
devised in response to concern regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local
communities and have been developed for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. LSTs represent the maximum
emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an air quality exceedance of the most
stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard at the nearest sensitive receptor,
taking into consideration ambient concentrations in each SRA, distance to the sensitive receptor,
and project size. LSTs have been developed for emissions within construction areas up to five acres
in size. However, LSTs only apply to on-site emissions sources and are not applicable to off-site
mobile sources, such as cars on a roadway (SCAQMD 2008, 2009). For residential and retail projects
the majority of operational emissions are associated with project-generated vehicle trips not
stationary sources. Therefore, for these land use types, LSTs are typically applied only to
construction emissions.
In order to minimize efforts, the SCAQMD developed mass rate lookup tables as a simple screening
procedure. If a project’s on-site emissions do not exceed the screening levels for any pollutant, it
can be concluded that the project would not cause or contribute to an adverse localized air quality
impact. Screening levels are provided for various distances between the project boundary and the
nearest sensitive receptor and various project site acreages. Screening levels increase, as the project
distance between the boundary and the nearest receiver increases. This is because air pollutant
dispersion increases with distance. Screening levels increase, as the acreage increases. This is
because the distance between construction sources and sensitive receptors increases with project
acreage.
The LST mass rate lookup tables account for ambient pollutant concentrations based on the
project’s source receptor area (SRA). LSTs are provided for receptors at a distance of 82 feet
(25 meters), 164 feet (50 meters), 328 feet (100 meters), 656 feet (200 meters), 1,640 feet
(500 meters) from the project disturbance boundary to the sensitive receptors. The Specific Plan
Amendment is in SRA-34 (Central San Bernardino Valley). The plan area totals approximately
102 acres, but construction would disturb the site by Planning Area in phases. All construction phase
areas exceed five acres but the five-acre LSTs are conservatively used in this analysis. The border of
certain phases of construction activity would occur immediately adjacent to nearest on-site
sensitive receptors or between 328 to 656 feet to off-site sensitive (single-family residential
buildings). According to the SCAQMD’s publication, Final LST Methodology, projects with boundaries
located closer than 82 feet to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at
82 feet. Therefore, the analysis uses the LST values for 82, 328, and 656 feet as shown in
Table 4.2-4.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.2-10
Table 4.2-4 SCAQMD LSTs for Construction 1
Pollutant
Receptor 82 feet
(25 meters) Away
(lbs/day)
Receptor 328 feet
(100 meters) Away
(lbs/day)
Receptor 656 feet
(200 meters) Away
(lbs/day)
Gradual conversion of NOX to NO2 270 378 486
CO 1,746 4,142 8532
PM10 14 65 106
PM2.5 8 17 35
1 Allowable Emissions for a 5-acre site in SRA 34
SRA = source receptor area; lbs/day = pounds per day; NOx/NO2 = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 micrometers in diameter or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter 2.5 micrometers in diameter or less
Source: SCAQMD 2009
b. Methodology
The project’s construction and operational emissions were estimated using the California Emissions
Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod uses project-specific information,
including the project’s land uses, square footage, and location, to estimate a project’s construction
and operational emissions.
The proposed project involves the construction of four phases of development. Table 4.2-5 below
summarizes the amount of development by use for each phase of development.
Table 4.2-5 Project Summary for the Specific Plan Amendment
Land Use Size Acres
Phase 1 – Planning Areas 1 and 2
Planning Area 1
Mid-Rise Multi-Family Residences 538 dwelling units 20.7
Planning Area 2
Commercial Retail (Strip Mall) 154,000 square feet 9.7 Medical-Dental Office 26,000 square feet
Roadways
Arterial Roadways (Duncan Canyon Road and Citrus Avenue) 10.5 acres 17.8 Backbone Road (Lytle Creek Road) 7.3 acres
Phase 2 – Planning Area 3
Mid-Rise Multi-Family Residences 396 dwelling units 13.2
Phase 3 – Planning Areas 4, 5a, and 5b
Planning Area 4
Mid-Rise Multi-Family Residences 600 dwelling units
25.0
Commercial Retail (Strip Mall) 26,000 square feet
Supermarket 31,200 square feet
Pharmacy with Drive-Through 20,800 square feet
High Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant 26,000 square feet
Environmental Impact Analysis Air Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-11
Land Use Size Acres
Planning Area 5a
Commercial Retail (Strip Mall) 30,000 square feet
2.4 High Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant 20,000 square feet
Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through 10,000 square feet
Planning Area 5b
Commercial Retail (Strip Mall) 16,250 square feet
4.8 High Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant 10,833 square feet
Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through 5,417 square feet
Phase 4 – Planning Areas 6a and 6b
Planning Area 6a
Mid-Rise Multi-Family Residences 137 dwelling units 5.7 Medical-Dental Office 74,000 square feet
Planning Area 6b
Commercial Retail (Strip Mall) 26,000 square feet 2.5
Totals
Mid-Rise Multi-Family Residences 1,671 dwelling units
101.5
Commercial Retail (Strip Mall) 252,250 square feet
Medical-Dental Office 100,000 square feet
Supermarket 31,200 square feet
Pharmacy with Drive-Through 20,800 square feet
High Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant 56,833 square feet
Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through 15,417 square feet
Arterial Roadways (Duncan Canyon Road and Citrus Avenue) 10.5 acres
Backbone Road (Lytle Creek Road) 7.3 acres
Construction
Construction emissions modeled include emissions generated by construction equipment used
on-site and emissions generated by vehicle trips associated with construction, such as worker and
vendor trips.
Each phase of construction was modeled subsequently with no breaks in between phase.
Approximate dates were not provided for Planning Areas 6a and 6b, thus the default construction
schedules were utilized. The default CalEEMod construction schedules for Phase 2 and Phase 3 were
also used since those schedules fit into the estimated schedule. Table 4.2-6 shows the estimated
construction schedule.
Table 4.2-6 Construction Schedule
Construction Phase and Planning Area Schedule
Phase 1– Area 1 and 2 2022 to late 2023
Phase 2– Area 3 Later 2023 to early 2025
Phase 3 – Area 4, 5a, and 5b Early 2025 to 2028
Phase 4 – Planning Areas 6a and 6b 2028 to 2029
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.2-12
For Phase 1 (Planning Areas 1 and 2), the CalEEMod default scheduling assumptions would extend
past the planned phase duration (2022 to late 2023). To compensate for the accelerated schedule,
the default construction equipment was scaled (doubled) and the duration of site preparation,
grading, building, and paving activities were halved. Architectural coatings would be applied as
individual buildings and subphases were constructed; to reflect this, architectural coatings activities
were assumed to overlap with building construction activities and the duration of architectural
coating activities was assumed to be approximately half the length of building construction.
For Phase 2 (Planning Area 3), Phase 3 (Planning Areas 4, 5a, and 5b), and Phase 4 (Planning Areas
6a and 6b), the CalEEMod default scheduling assumptions are consistent with the planned phase
durations. Construction activities included site preparation, grading, building, and paving activities.
Like Phase 1, architectural coating activities were assumed to overlap with building construction
activities and the duration of architectural coating activities were modeled as half the phase length
of building construction. Equipment lists were generated by CalEEMod using default values.
In addition, this analysis assumes that the project would comply with all applicable regulatory
standards. In particular, the project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 for dust control measures
and Rule 1113 for architectural coating VOC limits.
Operational
For Planning Areas 1 and 2, the first year of operation was assumed to be 2023. Full buildout of the
Specific Plan Amendment was assumed to be in year 2030. Operational emissions modeled include
mobile source emissions (i.e., vehicle emissions), energy emissions, and area source emissions. Area
source emissions would be generated by landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products,
and reapplication of architectural coating. Emissions attributed to energy use include natural gas
consumption for space and water heating. Mobile source emissions are generated by motor vehicle
trips to and from the Plan Area associated with operation of on-site development. Trip generation
rates provided in the Traffic Study prepared by Urban Crossroads (2021) were used in the modeling.
c. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
Impact AQ-1 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH OR OBSTRUCT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2016 AQMP. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The 2007 EIR analysis found that the housing and population growth from the project would be
consistent with regional and local growth forecasts, and therefore impacts related to conflicts or
consistency with the AQMP would be less than significant. The existing Specific Plan facilitated the
construction of 842 housing units and 574,500 square feet of commercial space. By comparison, the
proposed project increases the housing of the project to 1,671 units and reduces the commercial
space to 476,500 square feet.
A project may be inconsistent with the AQMP if it would generate population, housing, or
employment growth exceeding the forecasts used in the development of the AQMP. The 2016
AQMP, the most recent AQMP adopted by the SCAQMD, incorporates local city general plans and
Environmental Impact Analysis Air Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-13
SCAG’s 2016-2040 RTP/SCS socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population housing, and
employment growth.2
SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino,
and Imperial Counties, and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, economy,
community development, and environment. With regard to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared
the RTP/SCS, a long-range transportation plan that uses growth forecasts to project trends for
regional population, housing and employment growth out to 2040 to identify regional
transportation strategies to address mobility needs. These growth forecasts form the basis for the
land use and transportation control portions of the 2016 AQMP. The updated growth forecasts in
SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS estimate that the population City of Fontana would be 280,900 in 2040, which
is an 80,700 person increase from 2012. The growth forecasts in SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS also
anticipate an increase of approximately 23,800 jobs in Fontana between 2012 and 2040 with the
2040 employment totaling 70,800 employees (SCAG 2016).
The proposed project would allow for development of 476,500 square feet of commercial use and
1,671 dwelling units. The population increase from the project were compared to the growth
forecasts in the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS for the City of Fontana.
The populations were estimated using available rates. The household size rate was assumed to be
4.07 persons per dwelling unit based on the City of Fontana’s General Plan (City of Fontana 2017),
which is sourced from the California Department of Finance’s 2016 persons per household rate. For
the commercial uses, the rate of 1,009 square feet per employee from the SCAG Employment
Density Study Summary Report was used (SCAG 2001). These rates are also consistent with the
service population rates used in the Traffic Study prepared by Urban Crossroads (2021). Based on
these rates, there would be 6,801 residents and 473 employees. This would equate to a total of
7,274 persons.
The population increase would be within the anticipated growth increase of 80,700 persons. The
anticipated employment under the Specific Plan Amendment would also be within the forecast
growth of 23,800 employees. Therefore, the project would not generate air pollution emissions that
would impede or conflict with the 2016 AQMP. There would be no new or substantially more severe
impacts than what was analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
2 On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council formally adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (titled Connect SoCal). However, the 2016 AQMP was adopted prior to this date and relies on the demographic and growth forecasts of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS; therefore, these forecasts are utilized in the analysis of the project’s consistency with the AQMP.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.2-14
Threshold 2: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard?
Impact AQ-2 CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN AN INCREASE OF A CRITERIA
POLLUTANT FOR WHICH THE PROJECT REGION IS IN NON-ATTAINMENT UNDER AN APPLICABLE FEDERAL OR STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD. HOWEVER, MOBILE EMISSIONS FROM OPERATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT AT FULL BUILDOUT WOULD POTENTIALLY EXCEED SCAQMD REGIONAL THRESHOLDS EVEN
WITH MITIGATION, WHICH WAS AN IMPACT ALREADY IDENTIFIED IN THE 2007 EIR FROM OPERATION OF THE
EXISTING SPECIFIC PLAN. THEREFORE, AS PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED IN THE 2007 EIR, OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
FROM MOBILE SOURCES WOULD REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.
The impact analysis from the 2007 EIR found that the project would result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of a criteria pollutants for which the project region is in nonattainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality state. The construction activities associated
with the proposed project and vehicle emissions generated from operation of the project in the
2007 EIR would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the 2007 EIR found that impacts would
be significant and unavoidable even with mitigation.
Construction Emissions
The Specific Plan Amendment would allow for development of 1,671 mid-rise multi-family dwelling
units and 476,500 square feet of commercial use in phases by Planning Area. Construction would
involve site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities
that have the potential to generate air pollutant emissions. Exhaust emissions would be associated
with use of heavy-duty construction equipment and truck trips hauling debris, soils, and
construction materials; fugitive dust (PM10) emissions would primarily result from demolition and
site preparation (e.g., grading) activities. During the finishing phase, paving operations, and the
application of architectural coatings (e.g., paints) and other building materials would release VOCs.
Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity,
the specific type of operation and, for dust, the prevailing weather conditions.
As discussed above, construction emission estimates reflect the applicant-provided construction
schedule. Details such as heavy equipment use, the number of construction workers, delivery trips,
etc. are estimated using default assumptions in the CalEEMod based on site acreage; these
assumptions were developed based on surveys of construction sites by SCAQMD. Table 4.2-7
summarizes the estimated maximum daily emissions of pollutants associated with construction of
the proposed project. As shown below, VOC, NOX, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would not
exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds or LSTs.
Environmental Impact Analysis Air Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-15
Table 4.2-7 Maximum Daily Project Construction Emissions in (lbs/day)
Year VOC NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 SOX
Phase 1 - Planning Areas 1 & 2
2022 7 78 65 <1 19 11
2023 35 42 71 <1 13 5
Phase 2 – Planning Area 3
2023 3 35 29 <1 9 5
2024 19 32 30 <1 5 3
2025 19 16 29 <1 5 2
Phase 3 – Planning Areas 4 &5
2025 3 28 33 <1 9 5
2026 3 17 32 <1 7 2
2027 26 18 36 <1 8 3
2028 23 9 15 <1 1 0
Phase 4 – Planning Area 6a & 6b
2028 3 25 20 <1 9 5
2029 18 15 23 <1 3 1
SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
lbs/day = pounds per day; VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns; SOx =
sulfur oxide
Source: Rincon 2021a (Appendix B)
Because air pollutant emissions generated by project construction would not exceed SCAQMD’s
regional significance thresholds or LSTs, project construction would not result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment.
In addition, future development allowed for by the proposed project would need to comply with all
standard SCAQMD control measures to reduce fugitive PM10 dust. As a result, new information of
substantial importance has not been discovered in relation to construction emissions from what has
been previously analyzed. The proposed project would not result in a new significant impact or
substantially increase the severity of the impact compared to the previously approved project.
Operational Emissions
To determine whether a project would result in emissions that would violate an air quality standard
or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, a project’s emissions are
evaluated based on the quantitative emission thresholds established by the SCAQMD.
Table 4.2-8 summarizes the operational emissions by emission source (area and energy) from Phase
1, which includes Planning Areas 1 and 3, in the year 2023. Table 4.2-9 summarizes the operational
emissions from the buildout of the project in the year 2030. This analysis conservatively does not
take credit for the net reduction in mobile source emission that would be generated as compared to
the baseline conditions of buildout under the existing Specific Plan.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.2-16
Table 4.2-8 Planning Areas 1 and 2 Operational Emissions- Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
Emission Source VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area 17 1 44 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 2 1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile 13 14 121 <1 27 7
Project Emissions 31 17 167 <1 27 8
SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
bs/day = pounds per day; VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate
matter with a diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns; SOx = sulfur oxide
Notes: Some numbers may not add up precisely due to rounding considerations.
Source: Rincon 2021a (Appendix B, see Table 2.2 “Overall Operation-Unmitigated” emissions). Highest of Summer and Winter
emissions results are shown for all emissions. The mitigated emissions account for project sustainability features and/or compliance with specific regulatory standard.
Table 4.2-9 2030 Project Operational Emissions – Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
Emission Source VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area 51 2 138 <1 <1 <1
Energy 1 12 7 <1 1 1
Mobile 52 44 401 1 129 35
Project Emissions 104 58 546 1 130 36
SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? Yes Yes No No No No
lbs/day = pounds per day; VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns; SOx = sulfur oxide
Notes: Some numbers may not add up precisely due to rounding considerations.
Source: Rincon 2021a (Appendix B, see: Table 2.2 “Overall Operation-Unmitigated” emissions). Highest of Summer and Winter
emissions results are shown for all emissions. The unmitigated emissions account for project sustainability features and/or compliance with specific regulatory standards.
As shown in Table 4.2-8, operation of Planning Areas 1 and 2 would not exceed the SCAQMD’s
threshold for any criteria pollutant. As shown in Table 4.2-9, however, the VOC and NOx emissions
from the full buildout of the Specific Plan Amendment would be 104 and 58 pounds per day,
respectively. The VOC and NOx emissions would exceed the SCAQMD regional threshold of 55
pounds per day for VOC and NOx. The exceedance is primarily due to operational emissions from
mobile sources, similar to the operational emissions disclosed in the 2007 EIR. In the 2007 EIR, the
total operational emissions for VOC, NOx, CO, and PM10 would exceed the SCAQMD significance
thresholds with mobile emissions contributing most of the total emissions. Therefore, operational
air quality impacts from the project would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure AQ-2 would be required.
Environmental Impact Analysis Air Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-17
Mitigation Measures
The 2007 EIR included mitigation measures requiring the development of transportation control
measures to reduce emissions from vehicle activity. Development proposed under the Specific Plan
Amendment would be required to implement measures under Mitigation Measure AQ-2A, which is
a reinstatement of and similar to Mitigation Measure 4.5.4 from the 2007 EIR for consistency, to
address impacts related to emissions from mobile sources.
AQ-2 Transportation Control Measures
The proposed project shall implement transportation control measures (TCMs) to reduce vehicular
emissions to and from the site, which may include the following:
Ridesharing Programs
Area-wide Carpooling and Vanpooling – The developer/building managers shall provide
information brochures on carpooling and vanpooling.
Modified Work Schedules – The developer/building managers shall encourage commercial
and office tenants to allow modified work schedules for employees.
Park and Ride Facilities – The developer/building managers shall accommodate the parking
of vehicles to promote carpooling and vanpooling. Ares for future bus stops shall be
reserved, where feasible.
Parking Management
Off-street Parking Controls – Measures to discourage single-occupant vehicles shall be
implemented through parking controls.
Parking Management Programs – Measures to discourage single-occupant vehicles (SOV)
shall be implemented.
Non-Motorized Strategies
Bicycle Lanes and Storage Facilities – Bicycle paths and bike racks shall be provided on-site.
Pedestrian Improvements – Sidewalks and pedestrian walkways shall be provided
throughout the site.
Telecommunications
Adequate system connections in all homes – Telecommunication systems shall be provided
in residential villages.
Wi-Fi “hot-spots” within the Community – High-speed wireless local area network shall be
provided at select locations on-site.
The developer shall incorporate the TCMs above to facilitate the option to select a non- SOV
transportation option.
Significance After Mitigation
While incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would reduce impacts associated with mobile
operational air quality emissions, the exact amount of VOC and NOx emissions that would be
reduced cannot be quantified at the plan level since the measures would be implemented by
individual development. Therefore, similar to the impact identified in the 2007 EIR, buildout of the
Specific Plan Amendment would potentially exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds even with
mitigation.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.2-18
Infeasibility of Additional Health Risk Analysis
Pursuant to the Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (“Friant Ranch”) (2018) California Supreme Court
decision, an EIR should relate expected adverse air quality impacts to likely health consequences or
explain in meaningful detail why it is not feasible at the time of drafting to provide such an analysis.
As explained below, it is not scientifically feasible at the time of drafting of this report to
substantively connect this individual project’s criteria pollutant impacts to likely health
consequences.
The SCAQMD provided an amicus brief in connection with the Friant Ranch case that is included in
Appendix B. With regard to the analysis of air quality-related health impacts, the SCAQMD, the air
quality authority for the SCAB, explained that “EIRs must generally quantify a project’s pollutant
emissions, but in some cases, it is not feasible to correlate these emissions to specific, quantifiable
health impacts (e.g., premature mortality; hospital admissions).” In such cases, a general description
of the adverse health impacts resulting from the pollutants at issue may be sufficient.
The SCAQMD stated that from a scientific standpoint, it takes a large amount of additional precursor
emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient O3 levels over an entire region. For example, the
SCAQMD’s 2012 AQMP showed that reducing NOX by 432 tons per day and reducing VOC by 187
tons per day would reduce O3 levels at the SCAQMD’s monitor site with the highest levels by only 9
parts per billion (SCAQMD 2013). SCAQMD staff does not currently know of a way to accurately
quantify O3-related health impacts caused by NOX or VOC precursor emissions from relatively small
projects.
SCAQMD acknowledged that it may be feasible to analyze air quality related health impacts for
projects on a regional scale with very high emissions of NOX and VOCs, where impacts are regional.
The example SCAQMD provided was for proposed Rule 1315, which authorized various newly
permitted sources to use offsets from the “internal bank” of emission reductions. The CEQA analysis
accounted for essentially all of the increases in emissions due to new or modified sources in the
District between 2010 and 2030, or approximately 6,620 pounds per day of NOX and 89,947 pounds
per day of VOC, to expected health outcomes from O3 (e.g., 20 premature deaths per year and
89,947 school absences in the year 2030 due to O3).
The SCAQMD stated its staff does not currently know of a way to accurately quantify O3-related
health impacts from relatively small projects. Thus, a general description of the adverse health
impacts resulting from the pollutants at issue, described in this report, is all that can be provided at
this time. Please refer to Section 4.2.1, Setting, for a description of general adverse health impacts
resulting from O3.
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) also submitted an amicus brief,
which is included in Appendix B, and further addresses the scientific limitations regarding
correlating an individual project’s air quality emissions to specific health impacts. Human health
impacts associated with criteria pollutants are analyzed and taken into consideration when the US
EPA sets the NAAQS for each criteria pollutant (42 U.S.C. Section 7409(b)(1)). The health impact of a
particular criteria pollutant is analyzed on a regional, not a facility level, based on how close the area
is to complying with (attaining) the NAAQS. As discussed by the SJVAPCD, it is not feasible to
conduct a criteria air pollutant analysis detailing health impacts, as currently available computer
modeling tools are not equipped for this task.
In proposing a health risk type analysis for criteria air pollutants, it is important to understand how
the relevant criteria pollutant (O3) is formed, dispersed and regulated. Ground level O3 (smog) is not
directly emitted into the air but is instead formed when precursor pollutants, such as NOX and VOC
Environmental Impact Analysis Air Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-19
are emitted into the atmosphere and undergo complex chemical reactions in the process of
sunlight. Once formed, O3 can be transported long distances by wind. Because of the complexity of
O3 formation, a specific tonnage amount of NOX or VOCs emitted in a particular area does not
equate to a particular concentration of O3 in that area. Even rural areas that have relatively low
tonnages of emissions of NOX or VOC can have high levels of O3 concentrations simply due to wind
transport. Conversely, areas that have substantially more NOX and VOC emissions could experience
lower concentrations of O3 simply because sea breezes disperse the emissions (SJVAPCD 2014).
The disconnect between the tonnage of precursor pollutants and the concentration of O3 formed is
important, because it is not necessarily the tonnage of precursor pollutants that causes human
health effects; rather, it is the concentration of resulting O3 that causes these effects. The NAAQS,
which are statutorily required to be set by USEPA at levels that are requisite to protect the public
health, are established as concentrations of O3 and not as tonnages of their precursor pollutants.
Because the NAAQS are focused on achieving a particular concentration region-wide, the SJVAPCD’s
tools and plans for attaining the NAAQS are regional in nature.
The computer models used to simulate and predict an attainment date for O3 are based on regional
inventories of precursor pollutants and meteorology in the air basin. At a very basic level, the
models simulate future O3 levels based on predicted changes in precursor emissions basin-wide. The
computer models are not designed to determine whether the emissions generated by an individual
development project will affect the date that the air basin attains the NAAQS. Instead, the models
help inform regional planning strategies based on the extent all of the emission-generating sources
in the air basin must be controlled in order to reach attainment.
In the case of the project, operational emissions exceed the SCAQMD operational significance
thresholds for VOC and NOX. However, this does not mean that one can feasibly determine the
concentration of O3 that would be created at or near a project site on a particular day or month of
the year, or the specific human health impacts that may occur. This is especially true for the project,
where most of the criteria pollutant emissions derive not from a single “point source,” but from
mobile sources (cars and trucks) driving to and from the site, or from consumer product and
architectural coating use that can occur in many individual areas of the project site.
In addition, it would be infeasible to model the impact on NAAQS attainment that these emissions
from the project may have. As discussed above, the currently available tools are equipped to model
the impact of all emission sources in the air basin on attainment. According to the SCAQMD’s 2016
AQMP, basin-wide emissions in 2012 of VOC was 162.4 tons per day and 293.1 tons per day of NOX,
(SCAQMD 2017). Running the photochemical grid model used for predicting O3 attainment with the
emissions solely from a project (which equates to less than one percent for VOC and NOx) would not
yield valid information given the relatively small scale involved.
HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF O3
A summary discussion of air pollution and potential health effects was provided in Section 4.2.1,
Setting. In addition, the national and State criteria pollutants and the applicable ambient air quality
standards were also provided in Section 4.2.1, Setting. As stated above, air pollution is a major
public health concern, and the adverse health effects associated with air pollution are diverse. O3 is
a pungent, colorless, toxic gas with direct health effects on humans, including respiratory and eye
irritation and possible changes in lung functions. Groups most sensitive to O3 include children, the
elderly, persons with respiratory disorders, and people who exercise strenuously outdoors.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.2-20
The adverse effects reported with short-term O3 exposure are greater with increased activity,
because activity increases the breathing rate and the volume of air reaching the lungs, resulting in
an increased amount of O3 reaching the lungs. Children may be a particularly vulnerable population
to air pollution effects, because they spend more time outdoors, are generally more active, and
have a higher ventilation rate than adults. A number of adverse health effects associated with
ambient O3 levels have been identified from laboratory and epidemiological studies. These include
increased respiratory symptoms, damage to cells of the respiratory tract, decreases in lung function,
increased susceptibility to respiratory infection, and increased risk of hospitalization.
The Children’s Health Study, conducted by researchers at the University of Southern California,
followed a cohort of children that live in 12 communities in southern California with differing levels
of air pollution for several years. A publication from this study found that school absences in fourth
graders for respiratory illnesses were associated with ambient O3 levels. An increase of 20 parts per
billion of O3 was associated with an 83 percent increase in illness-related absence rates (Gilliland et
al. 2004). The number of hospital admissions and emergency room visits for all respiratory causes
(infections, respiratory failure, chronic bronchitis, etc.), including asthma, show a consistent
increase as ambient O3 levels increase in a community. These excess hospital admissions and
emergency room visits are observed when hourly O3 concentrations are as low as 0.08 to 0.10 ppm.
Numerous recent studies have found positive associations between increases in O3 levels and excess
risk of mortality. These associations persist even when other variables including season and levels of
PM are accounted for. This indicates that O3 mortality effects are independent of other pollutants
(Bell et al. 2004). Several population-based studies suggest that asthmatics are more adversely
affected by ambient O3 levels, as evidenced by increased hospitalizations and emergency room
visits. Laboratory studies have attempted to compare the degree of lung function change seen in
age and gender-matched healthy individuals versus asthmatics and those with chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease. While the degree of change evidenced did not differ significantly, that finding
may not accurately reflect the true impact of exposure on these respiration-compromised
individuals. Since the respiration-compromised group may have lower lung function to begin with,
the same degree of change may represent a substantially greater adverse effect overall.
A publication from the Children’s Health Study focused on children and outdoor exercise. In
communities with high O3 concentrations, the relative risk of developing asthma in children playing
three or more sports was found to be over three times higher than in children playing no sports
(McConnell et al. 2002). These findings indicate that new cases of asthma in children are associated
with heavy exercise in communities with high levels of O3. The susceptibility to O3 observed under
ambient conditions could be due to the combination of pollutants that coexist in the atmosphere or
O3 may actually sensitize these subgroups to the effects of other pollutants. A study of birth
outcomes in southern California found an increased risk for birth defects in the aortic and
pulmonary arteries associated with O3 exposure in the second month of pregnancy (Ritz et al. 2000).
In summary, acute adverse effects associated with O3 exposures have been well documented,
although the specific causal mechanism is still somewhat unclear. Additional research efforts are
required to evaluate the long-term effects of air pollution and to determine the role of O3 in
influencing chronic effects.
The evidence linking these effects to air pollutants is derived from population based observational
and field studies (epidemiological) as well as controlled laboratory studies involving human subjects
and animals. There have been an increasing number of studies focusing on the mechanisms (that is,
on learning how specific organs, cell types, and biochemicals are involved in the human body’s
response to air pollution) and specific pollutants responsible for individual effects. Yet the
Environmental Impact Analysis Air Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-21
underlying biological pathways for these effects are not always clearly understood. Although
individuals inhale pollutants as a mixture under ambient conditions, the regulatory framework and
the control measures developed are mostly pollutant specific. This is appropriate, in that different
pollutants usually differ in their sources, their times and places of occurrence, the kinds of health
effects they may cause, and their overall levels of health risk. Different pollutants, from the same or
different sources, may sometimes act together to harm health more than they would acting
separately. Nevertheless, as a practical matter, health scientists, as well as regulatory officials,
usually must deal with one pollutant at a time in determining health effects and in adopting air
quality standards. To meet the air quality standards, comprehensive plans are developed such as
the SCAQMD’s AQMP.
Conclusions
Consistent with the California Supreme Court’s Friant Ranch decision, the above information
provides additional details regarding the potential health effects from the project’s significant and
unavoidable criteria pollutant emissions. It also explains why it is not scientifically feasible at the
time of drafting of this report to precisely connect this individual project’s criteria pollutant impacts
to likely health consequences.
In summary, project design features and mitigation are not available that would feasibly reduce
impacts from operational VOC and NOX emissions to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, impacts
from operational emissions would be significant and unavoidable.
Threshold 3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Impact AQ-3 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT INCREASE CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS SUCH THAT IT
WOULD CREATE CARBON MONOXIDE HOTSPOTS. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROJECT WOULD
NOT RESULT IN EMISSIONS OF TACS SUFFICIENT TO EXCEED APPLICABLE HEALTH RISK CRITERIA. IMPACTS
WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The 2007 EIR found that the project would not result in increased carbon monoxide concentration
such that it would create carbon monoxide hotspots. Therefore, the 2007 EIR found that impacts
would be less than significant. For construction-related TAC emissions, the 2007 EIR found that
impacts would be less than significant with Mitigation Measures 4.5.1, 4.5.2, and 4.5.3.
Localized Carbon Monoxide Hotspot Impact
A CO hotspot is a localized concentration of CO that is above a CO ambient air quality standard.
Localized CO hotspots can occur at intersections with heavy peak hour traffic. Specifically, hotspots
can be created at intersections where traffic levels are sufficiently high such that the local CO
concentration exceeds the federal one-hour standard of 35.0 ppm or the federal and state
eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm (CARB 2016).
A detailed CO analysis was conducted during the preparation of SCAQMD’s 2003 AQMP (SCAQMD
2003). The locations selected for microscale modeling in the 2003 AQMP included high average daily
traffic (ADT) intersections in the SCAB, those which would be expected to experience the highest CO
concentrations. The highest CO concentration observed was at the intersection of Wilshire
Boulevard and Veteran Avenue on the west side of Los Angeles near the I-405 Freeway. The
concentration of CO at this intersection was 4.6 ppm, which is well below the state and federal
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.2-22
standards. The Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection has an ADT of approximately
100,000 vehicles per day.
The total existing average daily traffic (ADT) for the nearest major intersection to the project area,
Duncan Canyon Road and I-15 northbound ramp, was estimated at 10,200 vehicles (Urban
Crossroads 2021). In the year 2030, the traffic volume would increase to 17,550 average daily
vehicles. In the opening year of Phase 1 (2023), the ADT at this intersection would increase to
22,150 vehicles with the project generating approximately 4,600 trips (21 percent of the total new
trips). Both the existing and opening year ADT are below the 100,000-vehicle count on the Wilshire
Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection that was already well below the CO standards. Project-
generated local mobile-source CO emissions would not result in, or substantially contribute to,
concentrations that exceed the one-hour or eight-hour CO standard. Therefore, impacts would be
less than significant.
Localized Significance Thresholds
Table 4.2-10 summarizes maximum daily on-site emissions associated with construction of the
project. The on-site construction emissions of NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed
SCAQMD LST screening levels during any phase of construction. Therefore, the proposed project
would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial criteria pollutant concentrations and impacts
would be less than significant.
Table 4.2-10 Maximum On site Construction Emissions (lbs/day)1
Year NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1 - Planning Areas 1 & 2
2022 65 30 8 8
2023 31 35 1 1
Applicable LST; 5 acres at 200 meters2 486 8,532 106 35
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Phase 2 - Planning Area 3
2023 34 27 9 5
2024 30 17 1 2
2025 14 17 0.4 0.5
Applicable LST; 5 acres at 25 meters3 270 1,746 14 8
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Phase 3 - Planning Areas 4 &5
2025 23 15 2 3
2026 13 16 1 1
2027 14 18 1 1
2028 8 12 -1 <1
Applicable LST; 5 acres at 25 meters4 270 1,746 14 8
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Environmental Impact Analysis Air Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-23
Year NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Phase 4 - Planning Area 6a & 6b
2028 24 16 7 4
2029 14 18 <1 1
Applicable LST; 5 acres at 100 meters5 378 4,142 65 17
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
1 SRA = source receptor area; lbs/day = pounds per day; NOx/NO2 = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate
matter 10 micrometers in diameter or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter 2.5 micrometers in diameter or less.
2 The applicable LST is the thresholds for a 5-acre site at a distance of 656 feet (200 meters) for SRA 34. The nearest sensitive
receptors would be single-family residences located approximately 640 feet (195 feet) southeast of the Planning Area 1’s eastern boundary at the intersection of Duncan Canyon Road and Citrus Avenue.
3 The applicable LST is the thresholds for a 5-acre site at a distance of 82 feet (25 meters). The nearest sensitive receptors
would be the multi-family residences in Planning Area 1 located approximately 80 feet (24 meters) north of the northern
boundary of Planning Area 3.
4 The applicable LST is the thresholds for a 5-acre site at a distance of 82 feet (25 meters). The nearest sensitive receptors would be the multi-family residences in Planning Area 1.
5 The applicable LST is the thresholds for a 5-acre site at a distance of 328 feet (100 meters) for SRA 34. The nearest sensitive
receptors would be single-family residences located approximately 450 feet (137 feet) northwest of the Planning Area 6A’s
western boundary across I-15.
Source: Rincon 2021a (Appendix B: see Table 2.1, Overall Construction-mitigated emissions).
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)
TACs are defined by California law as air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to
human health. The following subsections discuss the project’s potential to result in impacts related
to TAC emissions during construction and operation.
Construction
Construction-related activities would result in temporary project-generated emissions of diesel
particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site
preparation, grading, building construction, and other construction activities. DPM was identified as
a TAC by CARB in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of DPM (discussed in the
following paragraphs) outweighs the potential non-cancer health impacts (CARB 2021a) and is
therefore the focus of this analysis. Buildout of the proposed project would involve construction of
residential, retail, hotel, and civic land uses. While such land uses are not typically associated with
emissions of TACs, temporary TAC emissions may be associated with construction equipment and
long-term stationary sources of TACs, such as diesel-powered emergency-use power generators
may be associated with certain land uses. The type and quantity of TAC emissions emitted would
depend upon the nature of the land use and the specific methods and operations that involve toxic
air emissions. TAC emissions generated from construction would not be anticipated to result in an
increased risk to nearby sensitive receptors that would result in an exceedance of applicable
significance thresholds because the project would comply with applicable SCAQMD standards.
Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the TAC emissions impacts compared to the
previously approved project, nor expose nearby sensitive receptors to new or significantly more
severe TAC emissions.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.2-24
Operation
CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005) provides
recommendations regarding the siting of new sensitive land uses near potential sources of air toxic
emissions (e.g., freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome plating facilities,
dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities). SCAQMD adopted similar recommendations in its
Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning (2005).
Together, the CARB and SCAQMD guidelines recommend siting distances both for the development
of sensitive land uses in proximity to TAC sources and for the addition of new TAC sources in
proximity to existing sensitive land uses. Residential land uses are not considered land uses that
generate substantial TAC emissions based on review of the air toxic sources listed in SCAQMD’s and
CARB’s guidelines. It is expected that quantities of hazardous TACs generated on-site (e.g., cleaning
solvents, paints, landscape pesticides, etc.) for the types of proposed land uses would be below
thresholds warranting further study under the California Accidental Release Program.
Buildout of the proposed project may also involve the installation of new TAC sources. Pursuant to
SCAQMD rules and regulations, including SCAQMD Rule 1401 (New Source Review of Toxic Air
Contaminants), major stationary sources having the potential to emit TACs would be required to
obtain permits from the SCAQMD. Permits may be issued provided the source is constructed and
operated in accordance with applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations. Given that compliance with
applicable standards and regulations would be required, TAC emissions from new stationary sources
would not be anticipated to result in an increased risk to nearby sensitive receptors that would
exceed applicable significance thresholds.
Development allowed by the project would increase emissions from mobile sources. However, the
project is expected to have a lower VMT per service population compared to the baseline and
cumulative scenarios. According to Table 9-4 in the Traffic Study, which analyzes the cumulative
effect on VMT associated with the project, the baseline VMT per service population without the
Specific Plan (i.e., under the existing Specific Plan) would be 12.81, the cumulative VMT per service
population without the Specific Plan (i.e., under the existing Specific Plan) would be 13.17. With the
Specific Plan, the baseline VMT per service population with the project would be 12.51 (a net
decrease of 0.30), and the cumulative VMT per service population with the project would be 12.95
(a net decrease of 0.22). Buildout and operation of the project would locate new commercial and
retail development near existing residences, which would shorten the miles traveled for similar
services and goods. Therefore, the increase in traffic generated by the project would not result in
substantial mobile emissions as compared to the cumulative without Specific Plan scenario (Urban
Crossroads 2021). The TAC emissions from project mobile sources would not be more severe than
the existing conditions.
Because land uses proposed under the project are not associated with emissions of TACs and
forecast growth would not result in the generation of mobile source TACs along area roadways in
excess of applicable health risk screening criteria, operational impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative context for air quality is regional. The SCAB is designated a nonattainment area for
the federal and State 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards, the State PM10 standards, the federal 24-
Environmental Impact Analysis Air Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.2-25
hour PM2.5 standard, and the federal and State annual PM2.5 standard. SCAB is in attainment of all
other federal and State standards. Despite the current nonattainment status and local air quality
standard exceedances, air quality in the basin has generally improved since the inception of air
pollutant monitoring in 1976. This improvement is mainly due to lower-polluting on-road motor
vehicles, more stringent regulation of industrial sources, and the implementation of emission
reduction strategies by the SCAQMD. This trend toward cleaner air has occurred in spite of
continued population growth, as discussed in the 2012 AQMP for the SCAB (SCAQMD 2013).3
Despite this growth, air quality has improved significantly over the years, primarily due to the
impacts of the region’s air quality control program…PM10 levels have declined almost 50 percent
since 1990, and PM2.5 levels have also declined 50 percent since measurements began in 1999…the
only air monitoring station that is currently exceeding or projected to exceed the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 2011 forward is the Mira Loma station in Western Riverside County. Similar
improvements are observed with O3, although the rate of O3 decline has slowed in recent years.
The project would contribute PM and the ozone precursors, VOC and NOX, to the area during
construction and operation. As described under Impact AQ-2 above, regional emissions during
construction would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds, would not contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation, and would not be potentially significant. Therefore, the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not have a significant and unavoidable cumulatively
considerable contribution of VOC, NOX, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5 from construction emissions.
However, VOC and NOx emissions from operation of the full buildout of the project would exceed
the SCAQMD thresholds due to mobile emissions. VOC emission would total 104 pounds per day
with 50 percent of the emissions coming from mobile sources (52 pounds per day would be from
mobile sources). NOx emissions would total 58 pounds per day with mobile emissions accounting for
approximately 76 percent (44 pounds per day would be from mobile sources). Compliance with
Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would help reduce the project’s contribution to a potential cumulative
impact by requiring implementation of transportation control measures; however, as discussed
under Impact AQ-2, the exact reduction of emissions cannot be quantified at the plan level.
Therefore, even with mitigation, this impact would remain be significant and unavoidable in the
cumulative scenario. The proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable cumulatively
considerable contribution of VOC and NOX, from operational emissions.
As identified in Impact AQ-3, the project would not have a significant impact from CO hotspots or
construction or operational emissions of TACs. In addition, as described in the Initial Study, the land
uses proposed as part of the project would not be associated with odor-generation. Therefore,
while cumulative impacts associated with exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations or odors may be potentially significant, the proposed project’s contribution to such
impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. In addition, the project site is not located near
existing or planned projects that would generate TAC or odor emissions affecting a substantial
number of people. SCAQMD Rule 402 Nuisance, which prohibits the discharge of air contaminants
that would cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the public, would minimize the
potential for nuisance odors. Therefore, no cumulative TAC or odor emissions impacts would occur.
3 These trends are show in greater detail on SCAQMD’s website at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/historical-air-quality-data.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.2-26
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Impact Analysis Biological Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.3-1
4.3 Biological Resources
This section analyzes potential impacts related to biological resources. This analysis is supported by
the Habitat Assessment and Tree Survey and Arborist Report, both were prepared for the project by
ELMT Consulting, Inc. (2021) and are included as Appendix C-1 and Appendix C-2, respectively.
4.3.1 Setting
a. Existing Biological Resource Setting
The project site is in the County of San Bernardino. The County is divided into three different regions
which includes the valley, desert, and mountain regions. Each region supports a variety of biological
resources. The valley region, which includes the project site is characterized by its valleys and
foothills. This region includes 31 special-status plant species and 42 special-status animal species.
The foothill areas of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains and associated washes are
considered habitat linkage and wildlife corridors in the valley region. Currently there are efforts to
conserve local habitats through the Fontana Municipal Code, and the county is planning additional
plans. Furthermore, there are 12 protected and wilderness areas within the valley region of the
county (County of San Bernardino 2019).
The project site occurs in an area that is undergoing a conversion from natural habitats into
residential, commercial, and institutional land uses in the northern portion of the City of Fontana,
east of Interstate 15 (I-15) and north of State Route 210 (SR 210). The site is predominately flat, with
a gentle slope from approximately 1,835 above mean sea level (amsl) at the northern edge of the
project to approximately 1,675 amsl at the southern edge along Lytle Creek Road and I-15. The site
drains from the northeast to the southwest. The project site is located on an alluvial plain formed by
Lytle Creek, which is the primary collector for a significant watershed that includes large portions of
the San Gabriel Mountains to the north (ELMT Consulting, Inc. 2021).
Immediate land uses surrounding the site include a Southern California Edison utility easement and
undeveloped, vacant land to the south and paved roads and highways to the west, north, and east.
Beyond these land uses, the site is further surrounded by undeveloped, vacant land to the north;
undeveloped, vacant land and residential development to the east and south, and undeveloped,
vacant land residential development, and a sports park to the west (ELMT Consulting, Inc. 2021).
The project area includes five eucalyptus windrows containing approximately 185 trees, which are
located on the triangular parcel north of Duncan Canyon Road. In addition, there are distribution
lines located along Duncan Canyon Road and Citrus Avenue.
Prior to conducting the field investigation, ELMT Consulting, Inc. reviewed current and historical
aerial photographs (1985-2020) of the project site as available from Google Earth Pro Imaging
(Version 7.3.4.8248). Per the review of aerial photographs, the project site appears to consist
primarily of vacant/undeveloped land and disturbed areas that have been subject to various
anthropogenic disturbances. The site has remained virtually unchanged since 2009, when various
structures associated with historic agricultural activities were removed from the northwest corner
of the southern portion.
Vegetation
Plant communities provide foraging habitat, nesting/denning site, and shelter from adverse weather
or predation. Due to existing site conditions, no native plant communities of special concern were
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.3-2
observed on or adjacent to the project site. The project site consists of vacant, undeveloped land
that have been subject to a variety of disturbances associated with surrounding development and
routine weed abatement activities. These disturbances have eliminated and/or greatly disturbed the
natural plant communities that historically occurred within the immediate vicinity of the project
site. The projects site supports two vegetation communities: non-native grassland and eucalyptus
rows. In addition, the site also supports two land cover types that would be classified as disturbed
and developed, further described below. Early successional/ruderal and non-native weedy plant
species compose a majority of the project site as a result of routine weed abatement activities.
Disturbed land refers to unpaved or dirt areas that are routinely exposed to continuous
anthropogenic disturbances and typically do not comprise a plant community. Surface soils within
these areas are generally devoid of vegetation or support primarily non-native and ruderal/weedy
plant species and have been heavily disturbed/compacted from anthropogenic disturbances. Some
disturbed areas on-site also support small, isolated populations California buckwheat (Eriogonum
fasciculatum), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), castor (Ricinus communis), and mulefat
(Baccharis salicifolia). Disturbed areas encompass the project site boundaries that occur adjacent to
roads, the southwest corner of the northern portion of the site, a dirt access road, and a large area
in the southern portion of the site that formerly supported fill dirt stockpiles associated with
surrounding development. During the field investigation it was revealed that the site supported
truck/trailer parking and swathes of debris dumping. Developed land refers to paved or otherwise
impermeable land. Developed land on the project site includes paved sidewalks along adjacent
roads, and access roads in the western portion of the site. These areas are generally devoid of
vegetation.
The non-native grassland community occurs throughout the project site. This community is
dominated by non-native grasses, including slender wild oat (Avena barbata), ripgut brome (Bromus
diandrus), and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). Other plant species observed in this community
include telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya),
doveweed (Croton setigerus), rod wire lettuce (Stephanomeria virgata), Mediterranean mustard
(Hirschfeldia incana), red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarum), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus),
jimsonweed (Datura wrightii), common sunflower (Helianthus annuus), flax-leaved horseweed
(Erigeron bonariensis), Pomona milkvetch (Astragalus pomonensis), and lambs quarters
(Chenopodium album).
A total of 154 trees were identified on the project site during the tree inventory within the
windrows on the northeastern boundary of the project site, all composed of a single distinct species
river gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis). No trees onsite were native to California. Several eucalyptus
(Eucalyptus sp.) rows are present, remnant from historic agricultural activities, on the northeast
portion of the project site (ELMT Consulting, Inc. 2021).
A heritage tree is defined as any tree which:
Is of historical value because of its association with a place, building, natural feature or event of
local, regional or national historical significance as identified by city council resolution; or
Is representative of a significant period of the city's growth or development (windrow tree,
European Olive tree); or
Is a protected or endangered species as specified by federal or State statute; or
Is deemed historically or culturally significant by the city manager or his or her designee because
of size, condition, location or aesthetic qualities.
Environmental Impact Analysis Biological Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.3-3
Windrow means a series of trees (minimum of four), usually a variety of eucalyptus, planted in a
closely spaced line no more than ten feet apart to provide a windbreak for the protection of
property and/or agricultural crops. Significant tree means any tree that is one of the following
species:
Southern California black walnut (Juglans californica)
Coast live oak (Quercus agrifollia)
Deodora cedar (Cedrus deodora)
California (western) sycamore (Platanus racemose)
London plane (Platanus acerifolia)
Wildlife
Wildlife detections were based on observations that occurred during the field survey or that are
expected to occur within the project site.
Fish and Amphibians
No fish, amphibians or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs)
that would provide suitable habitat for fish or amphibians were observed on or within the vicinity of
the project site. Therefore, no fish or amphibians are expected to occur and are presumed absent
from the project site.
Reptiles
The project site provides marginal foraging and cover habitat for reptilian species adapted to a high
degree of human disturbance. The only reptilian species observed during the field investigation was
Great Basin fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis longipes). Common reptilian species adapted to a
high degree of anthropogenic disturbance that may be expected to occur on-site include alligator
lizard (Elgaria multicarinata), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), and gopher snake
(Pituophis catenifer annectens). Due to the high level of anthropogenic disturbances onsite and
surrounding development, no special-status reptilian species are expected to occur within project
site.
Birds
The project site provides foraging habitat for bird species adapted to a high degree of human
disturbance. Bird species detected during the field investigation included house finch (Haemorhous
mexicanus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), western
meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and peregrine falcon (Falco
peregrinus).
Mammals
The project site provides marginal habitat to mammalian species adapted to a high degree of
anthropogenic disturbance. Mammalian species detected during the field investigation were pocket
gopher (Thomomys sp.), and California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi). Common
mammalian species that could be expected to occur within the project site include desert cottontail
(Sylvilagus audubonii), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and coyote (Canis latrans). No bat species
are expected to occur due to a lack of suitable roosting habitat (i.e., suitable trees, crevices,
abandoned structures) within and surrounding the project site.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.3-4
Special-Status Biological Resources
Special-status species are those plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for
listing as Threatened or Endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under
the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA); those considered “Species of Concern” by the USFWS;
those listed or candidates for listing as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA);
animals designated as “Fully Protected” by the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC); animals listed
as “Species of Special Concern” (SSC) by the CDFW; CDFW Special Plants, specifically those with
California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) of 1B, 2, 3, and 4 in the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS’s)
Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2021); and birds identified as
sensitive or watch list species by San Bernardino County.
The project site is depicted on the Devore quadrangle of the United States Geological Survey’s
(USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map series within and Sections 13 and 24 of Township 1 North,
Range 6 West. Queries of the following databases were conducted for the Devore quadrangle of the
USGS 7.5-minute topographic map series to obtain comprehensive information for federally and
state-listed species, sensitive communities, and federally designated Critical Habitat known to or
considered to have potential to occur on or near the project site:
USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2021a);
USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2021b);
Calflora Database
CDFW’s QuickView Tool in the Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS)
(CDFW 2021);
California Natural Diversity Database Rarefind 5 (CNDDB) (CDFW 2021)
CNPS Online Inventory of Rare, Threatened and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2021).
The literature search identified 20 special-status plant species, 43 special-status wildlife species, and
three special-status plant communities as having potential to occur in the vicinity of the project site.
Special-status plant and wildlife species were evaluated for their potential to occur within the
project boundaries based on habitat requirements, availability and quality of suitable habitat, and
known distributions.
Special-Status Wildlife Species
Table 4.3-1 includes an evaluation of the species potential to occur on the project site based on
habitat suitability and project conditions.
Environmental Impact Analysis Biological Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.3-5
Table 4.3-1 Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur on the Project Site
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
FESA/CESA/
Other Habitat Requirements
Potential for Occurrence and
Basis for Determination
Birds
Accipiter cooperii
Cooper’s hawk
–/–/WL Generally found in forested areas up to 3,000
feet in elevation, especially near edges and
rivers. Prefers hardwood stands and mature
forests but can be found in urban and
suburban areas where there are tall trees for
nesting. Common in open areas during
nesting season.
High Potential. There is suitable
foraging habitat throughout the
site. The eucalyptus trees provide
suitable nesting opportunities
onsite. This species is adapted to
urban environments and occurs
commonly.
Aquila chrysaetos
Golden eagle
–/–/FP,
WL
Occupies nearly all terrestrial habitats of the
western states except densely forested areas.
Favors secluded cliffs with overhanging
ledges and large trees for nesting and cover.
Hilly or mountainous country where takeoff
and soaring are supported by updrafts is
generally preferred to flat habitats. Deeply
cut canyons rising to open mountain slopes
and crags are ideal habitat
Low Potential. The project site
provides minimal foraging
opportunities. No suitable nesting
opportunities onsite.
Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl
–/–/SSC Primarily a grassland species, but it persists and even thrives in some landscapes highly altered by human activity. Occurs in open, annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation. Dependent upon fossorial mammals for burrows, most notable ground squirrels.
Low Potential. The project site provides line of-sight opportunities favored by burrowing owls. Suitable burrows (>4 inches in diameter) are present in the northwest corner of the southern portion of the site. However, the site supports and is surrounded by tall trees and electrical towers that provide perching opportunities for predators of burrowing owl.
Circus cyaneus
northern harrier
–/–/SSC Frequents meadows, grasslands, open
rangelands, desert sinks, fresh and saltwater
emergent wetlands; seldom found in wooded
areas. Mostly found in flat, or hummocky,
open areas of tall, dense grasses moist or dry
shrubs, and edges for nesting, cover, and
feeding.
Low Potential. The project site
provides minimal foraging
opportunities. No suitable nesting
opportunities onsite.
Eremophila
alpestris actia
California horned
lark
–/–/WL Generally found in shortgrass prairies,
grasslands, disturbed fields, or similar habitat
types along the coast or in deserts. Trees are
shrubs are usually scarce or absent. Generally
rare in montane, coniferous, or chaparral
habitats. Forms large flocks outside of the
breeding season.
High Potential. There is suitable
foraging and nesting habitat
present within the project site.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.3-6
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
FESA/CESA/
Other Habitat Requirements
Potential for Occurrence and
Basis for Determination
Falco mexicanus
prairie falcon –/–/WL Commonly occur in arid and semiarid
shrubland and grassland community types. Also occasionally found in open parklands within coniferous forests. During the
breeding season, they are found commonly in
foothills and mountains which provide cliffs
and escarpments suitable for nest sites.
Low Potential. The site provides
minimal foraging habitat but does not provide suitable nesting opportunities.
FP = Fully Protected Species, MSHCP = Covered Species, SSC = State Species of Special Concern, ST = State Threatened, WL = State
Watchlist Species
Source: ELMT Consulting, Inc. 2021 (Appendix C-1)
Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of onsite habitats,
it was determined that the project site has a high potential to support the following bird species:
Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii)
California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia)
The project site has a low potential to provide suitable habitat for the following bird species:
Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)
Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus)
Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus)
No special-status reptiles, mammals, or other animals have the potential to occur on the project site
and are presumed absent. In addition, the project site does not provide suitable habitat for other
special-status wildlife species known to occur in the area, since the project site has been heavily
disturbed from onsite disturbances and surrounding development.
Burrowing Owl
The burrowing owl is currently listed as a California Species of Special Concern. It is a grassland
species that is distributed throughout western North America where it occupies open areas with
short vegetation and bare ground within shrub, desert, and grassland environments. Burrowing owls
use a wide variety of arid and semi-arid environments with well-drained, level to gently-sloping
areas characterized by sparse vegetation and bare ground. Burrowing owls are dependent upon the
presence of burrowing mammals (such as ground squirrels) whose burrows are used for roosting
and nesting. The presence or absence of colonial mammal burrows is often a major factor that limits
the presence or absence of burrowing owls. Where mammal burrows are scarce, burrowing owls
have been found occupying man-made cavities, such as buried and non-functioning drainpipes,
stand-pipes, and dry culverts. Burrowing mammals may burrow beneath rocks and debris or large,
heavy objects such as abandoned cars, concrete blocks, or concrete pads. They also require open
vegetation allowing line-of-sight observation of the surrounding habitat to forage as well as watch
for predators (ELMT Consulting, Inc. 2021).
The project site is vegetated with a variety of low-growing plant species that allow for line-of-sight
observation favored by burrowing owls. In addition, several suitable burrows (>4 inches in diameter)
generally capable of providing roosting and nesting opportunities were observed among dirt spoils
piles in the northwest corner of the southern portion of the site. However, the site supports and is
surrounded by tall trees and electrical poles and towers, which decrease the likelihood that
Environmental Impact Analysis Biological Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.3-7
burrowing owls would occur on the project site as these features provide perching opportunities for
larger raptor species (i.e., red-tailed hawk [Buteo jamaicensis]) that prey on burrowing owls (ELMT
Consulting, Inc. 2021).
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
The San Bernardino kangaroo rat, federally listed as endangered, is one of several kangaroo rat
species in its range, such as the Dulzura, the Pacific kangaroo rat (Dipodomys agilis) and the
Stephens kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi). The habitat of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat is
typically confined to pioneer and intermediate Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) habitats,
with sandy soils deposited by fluvial (water) rather than Aeolian (wind) processes. The San
Bernardino kangaroo rat make burrows dug in loose soil, usually near or beneath shrubs. This
kangaroo rat is one of three subspecies of the Merriam’s kangaroo rat. The Merriam’s kangaroo rat
is a widespread species that can be found from the inland valleys to the deserts.
San Bernardino kangaroo rat is known to occur within Lytle Creek. The project site consists of
vacant, heavily disturbed land with compacted soils that have been disturbed from previous land
uses. Field sign for kangaroo rat, including San Bernardino kangaroo rat, is distinctive and readily
noted in the field. No sign (e.g., San Bernardino kangaroo rat characteristic burrows, dusting baths,
and/or tail drags) were observed on the project site during the field investigation. Additionally, the
project site no longer is subject to the hydrologic influence of Lytle Creek due to the channelization
of Lytle Creek and San Sevaine Creek for flood control purposes.
As noted above, the project site and surrounding areas have not been exposed to fluvial processes
associated with Lytle Creek since the mid-1950s when I-15 was constructed, and the upper reaches
of Lytle Creek were channelized. The project site is not subject to dynamic geomorphological and
hydrological processes needed to scour and reset the onsite habitats back to pioneer or
intermediate RAFSS habitats. Further, the project site no longer receives sand or sandy loam soils
from scouring events needed by San Bernardino kangaroo rat for burrowing. Instead, the site
supports compact and rocky soils. Based on these conditions, it was determined that the project site
does not provide the requisite habitat elements needed by San Bernardino kangaroo rat to be
present.
Nesting Birds
No active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed during the field survey, which
was conducted during breeding season. Although subjected to routine disturbance, ornamental
vegetation found onsite has the potential to provide suitable nesting habitat for year-round and
seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds that could occur in the area that area
adapted to urban environments (Charadrius vociferans). No raptors are expected to nest onsite due
to lack of suitable nesting opportunities.
Special-Status Plant Communities
According to the CNDDB, three special-status plant communities have been reported in the Devore
USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle: Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, southern riparian forest, and
Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland. Based on the results of the field investigation, no
special-status plant communities were observed onsite.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.3-8
Special-Status Plant Species
The project site consists of vacant, undeveloped land that has been subject to a variety of
anthropogenic disturbances from historic agricultural activities, surrounding development and
routine weed abatement activities. These disturbances have eliminated the natural plant
communities that once occurred onsite which has removed the ability of the habitat on the project
site to provide suitable habitat for special-status plant species known to occur in the general
vicinity.
According to the CNDDB and CNPS data searches conducted by ELMT Consulting, Inc., 20 special-
status plant species have been recorded in the Devore quadrangle. No special-status plant species
were observed onsite during the habitat assessment. Based on habitat requirements for specific
special-status plant species and the availability and quality of habitats needed by each species, it
was determined that the project site does not provide suitable habitat for any of the special-status
plant species known to occur in the area and they are presumed to be absent. No focused surveys
were recommended (ELMT Consulting, Inc. 2021).
Critical Habitat
Under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), “Critical Habitat” is designated at the time of
listing of a species or within one year of listing. Critical Habitat refers to specific areas within the
geographical range of a species that include the physical or biological features essential to the
survival and eventual recovery of that species. Maintenance of these physical and biological
features requires special management considerations or protection, regardless of whether
individuals or the species are present or not. In 2002 the USFWS designated Critical Habitat for San
Bernardino kangaroo rat, and the project site was included within the designated area.
Subsequently, in 2008 the USFWS reduced the boundaries of their previously designated Critical
Habitat which removed the project site from designation. The lack of the needed habitat features
within the project site, as well as in north Fontana, prompted USFWS to remove the Critical Habitat
designation in this area (ELMT Consulting, Inc. 2021).
Finally, at the beginning of 2011 the original (2002) designated Critical Habitat was reinstated by a
federal district court ruling which overturned the reduced (2008) designated Critical Habitat.
Currently the project site is located within designated Critical Habitat Unit 2, Lytle Creek/Cajon
Wash as shown in Figure 4.3-1 below. However, since the project does not have a federal nexus, a
Section 7 consultation with the USFWS would not be required for loss or adverse modification of
Critical Habitat. If a federal nexus does occur, a Section 7 Consultation would have to be initiated
with USFWS.
Jurisdictional Features
Riparian/Riverine Habitat
The project site does not support any discernible drainage courses, inundated areas, wetland
vegetation, or hydric soils that would be considered jurisdictional. The project site is isolated from
regional wildlife corridors and linkages and there are no riparian corridors, creeks, or useful patches
of steppingstone habitat (natural areas) within or connecting the project site to any identified
wildlife corridors or linkages (ELMT Consulting, Inc. 2021).
Environmental Impact Analysis Biological Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.3-9
Figure 4.3-1 Critical Habitat
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.3-10
Vernal Pools
Vernal pools are seasonally inundated, ponded areas that only form in regions where specialized soil
and climatic conditions exist. The city of Fontana falls under the Mediterranean climate zone. During
fall and winter rains typical of Mediterranean climates, water collects in shallow depressions where
downward percolation of water is prevented by the presence of a hard pan or clay pan layer
(duripan) below the soil surface. Later in the spring when rains decrease and the weather warms,
the water evaporates, and the pools generally disappear by May. The shallow depressions remain
relatively dry until late fall and early winter with the advent of greater precipitation and cooler
temperatures. Vernal pools provide unusual “flood and drought” habitat conditions to which certain
plant and wildlife species have specifically adapted, as well as invertebrate species such as fairy
shrimp. No special-status plant and wildlife species associated with vernal pools were observed, and
routine disturbances along with soil type on-site also preclude vernal pools from existing onsite
(ELMT Consulting, Inc. 2021).
Wildlife Corridors and Linkages
Habitat linkages provide links between larger undeveloped habitat areas that are separated by
development. Habitat linkages differ somewhat from wildlife corridors in that they may be
identified by the presence of certain resources rather than by areas of linear movement. Linkage
zones may extend for many miles between primary habitat areas, and their adequacy for supporting
genetic flow often depends upon the combined presence of specific resources, sufficient width (to
buffer against adjacent disturbances), and sufficient shelter or cover. Certain specific resources
(such as rock outcroppings, vernal pools, or oak trees) may be needed at particular intervals to
ensure that slower-moving species are able to traverse the linkage zone. For highly mobile or flying
organisms, habitat linkages may consist of a series of discontinuous patches of suitable resources,
spaced sufficiently close together to permit movement along a route in a short period of time. The
“landscape linkage” concept includes habitat linkages intended to serve this purpose.
Wildlife corridors are similar to linkages but provide specific opportunities for animals to disperse or
migrate between habitat areas. A corridor can be defined as a linear landscape feature of sufficient
width to allow animal movement between two comparatively undisturbed habitat fragments.
Adequate cover is essential for a corridor to function as a wildlife movement area. It is possible for a
habitat corridor to be adequate for one species yet inadequate for others. Wildlife corridors are
significant features for dispersal, seasonal migration, breeding, and foraging. Additionally, open
space can provide a buffer against both human disturbance and natural fluctuations in resources.
According to the San Bernardino County General Plan, the project site has not been identified as
occurring within a wildlife corridor or linkage. As designated by the San Bernardino County General
Plan Open Space Element, major open space areas documented in the vicinity of the project site
include Lytle Creek, located approximately 1.5 miles to the northeast, and separated from the
project site by existing development.
The proposed project would be confined to existing disturbed areas and is surrounded by
development and disturbed areas which have removed natural plant communities from the
surrounding area. The project site is isolated from regional wildlife corridors and linkages and there
are no riparian corridors, creeks, or useful patches of steppingstone habitat (natural areas) within
the project site (ELMT Consulting, Inc. 2021).
Environmental Impact Analysis Biological Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.3-11
4.3.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act
Federally listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats are protected under
provisions of FESA. Section 9 of the FESA prohibits “take” of threatened or endangered species.
“Take” under the FESA is defined as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,
or collect, or to attempt to engage in any of the specifically enumerated conduct.” The presence of
any federally threatened or endangered species that are in a project area generally imposes severe
constraints on development, particularly if development would result in “take” of the species or its
habitat. Under the regulations of the FESA, USFWS may authorize “take” when it is incidental to, but
not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful act.
If USFWS determines that Critical Habitat would be adversely modified or destroyed from a
proposed action, the USFWS will develop reasonable and prudent alternatives in cooperation with
the federal institution to ensure the purpose of the proposed action can be achieved without loss of
Critical Habitat. If the action is not likely to adversely modify or destroy Critical Habitat, USFWS will
include a statement in its biological opinion concerning any incidental take that may be authorized
and specify terms and conditions to ensure the agency is in compliance with the opinion.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) has authority to regulate activities that could discharge dredge or fill material into wetlands
or other “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). The definition of WOTUS has been the subject of
recent litigation, regulatory guidance, and agency rulemaking. In current practice, jurisdictional
waters are defined using the USACE’s and United States Environmental Protection Agency’s joint
2015 regulatory definition (80 FR 37054). In summary, WOTUS include:
Navigable waters
Interstate waters, including interstate wetlands
The territorial seas
All impoundments of waters of the United States
All tributaries of waters of the United States
All waters adjacent to waters of the United States
Specific waters (including western vernal pools) if there is significant nexus to a navigable or
interstate water, or territorial sea
The following waters are considered WOTUS if they possess a significant chemical, hydrologic, or
ecological nexus to navigable waters, interstate waters, or the territorial seas:
All waters within or partially within 4,000 feet of the high tide line or ordinary high water mark
of a navigable or interstate water, territorial sea, impoundment, or tributary
All waters within or partially within the 100-year floodplain of a navigable or interstate water or
territorial sea
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.3-12
The USACE also implements the federal policy embodied in Executive Order 11990, which is
intended to result in no net loss of wetland value or acres. In achieving the goals of the CWA, the
USACE seeks to avoid adverse impacts and offset unavoidable adverse impacts on existing aquatic
resources. Any fill or adverse modification of wetlands that are hydrologically connected to
jurisdictional waters would require a permit from the USACE prior to the start of work. Typically,
when a project involves impacts to WOTUS, the goal of no net loss of wetland acres or values is met
through compensatory mitigation involving the creation or enhancement of similar habitats.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The USFWS implements the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 United States Code Section 703-
711) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 United States Code Section 668). The USFWS
and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) share responsibility for implementing the FESA
(16 United States Code Section 153 et seq.). The USFWS generally implements the FESA for
terrestrial and freshwater species, while the NMFS implements the FESA for marine and
anadromous species. Projects that would result in “take” of any federally listed threatened or
endangered species are required to obtain authorization from the USFWS or NMFS through either
Section 7 (interagency consultation with a federal nexus) or Section 10 (Habitat Conservation Plan)
of FESA, depending on the involvement by the federal government in permitting and/or funding of
the project. “Take” under federal definition means to harass, harm (which includes habitat
modification), pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in
any such conduct. The permitting process is used to determine if a project would jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species and what measures would be required to avoid jeopardizing
the species. Proposed or candidate species do not have the full protection of FESA; the USFWS and
NMFS advise project applicants the species could be elevated to listed status at any time.
The federal MBTA of 1918 was originally enacted between the United States and Great Britain
(acting on behalf of Canada) for the protection of migratory birds between the two countries. The
MBTA has since been expanded to include Mexico, Japan, and Russia. Under MBTA provisions, it is
unlawful “by any means or manner to pursue, hunt, take, capture (or) kill” any migratory birds as
defined by the MBTA except as permitted by regulations issued by the USFWS. The term “take” is
defined by the USFWS regulation to mean to “pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or
collect” any migratory bird or any part, nest, or egg of any migratory bird covered by the
conventions, or to attempt those activities.
b. State Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides for the protection of the environment
within the State of California by establishing State policy to prevent significant, avoidable damage to
the environment through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures for projects. It applies to
actions directly undertaken, financed, or permitted by State lead agencies. Under CEQA,
“endangered” species of plants or animals are defined as those whose survival and reproduction in
the wild are in immediate jeopardy, while “rare” species are defined as those who are in such low
numbers that they could become endangered if their environment worsens.
Environmental Impact Analysis Biological Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.3-13
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) works in coordination with nine Regional Water
Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water quality
throughout the state. Each RWQCB makes decisions related to water quality for its region, and may
approve, with or without conditions, or deny projects that could affect waters of the state. Their
authority to regulate activities that could result in a discharge of dredged or fill material comes from
the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne).
Porter-Cologne broadly defines “waters of the state” as “any surface water or groundwater,
including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” Since Porter-Cologne applies to any
water, whereas the CWA applies only to certain waters, California’s jurisdictional reach overlaps and
may exceed the boundaries of WOTUS. For example, Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ
states that “shallow” waters of the state include headwaters, wetlands, and riparian areas. In
practice, the RWQCBs may claim jurisdiction over riparian areas. Where riparian habitat is not
present, such as may be the case at headwaters and urbanized areas, jurisdiction is taken to the top
of bank.
The SWRCB adopted a State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill
Material to Waters of the State, for inclusion in the forthcoming Water Quality Control Plan for
Inland Surface Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries and Ocean Waters of California. The
Procedures consist of four major elements: a wetland definition; a framework for determining if a
feature that meets the wetland definition is a water of the state; wetland delineation procedures;
and procedures for the submittal, review and approval of applications for Water Quality
Certifications and Waste Discharge Requirements for dredge or fill activities (SWRCB 2019).
Pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, projects regulated by the USACE must obtain a Water Quality
Certification from the RWQCB. This certification ensures the proposed project would uphold State
water quality standards. Because California’s jurisdiction to regulate its water resources is much
broader than that of the federal government, proposed impacts on waters of the state require
Water Quality Certification even if the area occurs outside of USACE jurisdiction.
California Endangered Species Act
CFGC, Chapter 1.5, Sections 2050- 2116 (CESA) prohibits the take of any plant or animal listed or
proposed for listing as rare (plants only), threatened, or endangered. In accordance with CESA,
CDFW has jurisdiction over state-listed species (CFGC Section 2070). The CDFW regulates activities
that may result in take of individuals (i.e., hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt,
pursue, catch, capture, or kill). Habitat degradation or modification is not expressly included in the
definition of take under the CFGC. The CDFW has interpreted take, however, to include the killing of
a member of a species as the proximate result of habitat modification.
California Fish and Game Code
The CDFW derives its authority from the CFGC. CESA (CFGC Section 2050 et. seq.) prohibits take of
State-listed threatened or endangered species. Take of fully protected species is prohibited under
CFGC Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515. Section 86 of CFGC defines “take” as hunt, pursue,
catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, capture, or kill. This definition does not include
indirect harm by way of habitat modification.
CFGC Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3511 restrict the take, possession, and destruction of birds, nests,
and eggs. Section 3503.5 of the CFGC protects all birds-of-prey and their eggs and nests against
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.3-14
take, possession, or destruction. Fully protected birds may not be taken or possessed except under
specific permit (Section 3511).
SSC is a category CDFW uses for those species considered to be indicators of regional habitat
changes or considered to be potential future protected species. SSC do not have any special legal
status except that which may be afforded by the CFGC, as noted above. CDFW intends the SSC
category as a management tool to include these species into special consideration when decisions
are made concerning the development of natural lands.
The CDFW also has authority to administer the Native Plant Protection Act (CFGC Section 1900 et
seq.). The Native Plant Protection Act requires the CDFW to establish criteria for determining if a
species, subspecies, or variety of native plant is endangered or rare. Under Section 1913(c) of the
Native Plant Protection Act, the owner of land where a rare or endangered native plant grows is
required to notify the department at least 10 days in advance of changing the land use to allow for
salvage of plant(s).
Perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams and associated riparian vegetation, when present,
also fall under the jurisdiction of the CDFW. Section 1600 et seq. of the CFGC (Lake and Streambed
Alteration Agreements) gives CDFW regulatory authority over work in the bed, bank, and channel
(which could extend to the 100-year flood plain), consisting of, but not limited to, the diversion or
obstruction of the natural flow or changes in the channel, bed, or bank of any river, stream or lake.
Regional Water Quality Control Board
The SWRCB have jurisdiction over WOTUS, with federal authority under the CWA Section 401 and
state authority under Porter-Cologne to protect water quality, which prohibits discharges to such
waters. As indicated above, “waters of the state” are defined more broadly than WOTUS as any
surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, in the boundaries of the state.
Native Plant Protection Act
Sections 1900–1913 of the Fish and Game Code were developed to preserve, protect, and enhance
Rare and Endangered plants in the state of California. The act requires all state agencies to use their
authority to carry out programs to conserve Endangered and Rare native plants. Provisions of the
Native Plant Protection Act prohibit the taking of listed plants from the wild and require notification
of the CDFW at least ten days in advance of any change in land use which would adversely impact
listed plants. This allows the CDFW to salvage listed plant species that would otherwise be
destroyed.
c. Local Regulations
City of Fontana General Plan
The City’s General Plan Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails chapter seeks to preserve
existing natural resources in Fontana (City of Fontana 2018). Goals and policies that relate to
biological resources and would apply to the project include the following:
Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails
Goal 1: Fontana continues to preserve sensitive natural open space in the foothills of the San
Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills.
Environmental Impact Analysis Biological Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.3-15
Policy: Consider permanent protection for sensitive foothill lands through potential
partnerships with conservation organizations or acquisition and deed restrictions.
Goal 2: Large city parks and open spaces include plantings and natural areas attractive to birds and
other wildlife.
Policy: Inform the public about the natural ecological character of Fontana.
Policy: Use public open space to support wildlife habitat where appropriate.
Goal 3: Fontana has a healthy, drought-resistant urban forest.
Policy: Support tree conservation and planting that enhances shade and drought resistance.
Policy: Expand Fontana’s tree canopy.
North Fontana Conservation Program
The City of Fontana and USFWS is currently developing a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP) for North Fontana to address the critical habitats for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and
the California gnatcatcher in this area. The MSHCP is pending adoption (City of Fontana 2018). The
North Fontana Conservation Program (previously referred to as the North Fontana Interim Program)
was prepared to address lands in north Fontana and the listed and special-status species that have
the potential to occur on these lands prior to the adoption of the MSHCP. To adequately mitigate
for the loss of sensitive habitats, as required by the CEQA, a tiered development mitigation fee was
created for new development in north Fontana. The mitigation fee is based on the quality of the
habitat on the development site and a site’s potential to support San Bernardino kangaroo rat,
coastal California gnatcatcher, or other special-status species occurring in the vicinity. A mitigation
fee is assessed for each acre of applicable land proposed for development based on the habitat
quality rating.
4.3.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds
Impacts to biological resources may be considered less than significant where their effects have
little or no importance to a given habitat. In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines,
the project would have a significant impact on biological resources if it would:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.3-16
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan
b. Methodology
Prior to conducting the habitat assessment, a literature review and records search was conducted
for special-status biological resources potentially occurring on or within the vicinity of the project
site. Previously recorded occurrences of special-status plant and wildlife species and their proximity
to the project site were determined through a query of the CDFW’s QuickView Tool in the
Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS), CNDDB Rarefind 5, CNPS’s Electronic
Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, Calflora Database, compendia of
special-status species published by CDFW, and USFWS species listings.
A field survey was conducted on June 3, 2021, to document baseline conditions and assess the
potential for special-status plant and wildlife species to occur on the project site that could pose a
constraint to development of the proposed project. The Habitat Assessment provides an in-depth
assessment of the suitability of the on-site habitat to support special-status plant and wildlife
species identified by CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and other electronic
databases as potentially occurring in the vicinity of the project site.
Data used for this analysis included aerial photographs, topographic maps, a CNDDB database
query, accepted scientific texts to identify species, previous biological studies, survey reports
prepared for the project site and the surrounding area, results of the reconnaissance field surveys,
and other available literature regarding existing biological resources in and around the project area.
c. Standard Conditions
The following standard conditions related to biological resources, and identified in the 2007 EIR,
remain applicable to the proposed project:
Standard Condition 4.9.1: The removal of trees on-site shall be subject to the City’s Preservation
of Heritage, Significant and Specimen Trees (Fontana Municipal Code Section 28-60) for the
replacement of any Heritage, Significant and Specimen Trees that may be affected by the
project.
Standard Condition 4.9.2: In accordance with the City’s North Fontana Conservation Program,
the developer shall pay a fee for the future acquisition of preserved habitat for sensitive species.
Environmental Impact Analysis Biological Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.3-17
d. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Impact BIO-1 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT COULD RESULT IN DIRECT OR INDIRECT IMPACTS TO
BURROWING OWL AND NESTING BIRDS AND RAPTORS THROUGH REMOVAL OF GROUND COVER AND HABITAT,
AND FROM CONSTRUCTION DURING THE BREEDING SEASON. HOWEVER, IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.
Special-Status Plant Communities
Based on the results of the field investigation, no special-status plant communities were observed
onsite. Therefore, no special-status plant communities would be impacted by project
implementation (ELMT Consulting, Inc. 2021).
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
The San Bernardino kangaroo rat is presumed absent from the project site due to the lack of
suitable habitat onsite. Therefore, no focused surveys are recommended (ELMT Consulting, Inc.
2021).
Burrowing Owl
The 2007 EIR determined that development under the existing Specific Plan would potentially
impact migratory birds. The 2007 EIR determined that the project site had a low potential to
support burrowing owl. The most current field investigation found no burrowing owl or recent sign
(i.e., pellets, feathers, castings, or whitewash) on the project site. Although potentially suitable
burrows for the owl are found onsite, the presence of larger raptors explains the absence of
burrowing owl and owl sign. Nonetheless, impacts to burrowing owl, if present, would be potentially
significant under the proposed project.
Nesting Birds and Raptors
The 2007 EIR determined that development under the existing Specific Plan would potentially lead
to loss of existing vegetation and animal habitats on the site, and may impact migratory birds and
burrowing owls. Therefore, mitigation measures would be required to reduce potential impacts to
migratory and nesting birds, raptors and burrowing owls. Furthermore, the 2007 EIR identified
standard conditions to further reduce potential impacts to wildlife habitat by requiring the project
to comply with City regulations such as Section 28.60 of the Fontana Municipal Code and the North
Fontana Conservation Program.
As detailed in Section 4.3.2, Regulatory Setting, the nests of most native birds and raptors are
federally and state protected. No bird or raptor nests were specifically identified during field
reconnaissance; however, it is likely birds use the project site for nesting (generally from early
February through late August), which could be impacted by construction activities associated with
the project. Vegetation within and surrounding the project site has the potential to provide refuge
cover from predators, perching sites, and foraging opportunities that could also be impacted by
project implementation. Notably, as discussed in Section 4.3.1, Setting, the project site has a high
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.3-18
potential to support Cooper’s hawk and California horned lark. However, the project site consists of
vacant, undeveloped land that has been subject to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances from
historic agricultural activities, surrounding development, and routine weed abatement activities.
These disturbances have eliminated the natural plant communities that once occurred onsite which
has reduced potential foraging, coverage, and nesting/denning opportunities for special-status
wildlife species.
While the project site continues to provide some foraging habitat for bird species adapted to a high
degree of human disturbance, project implementation would be limited to the already disturbed
site and would not modify other quality habitat available to wildlife. Therefore, these species would
not be impacted by the loss of on-site foraging habitat since the potential for foraging opportunities
has already been reduced due to the elimination of natural plant communities on the project site.
The project would not result in significant impacts related to foraging habitat loss.
Nonetheless, project implementation has potential to result in direct and indirect impacts to nesting
birds, including year-round and seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds protected
under the MBTA, if they nest on the project site and/or in the immediate vicinity during
construction activities. Direct impacts from construction activities include ground disturbance and
removal of trees, which could contain bird nests. Indirect impacts include construction noise,
lighting, and fugitive dust. These impacts could lead to individual mortality or harassment that might
reduce nesting success. Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the MBTA and CFGC (Sections 3503,
3503.5, 3511, and 3513 prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs).
Potential impacts would be similar to the impacts determined in the 2007 EIR, and impacts would be
potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
The 2007 EIR included mitigation measures to address potential impacts to migratory and nesting
birds, raptors and burrowing owl. The original mitigation measures have been replaced with
Mitigation Measures BIO-1A through BIO-IC, to update to current requirements, and are considered
functionally equivalent. Mitigation Measures BIO-1A and 1B address potential impacts on burrowing
owls while BIO-IC addresses potential impacts on nesting birds.
BIO-1A Burrowing Owl Preconstruction Survey
A burrowing owl pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted prior to any ground
disturbance or vegetation removal activities to ensure that burrowing owls remain absent from the
project site. In accordance with the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012), two
pre-construction clearance surveys shall be conducted 14- 30 days, and 24 hours prior to any ground
disturbance or vegetation removal activities.
BIO-1B Burrowing Owl Avoidance Measures
A burrowing owl survey shall be conducted no more than 30 days prior to the onset of construction
to ensure avoidance of this species. If no occupied burrows are found, a report shall be submitted to
the City and construction may begin without further actions. If owl burrows are found, a 300-foot
buffer zone shall be established around each burrow with an active nest until the young have
fledged and are able to exit the burrow. For occupied burrows without active nesting or active
burrows after the young have fledged, passive relocation of the owls would be performed. This shall
involve installation of a one-way door at the burrow entrance. The Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol
and Mitigation Guidelines (California Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993) shall be utilized for current
Environmental Impact Analysis Biological Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.3-19
methods for passive relocation of any owls found during the survey. A qualified biologist shall
conduct the relocation activities and provide construction monitoring during construction activities
near the burrows.
BIO-1C Nesting Bird Avoidance
All construction activities shall comply with the MBTA and CFGC Sections 3503, 3511 and 3513. The
MBTA governs the taking and killing of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests and prohibits the
take of any migratory bird, their eggs, parts, and nests. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the
following measures shall be implemented:
To avoid disturbance of nesting and special-status bird species protected by the MBTA and
California Fish and Game Commission, construction activities related to the project, including
but not limited to, vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and construction and demolition
shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (February 1 through August 31). If construction
must begin during the breeding season, then a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be
conducted no more than 30 days prior to initiation of construction activities. The nesting bird
pre-construction survey shall be conducted on foot inside the project site disturbance areas. If
an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction
activities shall stay outside of a 300-foot buffer around the active nest. For listed and raptor
species, this buffer shall be expanded to 500 feet.
Inaccessible areas (e.g., private lands) shall be surveyed from afar using binoculars to the extent
practical. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with the identification
of avian species known to occur in the valley/foothill areas of San Bernardino County. If nests
are found, an appropriate avoidance buffer shall be determined by a qualified biologist and
demarcated by a qualified biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging,
construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. Effective buffer distances are highly
variable and based on specific project stage, bird species, stage of nesting cycle, work type, and
the tolerance of a particular bird pair. The buffer may be up to 500 feet in diameter, depending
on the species of nesting bird found and the biologist’s observations.
Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measures BIO-1A, BIO-1B, and BIO-1C, would reduce potential impacts to special-status
species to less than significant levels by avoiding impacts to individual burrowing owl and nesting
birds in accordance with the guidelines in the MBTA. Impacts would be less than significant with
implementation of mitigation.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.3-20
Threshold 2: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Threshold 3: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Impact BIO-2 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROJECT WOULD NOT IMPACT ANY RIPARIAN
HABITAT OR OTHER SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITY IDENTIFIED IN LOCAL OR REGIONAL PLANS, POLICIES, OR
REGULATIONS, OR BY CDFW OR USFWS. IN ADDITION, THE PROJECT SITE DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY
REGULATED WATERS, NOR WOULD CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ADVERSELY AFFECT PROTECTED WETLANDS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The 2007 EIR determined that there were no drainage channels, wetland areas, or hydric soils on or
near the site. Thus, no areas subject to USACE and CDFW jurisdiction were present. In addition, the
2007 EIR determined that there were no wetland areas on the project sites (City of Fontana 2007).
As previously described in Section 4.3.1, Setting, there were no areas found on the project site that
qualify as riparian/riverine habitat or other sensitive habitat. The project site has been effectively
cut off from the historic fluvial flow patterns and scouring regimes of Lytle Creek and flows exiting
out of the San Gabriel Mountains due to the construction of I-15, and developments north of the
project site, which have disrupted the natural flood regime within the area, resulting in poor quality
habitats onsite. The project site does not support any discernible drainage courses, inundated areas,
wetland features, or hydric soils that would be considered jurisdictional by the USACE, RWQCB, or
CDFW. Project activities would not result in impacts to USACE, RWQCB, or CDFW jurisdictional areas
and regulatory approvals would not be required.
Furthermore, there are no native plant communities on or adjacent to the project site, and
vegetation is substantially limited to non-native grassland, and Eucalyptus windrows. As a result, the
project site lacks riparian habitat and is not located within any sensitive natural community.
Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW
or USFWS and impacts would be less than significant.
Furthermore, based on an assessment of habitat communities on the project site discussed above
and the national wetlands inventory, it was determined that the project site does not contain
wetlands considered jurisdictional or qualify as riparian/riverine habitat, nor would project activities
impact federal or state jurisdictional areas. The project does not contain federally protected
wetlands, nor would project construction have any impacts to federally protected wetlands (USFW
2021b). Therefore, these conditions are similar to the previous 2007 EIR and the project would not
have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands. Impacts would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Environmental Impact Analysis Biological Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.3-21
Threshold 4: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Impact BIO-3 NO PROPOSED OR EXISTING MSHCP CORE AREAS, LINKAGES, OR HABITAT BLOCKS ARE
ON OR NEAR THE PROJECT SITE. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The 2007 EIR determined that the project site is located near the foothills of the San Gabriel and San
Bernardino Mountains which is a location with potential for wildlife movement. However, the site
does not serve as a major wildlife corridor for the region and nearby open areas may be better
utilized as wildlife corridors closer to the foothills, northeast of the project site as I-15 forms a
barrier to terrestrial wildlife movement (City of Fontana 2007).
The project site is currently located within designated Critical Habitat Unit 2, Lytle Creek/Cajon
Wash. However, since the project does not have a federal nexus, a Section 7 consultation with the
USFWS would not be required for loss or adverse modification of Critical Habitat. If a federal nexus
does occur, a Section 7 Consultation will have to be initiated with USFWS. In addition, according to
the San Bernardino County General Plan, the project site has not been identified as occurring within
a Wildlife Corridor or Linkage. As designated by the San Bernardino County General Plan Natural
Resources Element, major open space areas documented in the vicinity of the project site include
Lytle Creek, located approximately 1.5 miles to the northeast, and is separated from the project site
by existing development (San Bernardino County 2020).
The proposed project would be confined to existing disturbed areas and is surrounded by
development and disturbed areas which have removed natural plant communities from the
surrounding area. The project site is isolated from regional wildlife corridors and linkages by I-15
and there are no riparian corridors, creeks, or useful patches of steppingstone habitat (natural
areas) within or connecting the project site to any identified wildlife corridors or linkages. Therefore,
the conditions are similar to the previous 2007 EIR and the project would not interfere substantially
with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Threshold 5: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Threshold 6: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Impact BIO-4 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH LOCAL POLICIES AND ORDINANCES PROTECTING
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SUCH AS TREES, OR WITH THE PROVISIONS OF AN ADOPTED HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN, OR OTHER APPROVED LOCAL, REGIONAL, OR STATE
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The 2007 EIR determined that the project features Eucalyptus trees from historic windrows that are
considered heritage trees under Fontana Municipal Code Section 28.61.75. The project would
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.3-22
require a tree removal permit for removal of the trees, and would incorporate the planting of new
trees into its landscape plan to comply with the Municipal Code. The project would comply with the
standard conditions in the previous 2007 EIR, which require adherence to the City’s Preservation of
Heritage, Significant and Specimen Trees (Fontana Municipal Code Section 28-60) and the payment
of applicable fees under the North Conservation Program, as discussed above (City of Fontana
2007).
As stated in Section 4.3.1, Setting, a total of 154 trees were identified on the project site during the
tree inventory within the windrows on the northeastern boundary of the project site, all composed
of a single distinct species river gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis). No trees onsite were native to
California. Due to the poor maintenance and landscaping, only 66 (43 percent) of the trees onsite
are in fair to good health and can be preserved. However, 121 of the 154 trees (79 percent) onsite
were arranged within existing windrows qualifying them as Heritage Trees under the City of Fontana
Tree Ordinance. No other trees onsite have any other special designations. A tree removal permit
would need to be acquired from the City to remove these trees from the project site. Chapter
28.61.75 of the Fontana Municipal Code addresses tree protection, maintenance, and replacement
policies. It outlines the definition of a “heritage tree”, “significant tree”, and “specimen tree” and
the procedures necessary to replacing them within a property. As stated in the City’s Code, “Except
as provided in section 28-65, no person shall remove or cause the removal of any heritage,
significant or specimen tree unless a tree removal permit is first obtained.”
Furthermore, the North Fontana Conservation Program was prepared to address lands in north
Fontana and the listed and special-status species that have the potential to occur on these lands.
The program is intended to adequately mitigates the loss of sensitive habitats, by requiring a tiered
development mitigation fee. The mitigation fee is charged for each acre of land proposed for
development based on the habitat quality rating. The habitat quality for the land within the Specific
Plan area is “Unsuitable Habitat.” Thus, the project would be subject to applicable fees associated
with this habitat quality.
In addition, with the standard conditions discussed above, the project would not conflict with any
local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts
Planned and pending projects in Fontana and surrounding areas are listed in Table 3-1 in Section 3,
Environmental Setting, and include residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. The project, in
conjunction with other planned and pending projects in the project site vicinity, would cumulatively
increase the potential to impact biological resources. In the event that biological resources are
encountered, each individual project would be required to comply with the applicable regulatory
requirements and mitigate any potential impacts to resources on the individual project site.
The following factors are considered with respect to analyzing cumulative impacts to biological
resources:
The cumulative contribution of other approved and proposed projects to fragmentation of open
space in the project vicinity
Environmental Impact Analysis Biological Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.3-23
The loss of sensitive habitats and species
The contribution of the project to urban expansion into natural areas
Isolation of open space in the vicinity by proposed/future projects
Potential impacts of the project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level due to
implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1A, BIO-1B, and BIO-1C that would address potential
impacts to migratory and nesting birds, in addition to burrowing owls. Compliance with CEQA
requirements by individual projects, including the implementation of recommendations provided in
project-specific biological resources studies, on all new development would ensure that the project
would not be cumulatively significant. In the event that biological resources are encountered, each
individual project would be required to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements to
determine and mitigate any potential impacts. Such recommendations may include nesting bird
surveys, preconstruction burrowing owl surveys, avoidance measures and/or other measures
determined to be necessary based on the situation. In addition, all projects are required to comply
with the North Fontana Conservation Program which requires the payment of mitigation fees based
on the quality of the habitat on the development site and a site’s potential to support San
Bernardino kangaroo rat, coastal California gnatcatcher, or other special-status species occurring in
the vicinity. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to biological resources would be less than
significant.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.3-24
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.4-1
4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
This section evaluates the project’s potential impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources (TCR).
The analysis consists of the identification and evaluation of the significance of any cultural resources
within the project area and area of potential impacts; a determination if implementation of the
proposed project would have any adverse impacts on those resources; and identification of
mitigation measures for any significant impacts (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2) on
cultural and tribal cultural resources.
The analysis herein relies on the Cultural Resources Assessment Report prepared for the project by
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (2021), which is included as Appendix D. Project impacts on TCRs rely on
the results of consultation completed with local California Native American tribes, conducted
pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18.
4.4.1 Setting
a. Prehistoric Context
During the twentieth century, many archaeologists developed chronological sequences to explain
prehistoric cultural changes within all or portions of Southern California. Wallace devised a
prehistoric chronology for the Southern California region based on early studies and focused on data
synthesis that included four horizons: Early Man, Milling Stone, Intermediate, and Late Prehistoric.
Though initially lacking the chronological precision of absolute dates, Wallace’s synthesis has been
modified and improved using thousands of radiocarbon dates obtained by Southern California
researchers over recent decades. The prehistoric chronological sequence for Southern California
presented below is a composite based on Wallace and Warren as well as later studies, including
Koerper and Drover.
Early Man Horizon (ca. 10,000 – 6000 BCE)
Numerous pre-8000 BCE sites have been identified along the mainland coast and Channel Islands of
southern California. The Arlington Springs site on Santa Rosa Island produced human femurs dating
to approximately 13,000 years ago. On nearby San Miguel Island, human occupation at Daisy Cave
(CA-SMI-261) has been dated to nearly 13,000 years ago and included basketry greater than
12,000 years old, the earliest on the Pacific Coast.
Although few Clovis or Folsom style fluted points have been found in southern California, Early Man
Horizon sites are generally associated with a greater emphasis on hunting than later horizons.
Recent data indicates that the Early Man economy was a diverse mixture of hunting and gathering,
including a significant focus on aquatic resources in coastal areas and on inland Pleistocene
lakeshores. A warm and dry 3,000-year period called the Altithermal began around 6000 BCE. The
conditions of the Altithermal are likely responsible for the change in human subsistence patterns at
this time, including a greater emphasis on plant foods and small game.
Milling Stone Horizon (6000–3000 BCE)
Wallace (1955:219) defined the Milling Stone Horizon as “marked by extensive use of milling stones
and mullers, a general lack of well-made projectile points, and burials with rock cairns.” The
dominance of such artifact types indicate a subsistence strategy oriented around collecting plant
foods and small animals. A broad spectrum of food resources were consumed including small and
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.4-2
large terrestrial mammals, sea mammals, birds, shellfish and other littoral and estuarine species,
near-shore fishes, yucca, agave, and seeds and other plant products. Variability in artifact collections
over time and from the coast to inland sites indicates that Milling Stone Horizon subsistence
strategies adapted to environmental conditions. Lithic artifacts associated with Milling Stone
Horizon sites are dominated by locally available tool stone and in addition to ground stone tools,
such as manos and metates, chopping, scraping, and cutting tools, are very common. Kowta
attributes the presence of numerous scraper-plane tools in Milling Stone Horizon collections to the
processing of agave or yucca for food or fiber. The mortar and pestle, associated with acorns or
other foods processed through pounding, were first used during the Milling Stone Horizon and
increased dramatically in later periods.
Two types of artifacts that are considered diagnostic of the Milling Stone period are the cogged
stone and discoidal, most of which have been found within sites dating between 4000 and
1000 BCE, though possibly as far back as 5500 BCE. The cogged stone is a ground stone object that
has gear-like teeth on the perimeter and is produced from a variety of materials. The function of
cogged stones is unknown, but many scholars have postulated ritualistic or ceremonial uses based
on the materials used and their location near to burials and other established ceremonial artifacts
as compared to typical habitation debris. Similar to cogged stones, discoidals are found in the
archaeological record subsequent to the introduction of the cogged stone. Cogged stones and
discoidals were often purposefully buried, or “cached.” They are most common in sites along the
coastal drainages from southern Ventura County southward and are particularly abundant at some
Orange County sites, although a few specimens have been found inland as far east as Cajon Pass.
Cogged stones have been collected in Riverside County and their distribution appears to center on
the Santa Ana River basin.
Intermediate Horizon (3000 BCE. – CE 500)
Wallace’s Intermediate Horizon dates from approximately 3000 BCE - CE 500 and is characterized by
a shift toward a hunting and maritime subsistence strategy, as well as greater use of plant foods.
During the Intermediate Horizon, a noticeable trend occurred toward greater adaptation to local
resources including a broad variety of fish, land mammal, and sea mammal remains along the coast.
Tool kits for hunting, fishing, and processing food and materials reflect this increased diversity, with
flake scrapers, drills, various projectile points, and shell fishhooks being manufactured.
Mortars and pestles became more common during this transitional period, gradually replacing
manos and metates as the dominant milling equipment. Many archaeologists believe this change in
milling stones signals a change from the processing and consuming of hard seed resources to the
increasing reliance on acorn. Mortuary practices during the Intermediate typically included fully
flexed burials oriented toward the north or west.
Late Prehistoric Horizon (CE 500–Historic Contact)
During Wallace’s Late Prehistoric Horizon the diversity of plant food resources and land and sea
mammal hunting increased even further than during the Intermediate Horizon. More classes of
artifacts were observed during this period and high quality exotic lithic materials were used for
small finely worked projectile points associated with the bow and arrow. Steatite containers were
made for cooking and storage and an increased use of asphalt for waterproofing is noted. More
artistic artifacts were recovered from Late Prehistoric sites and cremation became a common
mortuary custom. Larger, more permanent villages supported an increased population size and
social structure.
Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.4-3
Warren attributes this dramatic change in material culture, burial practices, and subsistence focus
to the westward migration of desert people he called the Takic, or Numic, Tradition in Los Angeles,
Orange, and western Riverside counties. This Takic Tradition was formerly referred to as the
“Shoshonean wedge”, but this nomenclature is no longer used to avoid confusion with ethnohistoric
and modern Shoshonean groups. Modern Gabrielino/Tongva in western Riverside County are
generally considered by archaeologists to be descendants of these prehistoric Uto-Aztecan, Takic-
speaking populations that settled along the California coast during the Late Prehistoric Horizon.
b. Ethnographic Overview
The project area is located in within the Gabrieleño territory. The name “Gabrieleño” denotes those
people who were administered by the Spanish from the San Gabriel Mission and included people
from the Gabrieleño area proper, as well as other social groups. Archaeological evidence points to
the Gabrieleño arriving in the Los Angeles Basin sometime around 500 BCE, but this has been a
subject of debate. The term Gabrieleno was imposed upon the tribe by Spanish Missionaries, and
descendants have chosen to use their original name, Tongva. This term is used in the remainder of
this section to refer to the pre-contact inhabitants of the Los Angeles basin and their descendants.
The Tongva language belongs to the Takic branch of the Uto-Aztecan language family, which can be
traced to the Great Basin region. This language family includes dialects spoken by the nearby
Juaneño and Luiseño to the southeast, the Serrano and Cahuilla to the northeast, and the Tataviam
to the northwest, but is considerably different from those of the Chumash people living to the
northwest and the Diegueño (including Ipai, Tipai, and Kumeyaay) people living to the south.
Tongva lands encompassed the greater Los Angeles Basin and three Channel Islands: San Clemente,
San Nicolas, and Santa Catalina. The Tongva established large, permanent villages in the fertile
lowlands along rivers and streams, and in sheltered areas along the coast, stretching from the
foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. A total tribal population has been
estimated of at least 5,000, but recent ethnohistoric work suggests a number approaching 10,000.
Political organization followed a patrilocal and patrilineal pattern. Typically, the oldest son would
lead a family. Chieftainship was also passed down patrilineally. A Chari, or chief of a village or
political grouping, was separated from any religious leadership.
At the time of Spanish contact, the basis of Tongva religious life was the Chinigchinich cult, centered
on the last of a series of heroic mythological figures. Chinigchinich gave instruction on laws and
institutions, and taught the people how to dance, the primary religious act for this society. He later
withdrew into heaven, where he rewarded the faithful and punished those who disobeyed his laws.
The Chinigchinich religion seems to have been relatively new when the Spanish arrived. It was
spreading south into the Southern Takic groups even as Christian missions were being built, and
elements of Chinigchinich beliefs suggest it was a syncretic mixture of Christianity and native
religious practices.
Houses constructed by the Tongva were large, circular, domed structures made of willow poles
thatched with tule that could hold up to 50 people. Other structures served as sweathouses,
menstrual huts, ceremonial enclosures, and probably communal granaries. Cleared fields for races
and games, such as lacrosse and pole throwing, were created adjacent to Tongva villages.
The Tongva subsistence economy was centered on gathering and hunting. The surrounding
environment was rich and varied, and the tribe exploited mountains, foothills, valleys, deserts,
riparian, estuarine, and open and rocky coastal eco-niches. Like most native Californians, acorns
were the staple food (an established industry by the time of the early Intermediate Period). Acorns
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.4-4
were supplemented by the roots, leaves, seeds, and fruits of a wide variety of flora. Fresh water and
saltwater fish, shellfish, birds, reptiles, insects, and large and small mammals, were also consumed.
The Tongva used a wide variety of tools and implements to gather food resources. These included
the bow and arrow, traps, digging sticks, nets, blinds, throwing sticks and slings, spears, harpoons,
and hooks. Like the Chumash, the Tongva made oceangoing plank canoes (known as a ti’at) capable
of holding six to 14 people and used for fishing, travel, and trade between the mainland and the
Channel Islands. Tule reed canoes were employed for near-shore fishing. Tongva people processed
food with a variety of tools, including hammerstones and anvils, mortars and pestles, manos and
metates, strainers, leaching baskets and bowls, knives, bone saws, and wooden drying racks. Food
was consumed from a variety of vessels. Catalina Island steatite was used to make ollas and cooking
vessels.
Deceased Tongva were either buried or cremated, with inhumation more common on the Channel
Islands and the neighboring mainland coast and cremation predominating on the remainder of the
coast and in the interior. At the behest of the Spanish missionaries, cremation essentially ceased
during the post-Contact period.
c. Historical Overview
Post-Contact history for the state of California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish
Period (1769–1822), Mexican Period (1822–1848), and American Period (1848–present). Although
Spanish, Russian, and British explorers visited the area for brief periods between 1529 and 1769, the
Spanish Period in California begins with the establishment in 1769 of a settlement at San Diego and
the founding of Mission San Diego de Alcalá, the first of 21 missions constructed between 1769 and
1823. Independence from Spain in 1821 marks the beginning of the Mexican Period, and the signing
of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ending the Mexican American War, signals the
beginning of the American Period when California became a territory of the United States.
Spanish Period (1769–1822)
Spanish exploration of what was then known as Alta (upper) California began when Juan Rodriguez
Cabrillo led the first European expedition into the region in 1542. For more than 200 years after his
initial expedition, Spanish, Portuguese, British, and Russian explorers sailed the Alta California coast
and made limited inland expeditions, but they did not establish permanent settlements (Bean 1968;
Rolle 2003). Spanish entry into what was to become Riverside County did not occur until 1774 when
Juan Bautista de Anza led an expedition from Sonora, Mexico to Monterey in northern California.
In 1769, Gaspar de Portolá and Franciscan Father Junipero Serra established the first Spanish
settlement at Mission San Diego de Alcalá. This was the first of 21 missions erected by the Spanish
between 1769 and 1823. The establishment of the missions marks the first sustained occupation of
Alta California by the Spanish. In addition to the missions, four presidios and three pueblos (towns)
were established throughout the state (State Lands Commission 1982).
During this period, Spain also deeded ranchos to prominent citizens and soldiers, though very few in
comparison to the subsequent Mexican Period. To manage and expand their herds of cattle on
these large ranchos, colonists enlisted the labor of the surrounding Native American population
(Engelhardt 1927a). The missions were responsible for administrating to the local Indians as well as
converting the population to Christianity (Engelhardt 1927b). The influx of European settlers
brought the local Native American population in contact with European diseases which they had no
Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.4-5
immunity against, resulting in catastrophic reduction in native populations throughout the state
(McCawley 1996).
Mexican Period (1822–1848)
The Mexican Period commenced when news of the success of the Mexican War of Independence
(1810-1821) reached California in 1822. This period saw the federalization of mission lands in
California with the passage of the Secularization Act of 1833. This Act enabled Mexican governors in
California to distribute former mission lands to individuals in the form of land grants. Successive
Mexican governors made more than 700 land grants between 1822 and 1846, putting most of the
state’s lands into private ownership for the first time (Shumway 2007). About eight land grants
(ranchos) were located in San Bernardino County.
American Period (1848–Present)
The American Period officially began with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, in
which the United States agreed to pay Mexico $15 million for ceded territory, including California,
Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming, and pay an additional
$3.25 million to settle American citizens’ claims against Mexico. Settlement of southern California
increased dramatically in the early American Period. Many ranchos in the county were sold or
otherwise acquired by Americans, and most were subdivided into agricultural parcels or towns.
The discovery of gold in northern California in 1848 led to the California Gold Rush, despite the first
California gold being previously discovered in southern California at Placerita Canyon in 1842 (Guinn
1977; Workman 1935:26). Southern California remained dominated by cattle ranches in the early
American period, though droughts and increasing population resulted in farming and more urban
professions supplanting ranching through the late nineteenth century. In 1850, California was
admitted into the United States and by 1853, the population of California exceeded 300,000.
Thousands of settlers and immigrants continued to move into the state, particularly after
completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869.
City of Fontana
Located near the San Bernardino Mountains in southwest San Bernardino County, the City of
Fontana was founded in 1913. Fontana started as an agricultural town with vineyards, citrus
orchards, and chicken ranches, becoming an industrial town by 1942 as the Kaiser Steel Mill,
founded by Henry J. Kaiser, opened and became a primary source of employment. The industrial
industry continued to rise and prosper in Fontana as the city is located along major trade routes:
Interstate 10 (I-10), I-15, State Route 210, and near a Union Pacific Railroad line. The placement of
the city continued to allow Fontana to grow, and the city currently serves over 200,000 residents.
4.4.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Native American Involvement
Several federal and State laws address Native American involvement in the development review
process. The most notable of these are the federal Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (1990) and the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.4-6
(2001). These acts ensure that Native American human remains, and cultural items be treated with
respect and dignity.
b. State Regulations
California Public Resources Code
California Public Resources Code (PRC), Sections 5097-5097.6, state that the unauthorized
disturbance or removal of archaeological, historical, or paleontological resources located on public
lands is a misdemeanor. It prohibits the knowing destruction of objects of antiquity without a
permit (express permission) on public lands, and it provides for criminal sanctions. This section was
amended in 1987 to require consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
whenever Native American graves are found. Violations that involve taking or possessing remains or
artifacts are felonies. As such, PRC Section 5097.5 states:
“A person shall not knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface,
any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological
site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, rock art, or any other
archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the
express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over the lands….A violation of this
section is a misdemeanor.”
Here “public lands” means those owned by or under the jurisdiction of the State or any city, county,
district, authority, public corporation, or any agency thereof. Consequently, local agencies are
required to comply with PRC Section 5097.5 for their own activities, including construction and
maintenance, as well as for permit actions (e.g., encroachment permits) undertaken by others.
California Health and Safety Code 7050.5
California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods,
regardless of their antiquity, and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those
remains. California Health and Safety Code (PRC Section 7050.5 et seq.) requires that if human
remains are discovered in any place other than a dedicated cemetery, no further disturbance or
excavation of the site or nearby area reasonably suspected to contain human remains shall occur
until the County Coroner has examined the remains (PCR Section 7050.5b).
PRC Section 5097.98 also outlines the process to be followed in the event that remains are
discovered. If the coroner determines or has reason to believe the remains are those of a Native
American, the coroner must contact the NAHC within 24 hours (PRC Section 7050.5c). The NAHC will
notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner, the MLD may inspect
the site of discovery. The inspection must be completed within 24 hours of notification of the MLD
by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity,
the human remains, and items associated with Native Americans.
Senate Bill 18
Enacted on March 1, 2005, SB 18 (California Government Code Sections 65352.3 and 65352.4)
requires cities and counties to notify and consult with California Native American tribal groups and
individuals regarding proposed local land use planning decisions for the purpose of protecting
traditional tribal cultural places (sacred sites), prior to adopting or amending a General Plan or
Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.4-7
designating land as open space. Tribal groups or individuals have 90 days to request consultation
following the initial contact.
Assembly Bill 52
California Assembly Bill (AB) 52 of 2014 was enacted in 2015, expanding CEQA by defining a new
resource category: “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes that “a project with an effect that
may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project
that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). It further states the
lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics
of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3). PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and
(B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places,
and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and that are either:
Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k)
A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American
tribe.
AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding TCRs that must
be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to
“begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included
in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed under the jurisdiction of
the lead agency.
4.4.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds
Cultural Resources
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines states cultural resource impacts of the project would be
significant if the project would:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5;
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5;
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Tribal Cultural Resources
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to TCRs are based on Appendix G of
the CEQA Guidelines. A significant impact related to TCRs would occur if the project would cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
PRC Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.4-8
in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is:
Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register
of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or
A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(c). In applying the
criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(c), the lead agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe.
b. Methodology
Background Research
Background research for the cultural resources study included records searches, a review of
historical maps and aerial photographs, Sacred Lands File search, and Native American outreach. A
summary of each of these efforts follows.
California Historical Resources Information System
On January 26, 2021, Rincon received records search results from the California Historical Resources
Information System at the South-Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State
University, Fullerton for the proposed project. The purpose of the records search was to identify
previously conducted cultural resources studies and previously recorded cultural resources located
within the existing project site and within a one-mile radius of the project site. In addition to the
SCCIC records search, a review of the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of
Historical Resources (CRHR), the California Inventory of Historic Resources, the Built Environment
Resource Directory, and the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list was conducted.
Appendix D provides a summary of the records search results.
The SCCIC records search project site identified 35 cultural resources located within a one-mile
radius of the project site. Four of these resources, or portions thereof (P-36-012739: Perdew School
foundation, P-36-012740: Waters Homestead Site, P-36-012742: Lytle Creek Winery, and
P-36-015376: Grapeland Irrigation District), are recorded within the project site. All 35 resources are
historic-period resources, including 24 archaeological sites, five built environment resources (three
structures and one building), one historic district, three historic-aged roads, and three
multi-categorized resources. None of which will be impacted by the proposed project. Table 4.4-1
below summarizes the resources.
Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.4-9
Table 4.4-1 Previously Recorded Resources within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Primary
Number Trinomial Resource Type Description Recorder(s) and Year(s) NRHP/CRHR Status
Relationship
to Project Site
P-36-004296 CA-SBR-4296 Historic Site Two rock circles 1980 (G. Teal);
2014 (W. R. Gillean)
Site Destroyed Outside
P-36-006588 CA-SBR-6588H Historic Site Joseph A. Scott Homestead
Remains
1990 (J. McKenna) Not evaluated Outside
P-36-006808 CA-SBR-6808H Historic Site Hunter’s Ridge Locus 2; Bullock Ranch/ Sunnyslope
Ranch
1991 (J.S. Alexandrowicz) Recommended eligible for listing on NRHP Outside
P-36-006809 CA-SBR-6809H Historic Site Hunter’s Ridge Locus 3 1991 (J.S. Alexandrowicz) Recommended ineligible for
listing on NRHP, destroyed
Outside
P-36-006810 CA-SBR-6810H Historic Site Hunter’s Ridge Locus 4 1991 (ACS) Recommended ineligible for
listing on NRHP, destroyed
Outside
P-36-006811 CA-SBR-6811H Historic Site Hunter’s Ridge Locus 5 1991 (J.S. Alexandrowicz) Recommended eligible for listing
on NRHP
Outside
P-36-006814 CA-SBR-6814H Historic Site Hunter’s Ridge Locus 8 1991 (ACS) Recommended ineligible for listing on NRHP, lack of integrity and association
Outside
P-36-006901 CA-SBR-6901H Historic Site Early 20th Century Irrigation
Ditch, Summit Avenue Ditch
1991 (P. Sutton);
1993 (D. Landis);
2014 (J. Smallwood)
Not evaluated Outside
P-36-007296 CA-SBR-7296H Historic Site Water Reservoir 1992 (J. McKenna) Not evaluated Outside
P-36-007694 CA-SBR-7694H Historic
Structure, Site
Various Transmission Lines –
See Attachment B
Various – See Attachment B Segments have been evaluated
as: 1S1, 6Z2, and 2S23
Outside
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.4-10
Primary
Number Trinomial Resource Type Description Recorder(s) and Year(s) NRHP/CRHR Status
Relationship
to Project Site
P-36-008857 CA-SBR-8857H Historic Site SCE Company’s Lugo-Mira
Transmission Line
1986 (J. F. Elliott);
1997 (P. de Barros, J.
Paulson);
2010 (J. Coleman);
2011 (J. TramPier);
2016 (A. Williams)
3S: Appears eligible for NRHP as
an individual property through
survey evaluation
Outside
P-36-009370 CA-SBR-9370H Historic Site Summit Heights 11 1996 (Shepard) Not evaluated Outside
P-36-009838 CA-SBR-9837H Historic Site Delane Vineyard Stone Structure 1988 (Research Associates); 1999 (Quinn and Johnson) 7: Not evaluated for NRHP or CRHR, needs reevaluation Outside
P-36-009839 CA-SBR-9839H Historic Site Concrete Slab and Concrete
Wall Remnants
1999 (Quinn and Johnson) 6Z: Found ineligible for NRHP,
CRHR or Local designation
through survey evaluation
Outside
P-36-009840 CA-SBR-9840H Historic Site Cistern 1999 (Bouscaren) 7: Not evaluated for NRHP or
CRHR, needs reevaluation
Outside
P-36-009841 CA-SBR-9841H Historic Site Water Retaining Wall 1999 (Bouscaren) 7: Not evaluated for NRHP or
CRHR, needs reevaluation
Outside
P-36-009842 CA-SBR-9842H Historic Site Concrete slab, walls, and chimney remnants 1991 (Johnson) 6Z: Found ineligible for NRHP, CRHR or Local designation through survey evaluation
Outside
P-36-009843 CA-SBR-9843H Historic Site Concrete slab with wood
beams
1999 (Bouscaren) Not evaluated Outside
P-36-009844 CA-SBR-9844H Historic Site Concrete structural remains,
metal pipe, reservoir
1999 (Bouscaren) 7: Not evaluated for NRHP or
CRHR, needs reevaluation
Outside
P-36-009845 CA-SBR-9845H Historic Site Concrete and wood
structure remains
1999 (Bouscaren) 7: Not evaluated for NRHP or
CRHR, needs reevaluation
Outside
P-36-011506 CA-SBR-11506H Historic Site Section 19 Cabin foundation and well 2002 (R. Goodwin) 7: Not evaluated for NRHP or CRHR, needs reevaluation Outside
Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.4-11
Primary
Number Trinomial Resource Type Description Recorder(s) and Year(s) NRHP/CRHR Status
Relationship
to Project Site
P-36-011508 CA-SBR-11508H Historic Road Cyprus Ave/ Section 19 Dry
Sub-Lot Road
2002 (R. Reynolds) 7: Not evaluated for NRHP or
CRHR, needs reevaluation
Outside
P-36-011509 CA-SBR-11509H Historic Road Juniper Avenue North 2002 (R. Reynolds) 7: Not evaluated for NRHP or
CRHR, needs reevaluation
Outside
P-36-011510 CA-SBR-11510H Historic Road Sierra Cutoff Road 2002 (R. Reynolds) 7: Not evaluated for NRHP or CRHR, needs reevaluation Outside
P-36-011678 CA-SBR-11678H Historic Site Historic Homestead Remains 2004 (P. Messick);
2014 (W. R. Gillean)
6Z: Found ineligible for NRHP,
CRHR or Local designation
through survey evaluation
Outside
P-36-0011679 Historic District Historic Farm/ Ranch
Property; 6M Egg Ranch
2004 (C. Taniguchi);
2017 (W. R. Gillean)
6Z: Found ineligible for NRHP,
CRHR or Local designation
through survey evaluation
Outside
P-36-012739 CA-SBR-12366H Historic
Structure
Foundation of Perdew
School
2005 (S. Andrews) Not evaluated Within
P-36-012740 CA-SBR-12367H Historic Structure U-shaped enclosure 2005 (S. Andrews) Not evaluated Within
P-36-012742 CA-SBR-12369H Historic
Structure,
District
Lytle Creek Winery 2005 (S. Ghabhlain) Recommended eligible for CRHR Within
P-36-015376 Historic
Building,
Structure, Other
Grapeland Homesteads &
Water Works
1987 (J. Anicic);
1989 (Unknown);
2016 (ICF)
Portions recommended ineligible
for NRHP/CRHR
Within
P-36-020148 Historic Building 15590 Summit Ave 2004 (Becker and Stoll) 7: Not evaluated for NRHP or
CRHR, needs reevaluation
Outside
P-36-027084 CA-SBR-17099H Historic Site Historic Habitation Remains 2012 (S. Velasquez) Recommended ineligible for
CRHR
Outside
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.4-12
Primary
Number Trinomial Resource Type Description Recorder(s) and Year(s) NRHP/CRHR Status
Relationship
to Project Site
P-36-027085 Historic Site Water Cistern and Pipe 2012 (S. Velasquez);
2017 (W. R Gillean)
Recommended ineligible for
CRHP. Not evaluated for NRHP
Outside
P-36-031276 CA-SBR-31276H Historic Site Monarch Hills; Historic
Eucalyptus Trees
2017 (W. R. Gillean) Recommended ineligible for
CRHR
Outside
P-36-031688 Historic
Structure
Rich Basin 2014 (C. Cotterman) Recommended ineligible for
NRHP and CRHR
Outside
1 1S: Individually listed in the NRHP, listed in the CRHR
2 6Z: Found ineligible for NRHP, CRHR or local designation through survey evaluation
3 2S2: Individual property determined eligible for NRHP by a consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the CRHR
Source: SCCIC 2021
Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.4-13
Based on the records search and as summarized in Table 4.4-1, the following resources are
associated with the project site and are described as previously observed in years prior:
P-36-012739: Perdew School Foundation. Recorded in 2005 as a one to two course high stone
foundation constructed of cobbles and concrete measuring approximately 16 inches wide in
cross section. The foundation was in good condition when recorded, except for the northern
wall. A solitary church key-opened can was found to the south of the resource but was not
associated the can to the foundation. No other cultural resources were identified, and the
resource had not been evaluated for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR.
P-36-012740: Waters Homestead Site. Recorded in 2005, the Waters Homestead Site is a U-
shaped rock and cobble enclosure with a trash scatter and a rectangular concrete reservoir. The
resource had been previously identified in a resource inventory as the Waters home site. The
associated trash scatter consists of glass fragments, machine parts, and building debris. The
resource had not been evaluated for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR.
P-36-012742: Lytle Creek Winery. Recorded in 2005, the resource is recorded as a two-story
home with two cobblestone winery buildings, a concrete warehouse, stables, garage, barn, and
privy. The house, stables, and barn are believed to be constructed in the 1880s. The cobblestone
winery buildings were dated in 1930s, the warehouse in the 1940s, and a cinder block add-on to
one of the cobblestone winery buildings in 1945. The property operated an 80-acre vineyard
and wine production following prohibition to 1960 when the property was sold. In addition to
the buildings, the resource includes a cistern, cobblestone fencing, and landscaping features. It
was recommended in 2005 that the winery is eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 1 for
its association with wine production in Fontana and concluded that the Lytle Creek Winery
appears eligible for listing as a historic district. Additionally, the two cobble stone buildings were
recommended eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 3 for their distinctive
characteristics within the region and method of construction.
P-36-015376: Grapeland Irrigation District. In 1987, the resource area was identified as the
Grapeland Irrigation District. Grapeland consists of historic-period structures and irrigation
ditches associated with the town of Grapeland. Grapeland consisted of stores, a school, small
ranches, and a post office along Lytle Creek Road north of Fontana. In 1989, the Grapeland
Irrigation District was submitted as a Point of Historical Interest to the State of California
Department of Parks and Recreation. According to the submission, the Grapeland Irrigation
District emerged in 1890 as an early settlement of North Fontana for farming; however, the
venture north failed. Although the venture failed, remnants of the operation remained,
including irrigation ditches, homesteads, and reservoirs. ICF revisited segments of the district in
2016 and reported that no remnants of the historic district were left within the ICF study area,
all of which are located outside of the current project area. ICF (2016) recommended the
portions studied as not eligible for the NRHP or CRHR.
Historical Imagery Review
Rincon completed a review of historical topographic maps and aerial imagery to ascertain the
development history of the project site. In a review of historical topographic maps dating from 1896
to 1929 of the project sites, the land is depicted as undeveloped depict the project site as
undeveloped land with a north-south trending dirt road intersecting the central portion of the
project site. The 1936 Devore, California Quadrangle 1:31680 scale map depicts the project site
bounded by Citrus Avenue to the east, Duncan Canyon Road running east-west through the project
site, and Lytle Creek Road to the west, which is carried through the 1966 Devore, California 1:24,000
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.4-14
quadrangle. Additionally, the 1936 Devore, California 1:31860 scale map quadrangle no longer
depicts the north-west trending dirt road through the central portion of the project site. Aerial
imagery from 1938 confirms that the project site was bounded by Duncan Canyon Road to the south
and Citrus Avenue to the east, with no north-south trending road intersecting the central portion of
the project site. Imagery from 1938 additionally depicts two properties to the south of Duncan
Canyon Road, presumed to be previously discussed resources P-36-012740 (Waters Homestead Site)
and P-36-012472 (Lytle Creek Winery). By 1980, the Devore, California quadrangle map shows I-15,
and the project site is bound by I-15 to the west. Aerial imagery from 1980 does not depict resource
P-36-012740 (Waters Homestead Site), but resource P-36-012742 (Lytle Creek Winery) is depicted
next to Lytle Creek Road with the development of I-15 to the west. Imagery from 2002 to 2005
depicts portions of resource P-36-012742 (Lytle Creek Winery) as being demolished. By 2009, the
resource is no longer present on the aerial images and the project site is depicted in its current
condition. From 1994 to present, grading across the project site is evidenced by square patterns
observed throughout the project site.
Native American Heritage Commission
On December 2, 2020, Rincon contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to
request a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search of the project site. As part of this request, Rincon asked the
NAHC to provide a contact list of Native American groups and/or individuals culturally affiliated with
the area who may have knowledge of tribal heritage resources at the project site and/or in the
vicinity. The City received a response from NAHC on December 9, 2020 that the search of the SLF
was positive. The NAHC provided a list of 17 tribes who may have knowledge of cultural resources
within the project site. On February 10, 2021, in accordance with AB 52 consultation, Rincon sent
email letters on behalf of the City to the contacts provided by the NAHC. Under AB 52, the tribes
have 30 days to respond and request consultation. The following comments were received in
response:
On February 10, 2021, the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation responded via email
stating that they have no comment on the project and they defer to more local tribes.
Ryan Nordness, Cultural Resources Analyst of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians,
responded to the outreach on February 10, 2021, via email. Mr. Nordness stated that the
proposed project site is located within the Serrano ancestral territory and is in close proximately
to three known tribal cultural resources, and that the tribe would like to consult under Assembly
Bill 52 consultation as required by CEQA. On December 1, 2021, after follow up outreach from
the City, Mr. Nordness requested additional project information for further project review.
Rincon received a response via email from Lucy Padilla, Archaeologist for the Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla Indians on March 10, 2021, stating that the project is not located within the
Tribe’s Traditional Use Area and that they defer to other tribes.
On November 5, 2021 the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation responded via email
stating that the project site is within their ancestral territory and that the tribe would like to
consult to discuss the project and surrounding location in further detail.
Furthermore, in accordance with the requirements of SB 18 consultation, the City mailed letters to
17 Native American tribes on February 28, 2022. Under SB 18, tribes have 90 days to respond and
request consultation. The City has received the following comments thus far in response:
Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.4-15
On February 28, 2022, the City received a response from the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation stating that they have no comment on the project and that they defer to more local
tribes.
Ryan Nordness, Cultural Resources Analyst of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians,
responded to the outreach on March 7, 2022, confirming that the site is located within the
Serrano ancestral territory and the project is of interest, but that the tribe sees no conflicts with
the zoning changes at this time.
The City received a response via email from Arysa Gonzalez Romero, Cultural Resources Analyst
for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuila Indians on March 15, 2022, stating that a records check
revelated that the project is not located within the tribe’s Traditional Use Area and that they
defer to other tribes.
Although the 90-day period is not yet complete at the time of this writing, the City will incorporate
into the Final EIR for this project all subsequent correspondence from local tribes received after the
publication of the Draft EIR and prior to the close of the 90-day review period.
Field Survey
Methodology
Rincon Senior Archaeologist Christopher Purtell, MA, RPA, and Archaeologist Ryan Glenn, MA, RPA,
conducted a pedestrian survey of the project site on February 11 and February 12, 2021. The
archaeologists surveyed the project site using transects spaced 10 meters apart and generally
oriented north-south. Areas of exposed ground surface were examined for artifacts (e.g., flaked
stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools, ceramics, fire-affected rock [FAR]), ecofacts
(marine shell and bone), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil
depressions, and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., standing
exterior walls, postholes, foundations) or historic-period debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics). Ground
disturbances such as burrows and drainages were visually inspected. Survey notes were prepared by
the surveyor and are available upon request.
Additionally, the four previously recorded historic-period resource locations were visited during the
survey. The survey consisted of a visual inspection of the resource locations to assess the overall
condition of the resources. Three of the resources P-36-012739: Perdew School foundation, P-36-
012742: Lytle Creek Winery, and P-36-015376: Grapeland Irrigation District) were not relocated
during the survey efforts. One resource (P-36-012740: Waters Homestead Site) was relocated during
the survey. For the purposes of this section, “relocated” refers to the act of confirming the location
of the resources within the project site again for verification of resource presence following the
previous recordings.
Results
The project site is generally located on an alluvial plain and soils consisted of medium to dark
colored brown sediment, with a silty-loamy texture that exhibited large quantities of round cobles
and rocks that measured between 2 centimeters and 20 centimeters in diameter. Ground visibility
was generally poor throughout the site, ranging from 30 to 40 percent, except for a few locations
throughout the project site where visibility was approximately 90 percent. Additionally, one portion
of the project site had zero percent ground visibility due to gravel and showed evidence of being
used as a parking area and dumping zone. Low ground visibility across the project site was due to
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.4-16
the present of vegetation, evidence of plowing and disking approximately 3 to 4 inches in depth,
and modern trash dumping throughout the project site. No other disturbances were observed
during the current survey efforts.
The pedestrian survey updated the four previously recorded resources within the project site. These
resources consist of four previously recorded historic-aged resources [P-36-012739 (Perdew School
Foundation), P-012740 (Waters Homestead Site), P-36-012742 (Lytle Creek Winery), and
P-36-015376 (Grapeland Irrigation District)]. No new resources were recorded as a part of the
current efforts. The survey results as they relate to each resource are described in further detail
under Project Impacts.
c. Standard Conditions
The following standard condition identified in the 2007 EIR, remains applicable to the proposed
project:
Standard Condition 4.10.1: If human remains are encountered during excavation activities at the
site, all work shall halt, and the County Coroner shall be notified (Section 5097.98 of the Public
Resources Code). The Coroner will determine whether the remains are of forensic interest. If
the Coroner, with the aid of the County-approved archaeologist, determines that the remains
are prehistoric, he/she will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The
NAHC will be responsible for designating the most likely descendant (MLD), who will be
responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by Section 7050.5 of the
California Health and Safety Code. The MLD will make his/her recommendation within 24 hours
of their notification by the NAHC. This recommendation may include scientific removal and
nondestructive analysis of the human remains and any items associated with Native American
burials (Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code).
d. Project Impacts
Cultural Resources
Threshold 1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Impact CUL-1 DUE TO LACK OF INTEGRITY OF KNOWN HISTORICAL RESOURCES, THE PROJECT WOULD NOT
CREATE AN ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A HISTORICAL RESOURCE. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS
THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The 2007 EIR found the project site had existing buildings on site, and that the buildings and building
foundations were significant historic resources, as further described below.
The project would involve development of the same project footprint as the existing Specific Plan.
The SCCIC records search project site identified 35 cultural resources located within a one-mile
radius of the project site. Table 4.4-1 summarizes the known historical resources within a one-mile
radius of the project. The records search identified four historic-period cultural resources previously
recorded within the project site:
P-36-012739: Perdew School Foundation. This site was recorded in 2005 as a one to two course
high stone foundation constructed of cobbles and concrete measuring approximately 16 inches
wide in cross section. The foundation was in good condition when recorded, except for the
Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.4-17
northern wall. A solitary church key-opened can was found to the south of the resource but
could not be associated to the foundation. In the 2007 EIR it was stated that the foundations of
the Perdew School are not considered eligible for the CRHR due to lack of building integrity.
During Rincon’s field survey between February 11 and February 12, 2021, the resource was not
relocated, and no other cultural materials or features were observed. Based on the 2007 EIR
finding, in conjunction with the confirmation that the resource is no longer present on-site per
Rincon’s field surveys, it is further determined that the resource does not possess the ability to
convey any potentially significant historical associations under any CRHR criteria. The project
would have no impact on this site.
P-36-012740: Waters Homestead Site. This resource is recorded as a U-shaped rock and cobble
enclosure with an associated trash scatter and rectangular concrete reservoir. While the house
has been demolished, foundation remains are present at the site. In the 2007 EIR it was stated
that surface deposits at the site of the Waters house did not identify the presence of intact
archaeological or historical resources. Thus, the site of the Water house was not eligible for the
CRHR and removal of the building foundations would not result in significant adverse impacts on
historical resources. During Rincon’s 2021 surveys, portions of the resource were relocated.
Surveyors relocated a concentration of rocks and cobbles corresponding with the wall around
the Waters Homestead as previously recorded. The feature has since been deflated, but the
overall shape is observable. There is a raised berm (two feet in height) that can be observed
with associated cobbles. Several historic-period artifacts were observed within the wall as noted
in the previous site record (glass, metal, and ceramic fragments), and a depression consistent
with remnants of the cistern was also present. However, the site area appears to be highly
disturbed from previous disking and plowing. As documented in the 2007 EIR, the site was
previously found to be in poor condition; as a result, the 2007 EIR concluded that the resource
was not eligible for listing in the CRHR under any of the criteria due to a lack of integrity. The
site does not meet the definition of a historical resource under PRC Section 21084.1. Rincon
concurs with these findings. Therefore, the project would not impact this site.
P-36-012742: Lytle Creek Winery. The resource was originally recorded as a two-story home
with two cobblestone winery buildings, a concrete warehouse, stables, garage, barn, and privy.
The 2007 EIR states that while the Specific Plan disuses that Planning Area 9 would include the
adaptive reuse of existing structures as a restaurant/winery or office development, the
illustrative site plan did not reflect the layout of the existing structures. Thus, a potential for the
need to relocate or demolish the existing structures within the former Lytle Creek Winery would
have possibly occured under the existing Specific Plan. The impacts related to Lytle Creek
Winery would have been made less than significant by Mitigation Measure 4.10.2 and
Mitigation Measure 4.10.3 within the 2007 EIR. However, Rincon’s 2021 surveys did not relocate
the resource, which appears to have been demolished between 2002 and 2009 based on
historic aerial images and other available (albeit limited) information. The current owner of the
property acquired the property in November 2020, years after the winery was apparently
removed from the property and was unable to provide any information regarding the former
structures. Rincon’s survey was unable to relocate extant remains of the resource due to prior
disturbance that has dislocated the cultural constituents such that they are no longer in situ. No
other cultural materials or features associated with the site were observed. For this reason, this
resource does not possess the ability to convey any potentially significant historical associations
under any CRHR criteria. Therefore, the project would have no impact on this site.
P-36-015376: Grapeland Irrigation District. Grapeland consisted of historic-period structures
and irrigation ditches associated with the town of Grapeland. In 1989, the Grapeland Irrigation
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.4-18
District was submitted as a Point of Historical Interest to the State of California Department of
Parks and Recreation. ICF revisited segments of the district in 2016 and reported that no
remnants of the historic district were left within the ICF study area, all of which are located
outside of the current project area. ICF (2016) recommended the portions studied as not eligible
for the NRHP or CRHR. Furthermore, during Rincon’s 2021 surveys, no remnants of the resource
were relocated, and no other cultural materials or features were observed. Based on the 2016
ICF finding, in conjunction with the confirmation that the resource is no longer present on-site
per Rincon’s field surveys, it is further determined that the project would have no impact on this
site.
Of these four resources, only the Lytle Creek Winery appears to have been eligible for listing in the
CRHR. However, as mentioned in this analysis, the resource was demolished between 2002 and
2009 (based on historic aerial images and other limited information) and Rincon’s survey efforts
were unable to relocate the resource; therefore, extant remains of the resource do not contain
integrity. Therefore, project implementation would not result in substantial adverse changes in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Impacts
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
The 2007 EIR includes mitigation measures to rehabilitate or relocate the structures within the Lytle
Creek Winery and the Taylor house as follows:
Mitigation Measure 4.10.2 provides specific guidance on the rehabilitation of structures within
the Lytle Creek Winery, including the Taylor House consistent with specific standards by the
Secretary of Interior, with regards to the rehabilitation and reuse of historic properties.
Mitigation Measure 4.10.3 indicates that if required, relocation of the Taylor House be relocated
into the Lytle Creek Winery complex or other location, under the direction of an architectural
historian.
Mitigation Measure 4.10.4 requires Historic American Building Survey (HABS) documentation be
performed prior to relocation of historic structures.
Mitigation Measure 4.10.5 requires giving the Fontana Historical Society the option to move the
Perdew School foundations to another site, prior to the disturbance or development of the area
formerly occupied by the school.
However, the resources discussed in these mitigation measures are no longer present on the project
site. Therefore, these mitigation measures are no longer applicable and additional mitigation
measures are not required.
Threshold 2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Impact CUL-2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT COULD RESULT IN DIRECT OR INDIRECT IMPACTS TO
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 15064.5. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.
The 2007 EIR, indicated several archaeological resources were recorded in the project vicinity, but
none were found on the project site. The 2007 EIR determined that because of the highly disturbed
condition of the surface soils, project development was not expected to have significant adverse
Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.4-19
impacts on archaeological resources. The 2007 EIR also indicated that the Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal
Council requested that monitoring occur during ground disturbance activities. The 2007 EIR also
found that based on the highly disturbed condition of the surface soils, excavation and grading
activities associated with development under the existing Specific Plan was not expected to have
significant adverse impacts on archaeological resources.
Similarly, the recent records search and pedestrian survey did not identify any archaeological
resources within the project site. However, the surveyors noted poor surface visibility based on
heavy disturbance throughout the project site in the form of three to four inches of plowing and
disking, several large modern trash dumps, and dense vegetation. Historical aerial imagery indicates
that the project site has had moderate disturbance due to agricultural use, grading and building,
demolition, or removal over the last 50 years. Due to the poor visibility on site, the potential for
subsurface archaeological resources cannot be ruled out, and the project site is considered to have
a moderate sensitivity for archaeological cultural resources. Therefore, the project has the
potentially to adversely affect subsurface archeological resources, if present. Impacts to
archaeological resources would be potentially significant without mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
The 2007 EIR included mitigation measure to address Tribal concerns related to archaeological
resources. The original mitigation measure has been replaced with Mitigation Measure CUL-2A
below and reflects the City’s current mitigation related to Tribal concerns and archaeological
resources and is considered functionally equivalent. Mitigation Measure CUL-2B would also be
required to prepare construction workers on the types of cultural material that may be encountered
and discuss proper protocol prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activities.
CUL-2A Archaeological Resources
The City shall designate a qualified archaeologist to monitor all project-related ground
disturbing activities. Archaeological monitoring shall be performed under the guidance and
direction of a Project Archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards for archeology (National Park Service 1983). A Native American
monitor from the consulting tribes (those tribes that have consulted on the project under AB
52) shall also be retained to monitor ground disturbing activities. Upon discovery of any tribal
cultural or archaeological resources, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity (50 feet)
of the find shall cease until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural and archaeological
resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified
archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant from a consulting tribe. If the resources are Native
American in origin, interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area Tribes) shall
coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment (including evaluations for CRHR listing) and
curation of these resources. Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation
takes place.
Monitors shall have the authority to halt and redirect work should any archaeological resources
be identified during monitoring. If archaeological resources are encountered during ground-
disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must halt and the find evaluated for listing in
the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Construction monitoring may be reduced or
halted at the discretion of the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the lead agency, as
warranted by conditions that include, but are not limited to encountering bedrock, non-native
sediments (infill), or negative findings. Should archaeological spot-checking be recommended by
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.4-20
the Project Archaeologist, it will only occur in areas of new construction, where ground
disturbance will extend to depths not previously reached (unless those depths are within
bedrock). Upon completion of project related ground disturbance and monitoring efforts, a
monitoring report should be submitted to the City for review and approval. The final report
should be transmitted to the South-Central Coastal Information Center housed at California
State University, Fullerton.
Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not
feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavation to
remove the resource from its current location for reburial elsewhere on the project site. Any
historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public,
non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, if such an institution agrees to
accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be reburied
on the project site.
CUL-2B Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program
A qualified archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards for archeology (National Park Service [NPS] 1983) shall conduct worker
environmental awareness program (WEAP) training, prior to the commencement of any ground-
disturbing activities. The sensitivity training shall include a description of the types of cultural
material that may be encountered, cultural sensitivity issues, the regulatory environment, and the
proper protocol for treatment and disposition of cultural materials in the event of a find. The
training shall be required for all earthmoving construction personnel and a sign-in-sheet shall also
be required.
Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2A and 2B would reduce potential impacts to
archaeological resource to a less than significant.
Threshold 3: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Impact CUL-3 THERE ARE NO KNOWN CEMETERIES WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE. IN THE EVENT OF THE
DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS ADHERENCE TO EXISTING REGULATIONS WOULD REDUCE PROJECT IMPACTS
TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVELS.
The project would include ground disturbing activities. The 2007 EIR, stated that no Native American
sacred sites are known to be present in the area, however, past human occupation was present
within the Grapeland community, which included the site and nearby areas. Therefore, the potential
for finding human remains could not be precluded.
Similarly, no cemeteries are known to exist within the project site; however, the project is required
to adhere to State regulations regarding the unanticipated discovery of human remains. The
discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities. If human
remains are found, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no
further disturbance shall occur until the County coroner has made a determination of origin and
disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human
remains, the County coroner would be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined
to be prehistoric, the County coroner would notify the NAHC, which would determine and notify a
Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.4-21
most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD would complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours
of being granted access to the site. With adherence to existing regulations, project impacts to
human remains would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold 4: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource as defined in PRC Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in
the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical
resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k)?
Threshold 5: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource as defined in PRC Section 21074 that is a resource determined by
the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1?
Impact CUL-4 NO TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THE PROJECT SITE; HOWEVER,
PER AB 52 CONSULTATION, NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES HAVE IDENTIFIED THAT THE SITE IS WITHIN ANCESTRAL
TERRITORY WITH PROXIMITY TO KNOWN TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT WOULD
INVOLVE GROUND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING GRADING AND EXCAVATION, WHICH HAVE THE
POTENTIAL TO IMPACT UNKNOWN SUBSURFACE TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.
Ground-disturbing activities associated with individual development projects under the Specific Plan
Amendment could expose previously unidentified subsurface archaeological deposits that may
qualify as tribal cultural resources and could be adversely affected by the project construction.
As part of its tribal cultural resource identification process, and in accordance with the requirements
of AB 52 consultation, the City of Fontana mailed letters to 17 Native American tribes on February
10, 2021 notifying them of the project and providing the opportunity for consultation. As per AB 52
requirements, the tribes had 30 days to respond and request consultation. As discussed under
Methodology of this section, of the tribes contacted under AB 52, only two tribes responded. The
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
responded via email on February 10, 2021, and November 5, 2021, respectively. Both the San
Manuel Band of Mission Indians and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
responded stating that the project site is within their ancestral territories and that they would like
to consult to discuss the project in further detail.
On December 1, 2021, after written follow up from the City, Ryan Nordness, Cultural Resources
Analyst of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, requested additional project information for
further project review to resume consultation per AB 52 requirements. Additional project materials
were provided to Mr. Nordness by the City and a follow up email was sent on April 6, 2022 to
continue consultation efforts. Because consultation with Mr. Nordness has not closed at the time of
this writing, the City will continue to pursue consultation with the tribe during the 45-day public
review period for the Draft SEIR and prior to completion of the Final EIR. The results of consultation
will be incorporated into the Final EIR for this project.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.4-22
On February 28, 2022, in conformance with the requirements of SB 18 consultation, the City of
Fontana mailed letters to the same 17 Native American tribes initially consulted per AB 52. Under SB
18 requirements, the tribes have 90 days to respond and request consultation. Of the tribes
contacted under SB 18, responses have been received thus far from the Quechan Tribe of the Fort
Yuma Reservation (February 28, 2022), San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (March 7, 2022), and
the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuila Indians (March 15, 2022) stating in that they either have no
comment on the project and defer to more local tribes or that the project is of interest but the tribe
sees no conflict with the zoning changes at this time. All three tribes have closed consultation
efforts per SB 18. Nonetheless, the 90-day period is not yet complete at the time of this writing.
Therefore, the City will incorporate into the Final EIR for this project all subsequent correspondence
per SB 18 from local tribes received after the publication of the Draft EIR and prior to the close of
the 90-day review period.
On March 15, 2022, the City of Fontana met with Andrew Salas, Chairperson of the Gabrieleno Band
of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, to discuss the project. In this meeting, the Kizh Nation shared
confidential materials regarding areas of potential sensitivity for tribal cultural resources and
provided proposed mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. The
mitigation developed for this document is modeled after the measures provided by the Kizh Nation.
However, given that multiple tribes requested consultation under AB 52, the mitigation developed
allows for inclusion of all consulting tribes.
No additional responses were received from local Native American tribes per SB 18 or AB 52.
Due to the grading involved with the proposed project, the possibility for the discovery of such
resources exists. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
The 2007 EIR included a mitigation measure to address Tribal concerns related to archaeological
resources. The original mitigation measure has been replaced with Mitigation Measure CUL-2A (as
presented under Impact CUL-2), which considers comments received thus far as part of the tribal
consultation process and is considered functionally equivalent. Mitigation Measures CUL-2B (also
presented under Impact CUL-2) would also be required to prepare construction workers on the
types of cultural material that may be encountered and discuss proper protocol prior to the
commencement of any ground-disturbing activities.
Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2A and 2B would reduce potential impacts to cultural
resources and tribal cultural resources to less than significant.
4.4.4 Cumulative Impacts
Planned and pending projects in Fontana and surrounding areas are listed in Table 3-1 in Section 3,
Environmental Setting, and include residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. The project, in
conjunction with other planned and pending projects in the project site vicinity, would cumulatively
increase the potential to encounter sensitive cultural, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources
and human remains. In the event that cultural, archaeological, tribal cultural resources, and/or
human remains are discovered, each individual project would be required to comply with the
applicable regulatory requirements and mitigate any potential impacts to resources on the
individual project site.
Environmental Impact Analysis Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.4-23
Potential impacts of the project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level due to
implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2A and 2B that would protect cultural, archaeological,
and tribal cultural resources and human remains. Compliance with CEQA requirements, including
the implementation of recommendations provided in project-specific cultural resource studies, on
all new development would ensure that the project would not be cumulatively significant. In the
event that tribal cultural resources are discovered, each individual project would be required to
comply with the applicable regulatory requirements and the consultation requirements of AB 52,
and if applicable SB 18, to determine and mitigate any potential impacts to tribal cultural resources.
Such recommendations may include site avoidance, in-situ preservation, site salvage and
documentation, and/or other measures determined to be necessary based on the resources
identified. Therefore, cumulative impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be less than
significant.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.4-24
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Impact Analysis Energy
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.5-1
4.5 Energy
This section analyzes the energy impacts of the proposed project. To assure project decisions
consider energy implications, CEQA requires a discussion of the potential energy impacts of
proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and
unnecessary consumption of energy. The analysis herein is supported by the Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas Study (Appendix B) and Energy Calculations (Appendix E) prepared for the project
by Rincon Consultants, Inc.
4.5.1 Setting
Energy relates directly to environmental quality because energy use can adversely affect air quality
and other natural resources. Fossil fuels are burned to create electricity to power homes and
vehicles, which creates heat. Transportation energy use relates to the fuel efficiency of cars and
trucks, and the availability and use of public transportation, the choice of different travel modes
(auto, carpool, and public transit), and the miles traveled by these modes. Construction and routine
operation and maintenance of infrastructure also consume energy, as do residential land uses,
typically in the form of natural gas and electricity.
a. Energy Consumption and Sources
Total energy consumption in the United States in 2020 was approximately 104.53 quadrillion British
thermal units (Btu) (Energy Information Administration [EIA] 2021b). In 2020, petroleum provided
approximately 35 percent of that energy, with other sources of energy coming from natural gas
(approximately 34 percent), coal (approximately 10 percent), total renewable sources
(approximately 12 percent), and nuclear power (approximately 9 percent). On a per capita basis in
2019, California was ranked the second lowest state in terms of total energy consumption
(197.8 million Btu [MMBtu] per person), or about 35 percent less than the U.S. average per capita
consumption of 305.4 MMBtu per person (EIA 2019a).
Energy Supply
Natural gas-fired generation has dominated electricity production in California for many years. In
2019, however, the two largest sources of energy produced in California were crude oil at
approximately 920.1 trillion Btu, and renewable energy sources at approximately 1,139.6 trillion
Btu, while natural gas production was 220.8 trillion Btu and nuclear electric power was 168.8 trillion
Btu (EIA 2021a). The City of Fontana contains no oil/gas fields. The nearest well is located in Ontario,
approximately 9.6 miles southwest of the project site in the city, but it has a status of “idle”. The
nearest active well is in the City of San Bernardino, approximately 10.3 miles southeast of the
project site (California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources
2021).
Electricity and Natural Gas
Natural gas-fired power plants provided approximately 35 percent of the total electricity in
California generated in 2020 (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2020). In 2020, California
produced 70 percent of the electricity it used and imported the rest from outside the state. In 2019,
California used 263,329 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity, with 201,784 GWh produced in-state
(EIA 2020).
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.5-2
San Bernardino County as a whole consumed approximately 527.2 million therms of natural gas in
2020 in both residential and non-residential uses (CEC 2021a). San Bernardino County also
consumed approximately 15,968.5 GWh of electricity in 2020 from residential and non-residential
uses (CEC 2021b).
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to Fontana, including the project site. SCE
maintains substations and distribution lines in the region, including the Rancho Vista substation,
approximately six miles southwest of the project site in Rancho Cucamonga and the Calectric
substation, approximately nine miles southeast of the project site in San Bernardino. Additionally, as
discussed in Section 2, Project Description, a SCE transmission line corridor is adjacent to the
southeastern project boundary.
Southern California Gas (SCG) provides natural gas service to approximately six million residential
and business customers across 20,000 square miles of southern California, including Fontana (SCG
2021a). The project site is located in SCG’s Northern Zone. An existing natural gas transmission line
and high-pressure distribution line owned and operated by SCG is located approximately 430 feet
southeast and 600 feet east, respectively of the project site (SCG 2021b).
Petroleum
Energy consumed by the transportation sector accounts for roughly 39.4 percent of California’s
energy demand, amounting to approximately 3,073.3 trillion Btu in 2019 (EIA 2019a). Petroleum-
based fuels are used for approximately 98.4 percent of the state’s transportation activity (EIA
2019b). Most gasoline and diesel fuel sold in California for motor vehicles is refined in California to
meet state-specific formulations required by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). California’s
transportation sector, including on-road and rail transportation, consumed approximately 662
million barrels of petroleum fuels in 2019 (EIA 2021c).
Approximately 982 million gallons of fuel were consumed in San Bernardino County in 2020, of
which approximately 823 million gallons were gasoline and approximately 159 million gallons were
diesel fuel (CEC 2021c). This equates to approximately 2.7 million gallons of fuel per day or
1.2 gallons of fuel per person per day, based on a 2021 countywide population of 2,175,909 people
(California Department of Finance [DOF] 2021). The City of Fontana consumed approximately
82 million gallons of gasoline in 2020 (CEC 2021c). This equates to approximately 224,657 gallons of
fuel per day or 1.1 gallons of fuel per person per day, based on a 2021 countywide population of
213,944 people (DOF 2021).
Alternative Fuels
A variety of alternative fuels are used to reduce petroleum-based fuel demand. The use of these
fuels is encouraged through various statewide regulations and plans (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard
and Health and Safety Code Section 38566 [Senate Bill (SB) 32]). Conventional gasoline and diesel
may be replaced, depending on the capability of the vehicle, with many alternative fuels including
the following:
Hydrogen is being explored for use in combustion engines and fuel cell electric vehicles. The
interest in hydrogen as an alternative transportation fuel stems from its clean-burning qualities,
its potential for domestic production, and the fuel cell vehicle's potential for high efficiency (two
to three times more efficient than gasoline vehicles). Currently, 48 open hydrogen refueling
stations are in California. A station is planned for development in Fontana; however it is in the
permitting stage and is not currently open (California Fuel Cell Partnership 2021).
Environmental Impact Analysis Energy
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.5-3
Biodiesel is a renewable alternative fuel that can be manufactured from vegetable oils, animal
fats, or recycled restaurant greases. Biodiesel is biodegradable and cleaner-burning than
petroleum-based diesel fuel. Biodiesel can run in any diesel engine generally without alterations
but fueling stations have been slow to make it available. There are nine biodiesel refueling
stations in California and the nearest to the project site is located approximately 10.8 miles
southwest of the project site in the City of Ontario (U.S. Department of Energy 2021).
Electricity can be used to power electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles directly from the
power grid. The electricity grid usually provides electricity used to power vehicles, which store it
in the vehicle's batteries. The electricity provided by SCE will be 100 percent carbon free by
2045 (SCE 2022). Fuel cells are being explored to use electricity generated on board the vehicle
to power electric motors. Electrical charging stations are available throughout Fontana and San
Bernardino County.
b. Energy and Fuel Efficiency
Though the demand for gasoline and diesel fuel is rising because of population growth and limited
mass transit, the increase in demand can be offset partially by efficiency improvements. Land use
policies that encourage infill and growth near transit centers (e.g., following SB 375, the Sustainable
Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008), improvements to fuel efficiency, and gradual
replacement of the vehicle fleet with new, more fuel-efficient and alternative-fuel as well as electric
cars will all reduce fuel use. In the future, increasing gasoline prices may apply downward pressure
to gasoline demand in the state.
4.5.2 Regulatory Setting
Programs and policies at the federal, state, and local levels have emerged to enhance the previous
trend towards energy efficiency; these are discussed in the following section.
a. Federal Regulations
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards are federal rules established by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that set fuel economy and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions standards for new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States. The CAFE
standards become more stringent each year, reaching an estimated 38.3 miles per gallon (mpg) for
the combined industry-wide fleet for model year 2020 (77 Federal Register 62624 et seq.
[October 15, 2021, Table I-1). It is, however, legally infeasible for individual municipalities to adopt
more stringent fuel efficiency standards. The Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 United States Code [USC]
Section 7543[a]) states that “no state or any political subdivision therefore shall adopt or attempt to
enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor
vehicle engines subject to this part.” In August 2016, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) and NHTSA announced the adoption of the phase two programs related to the fuel
economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The phase two program will apply
to vehicles with model year 2018 through 2027 for certain trailers, and model years 2021 through
2027 for semi- trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. The
final standards are expected to lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by approximately 1.1 billion
metric tons (MT) of CO2 and reduce oil consumption by up to two billion barrels over the lifetime of
the vehicles sold under the program.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.5-4
Energy Policy and Conservation Act
Enacted in 1975, this legislation established fuel economy standards for new light-duty vehicles
(autos, pickups, vans, and sport-utility vehicles). The law placed responsibility on the NHTSA, a part
of the U.S. Department of Transportation, for establishing and regularly updating vehicle standards.
The USEPA administers the CAFE program, which determines vehicle manufacturers’ compliance
with existing fuel economy standards. Since the inception of the program, the average fuel economy
standard for new light-duty vehicles steadily increased from 13.1 mpg for the 1975 model year to
30.7 mpg for the 2014 model year and increase to 54.5 mpg by 2025.
Energy Star Program
In 1992, the USEPA introduced Energy Star as a voluntary labeling program to identify and promote
energy-efficient products to reduce GHG emissions. The program applies to major household
appliances, lighting, computers, and building components, such as windows, doors, roofs, and
heating and cooling systems. Under this program, appliances that meet specification for maximum
energy use established under the program are certified to display the Energy Star label. In 1996, the
USEPA joined with the Energy Department to expand the program, which now includes qualifying
commercial and industrial buildings as well as homes.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was designed to improve vehicle fuel economy
and help reduce nationwide dependence on foreign oil. It expands the production of renewable
fuels, reducing dependence on oil, and confronting global climate change. Specifically, it increases
the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard by requiring
fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022 and reduces U.S. demand for oil by
setting a national fuel economy standard of 35 mpg by 2020.
b. State Regulations
California Energy Action Plan
The CEC, in collaboration with California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), is responsible for
preparing the California Energy Action Plan (EAP), which identifies emerging trends related to
energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy
economy. The 2003 California EAP calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the
transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of
fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan
identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in
implementing incentive programs for zero-emission vehicles and addressing their infrastructure
needs; and encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and
accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.
In the October 2005 EAP II, the CEC and CPUC updated their energy policy vision by adding some
important dimensions to the policy areas included in the original EAP, such as information on the
emerging importance of climate change, transportation-related energy issues, and research and
development activities. The CEC adopted an update to the EAP II in February 2008 that supplements
the earlier EAPs and examines the state’s ongoing actions in the context of global climate change. In
Environmental Impact Analysis Energy
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.5-5
2008, the CEC determined an update to the plan was not needed due to state regulations such as
Assembly Bill (AB) 32.
Assembly Bill 2076: Reducing Dependence on Petroleum
Pursuant to AB 2076 (Chapter 936, Statutes of 2000), the CEC and California Air Resources Board
(CARB) prepared and adopted a joint-agency report, Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence.
Included in this report are recommendations to increase the use of alternative fuels to 20 percent of
on-road transportation fuel use by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030, significantly increase the efficiency
of motor vehicles, and reduce per capita VMT. One performance-based goal for AB 2076 is to
reduce petroleum demand to 15 percent below 2003 demand. Furthermore, in response to the
CEC’s 2003 and 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Reports, the Governor directed the CEC to take the
lead in developing a long-term plan to increase alternative fuel use.
Integrated Energy Policy Report
SB 1389 (Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002) required the CEC to conduct assessments and forecasts of
energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices.
The CEC uses these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies and recommendations to
conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the State’s
economy, and protect public health and safety.
Senate Bill X1-2: California Renewable Energy Resources Act
In 2011, the Governor signed SB X1-2, which requires retail sellers of electricity, including investor-
owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide at least 33 percent of their electricity
supply from renewable sources by 2020. The CPUC and CEC implement the statewide RPS program
through rulemakings and monitoring the activities of electric energy utilities in the State.
Senate Bill 1078: California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program
SB 1078 (Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002), and as expanded under SB X1-2, establishes a Renewables
Portfolio Standard (RPS) for electricity supply. The initial RPS program only required electrical
corporations to provide 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by increasing its total
procurement at least one percent each year to reach the 20 percent goal. SB X1-2 expanded this law
by making it applicable to retail sellers of electricity and required procurement from eligible
renewable energy resources to 33 percent by 2020.
Senate Bill 350: Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015
The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350) requires the amount of electricity
generated and sold to retail customers per year from eligible renewable energy resources to be
increased to 50 percent by December 31, 2030. This act also requires doubling of the energy
efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas for retail customers through energy efficiency and
conservation by December 31, 2030.
Senate Bill 100
Adopted on September 10, 2018, SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the
electricity sector by accelerating the state’s RPS Program, which was last updated by SB 350 in 2015.
SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.5-6
resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 44 percent by 2024, 60 percent by 2030, and
100 percent by 2045.
Assembly Bill 1493: Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
AB 1493 (Chapter 200, Statutes of 2002), known as the Pavley Bill, amended Health and Safety Code
sections 42823 and added 43018.5 requiring CARB to develop and adopt regulations that achieve
maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from passenger vehicles, light-
duty trucks, and other vehicles used for noncommercial personal transportation in California.
Assembly Bill 1007: State Alternative Fuels Plan
AB 1007 (Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) required the CEC to prepare a state plan to increase the
use of alternative fuels in California. The CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan (SAF Plan) in
partnership with CARB and in consultation with other federal, state, and local agencies. The SAF
Plan presents strategies and actions California must take to increase the use of alternative
nonpetroleum fuels in a manner that minimizes costs to California and maximizes the economic
benefits of in-state production. The SAF Plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel
portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuels
use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in-state production of biofuels without causing a
significant degradation of public health and environmental quality.
Bioenergy Action Plan, Executive Order S-06-06
Executive Order (EO) S-06-06, April 25, 2006, establishes targets for the use and production of
biofuels and biopower, and directs State agencies to work together to advance biomass programs in
California, while providing environmental protection and mitigation. The EO establishes the
following target to increase the production and use of bioenergy, including ethanol and biodiesel
fuels made from renewable resources: produce a minimum of 20 percent of its biofuels in California
by 2010, 40 percent by 2020, and 75 percent by 2050. EO S-06-06 also calls for the state to meet a
target for use of biomass electricity. The 2011 Bioenergy Action Plan identifies those barriers and
recommends actions to address them so that the State can meet its clean energy, waste reduction,
and climate protection goals. The 2012 Bioenergy Action Plan updates the 2011 Plan and provides a
more detailed action plan to achieve the following goals:
Increase environmentally and economically sustainable energy production from organic waste
Encourage development of diverse bioenergy technologies that increase local electricity
generation, combined heat and power facilities, renewable natural gas, and renewable liquid
fuels for transportation and fuel cell applications
Create jobs and stimulate economic development, especially in rural regions of the State
Reduce fire danger, improve air and water quality, and reduce waste
Title 24, California Code of Regulations
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, is California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for
Residential and Non-residential Buildings. The CEC established Title 24 in 1978 in response to a
legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption and
provide energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. The standards are
updated on an approximately three-year cycle to allow consideration and possible incorporation of
new efficient technologies and methods.
Environmental Impact Analysis Energy
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.5-7
In 2016, the CEC updated Title 24 standards with more stringent requirements effective January 1,
2017. The building efficiency standards are enforced through the local plan check and building
permit process. Local government agencies may adopt and enforce additional energy standards for
new buildings as reasonably necessary due to local climatologic, geologic, or topographic conditions,
provided these standards exceed those provided in Title 24.
The 2019 update to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards under Title 24 applies to buildings for
which an application for a building permit is submitted on or after January 1, 2020. In nonresidential
buildings, the standards mainly update indoor and outdoor lighting and use of light emitting diode
(LED) technology as well as HVAC ventilation and filtration requirements (CEC 2018a).
2019 California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) was developed to provide a consistent
approach to green building within the State. CALGreen lays out the minimum requirements for
newly constructed residential and nonresidential buildings to reduce GHG emissions through
improved efficiency and process improvements. The requirements pertain to energy efficiency (in
excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and
internal air contaminants. It also includes voluntary tiers to further encourage building practices
that improve public health, safety, and general welfare by promoting a more sustainable design.
California Air Resources Board
CARB has a number of regulations and standards that seek to limit emissions from mobile sources
and pollution from specific types of operation or source pollution. These policies indirectly impact
energy consumption. These include:
In-Use Off-Road Diesel Rule: Imposes limits on idling, restricts the addition of older vehicles, and
requires the retirement or replacement of older engines depending on their fleet size category.
Phase 1 Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle GHG Emission Standards: establishes
standards for new medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles sold in California.
Advanced Clean Cars Plan: Coordinates regulating smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions
through developing more stringent emissions standards for vehicles and improving the number
of zero-emission vehicles on the roadways.
Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ACTM) to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling:
prohibits idling of diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings
greater than 10,000 pounds, including buses and trucks, for more than five minutes at any
location.
c. Local Regulations
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana General Plan contains objectives and policies that seek to reduce energy use in Fontana
and to provide renewable energy sources. The Sustainability and Resilience chapter contains energy
conservation items. Goals and policies that relate to the project include:
Goal 3: Renewable sources of energy, including solar wind, and other energy-conservation
strategies are available to city households and business.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.5-8
Policy: Promote renewable energy programs for government, Fontana businesses, and
Fontana residences.
Goal 5: Green building techniques are used in new development and retrofits.
Policy: Promote green building through guidelines, awards, and nonfinancial incentives.
4.5.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, an energy-related impact would be considered
significant if the project would result in one or more of the following conditions:
Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
b. Methodology
The physical environmental impacts associated with the use of energy, including the generation of
electricity and burning of fuels, have been accounted for in Section 4.2, Air Quality, and Section 4.7,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Energy consumption is analyzed herein in terms of construction and
operational energy.
Construction energy demand and operational energy demand were calculated based on information
contained in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) run prepared for the project’s air
quality and GHG emissions studies (Appendix B, respectively). This analysis then determined
whether energy consumed during construction and operation would be wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary. Construction energy demand accounts for anticipated energy consumption during
construction of development facilitated by the proposed project, such as fuel consumed by
construction equipment and construction workers’ vehicles traveling to and from the construction
site. These construction activities would temporarily create a higher demand for energy supplies.
The extent of energy use generated by construction equipment would depend on the quantity of
equipment used and the hours of operation for each project. Energy demand from construction
activities would be primarily from gasoline and diesel fuel consumption. Operational energy
demand accounts for the anticipated energy consumption during operation of the development
facilitated by the project, such as fuel consumed by cars, trucks, and public transit; natural gas
consumed for on-site power generation and heating building spaces; and electricity consumed for
building power needs, including, but not limited to, lighting, water conveyance, and air conditioning.
Construction and operational fuel consumption were calculated using the CalEEMod outputs and
post-model spreadsheets. For operational electricity and natural gas consumption, the CalEEMod
outputs were used.
Environmental Impact Analysis Energy
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.5-9
c. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during
project construction or operation?
Impact E-1 THE PROJECT WOULD CONSUME ELECTRICITY, NATURAL GAS, AND FUEL DURING
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION. HOWEVER, THE PROJECT WOULD NOT PLACE SIGNIFICANT
ADDITIONAL DEMAND ON SCE OR SCG AND WOULD COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE CONSERVATION
STANDARDS. NEITHER PROJECT CONSTRUCTION NOR OPERATION WOULD RESULT IN WASTEFUL,
INEFFICIENT, OR UNNECESSARY CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Construction Energy Demand
During project construction, energy would be consumed in the form of petroleum-based fuels used
to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction worker
travel to and from the project site, and vehicles used to deliver materials to the site. The
manufacturing of construction materials would also involve energy use. Due to the large number of
materials and manufacturers involved in the production of construction materials, including
manufacturers in other states and countries, upstream energy use cannot be estimated reasonably
or accurately. Furthermore, the California Natural Resources Agency’s Final Statement of Reasons
notes that “a full ‘lifecycle’ analysis that would account for energy used in building materials and
consumer products will generally not be required” (California Natural Resources Agency 2018). Also,
it is reasonable to assume that manufacturers of building materials such as concrete, steel, lumber,
or other building materials would employ energy conservation practices in the interest of
minimizing the cost of doing business. Therefore, the consumption of energy required for the
manufacturing of building and construction material is not part of the quantitative analysis.
The proposed project would require site preparation and grading; pavement and asphalt
installation; building construction; architectural coating; and landscaping and hardscaping. The total
consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel during project construction was estimated using the
assumptions and factors from the CalEEMod run used to estimate construction air emissions in the
air quality assessment. Worker trips to and from the project site are assumed to use gasoline fuel
from passenger cars and light/medium trucks.
Table 4.5-1 presents the estimated construction phase energy consumption. Construction
equipment and vendor/hauling trips would consume approximately 475,157 gallons of diesel fuel
over the entire duration of construction. Worker trips would consume approximately 690,724
gallons of gasoline fuel over the project’s construction period.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.5-10
Table 4.5-1 Project Construction Fuel Consumption
Fuel Type Gasoline (gallons) Diesel (gallons)
Phase 1: Planning Areas 1 and 2
Construction Equipment & Vendor/Hauling Trips N/A 212,287
Construction Worker Vehicle Trips 289,791 N/A
Phase 2: Planning Area 3
Construction Equipment & Vendor/Hauling Trips N/A 71,596
Construction Worker Vehicle Trips 93,227 N/A
Phase 3: Planning Area 4 and 5
Construction Equipment & Vendor/Hauling Trips N/A 139,873
Construction Worker Vehicle Trips 272,229 N/A
Phase 4: Planning Area 6
Construction Equipment & Vendor/Hauling Trips N/A 51,401
Construction Worker Vehicle Trips 35,476 N/A
Total 690,724 475,157
N/A = not applicable
Notes: Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding.
See Appendix E for energy calculation sheets.
Energy use during construction would be temporary in nature, and construction equipment used
would be typical of similar-sized construction projects in the region. In addition, construction
contractors would be required to comply with the provisions of California Code of Regulations
Title 13 Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles and off-
road diesel vehicles from idling for more than five minutes and would minimize unnecessary fuel
consumption. Construction equipment would be subject to the USEPA Construction Equipment Fuel
Efficiency Standard, which would also minimize inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel
consumption. Furthermore, per applicable regulatory requirements such as 2019 CALGreen, the
project would comply with construction waste management practices to divert a minimum of
65 percent of construction debris. These practices would result in efficient use of energy necessary
to construct the project.
Also, similar to the manufacturers utilizing energy conservation methods to reduce costs, it is
reasonable to assume contractors would avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary fuel
consumption during construction to reduce construction costs. Therefore, the project would not
involve the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy during construction, and the
construction-phase impact related to energy consumption would be less than significant.
Operational Energy Demand
Project operation would contribute to regional energy demand by consuming electricity, natural
gas, and gasoline and diesel fuels. Natural gas and electricity would be used for heating and cooling
systems, lighting, appliances, and water and wastewater conveyance, among other purposes.
Gasoline and diesel consumption would be associated with vehicle trips generated by residents,
customers, and deliveries. Table 4.5-2 shows the estimated electricity usage per year based on the
Environmental Impact Analysis Energy
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.5-11
land use type. Electricity consumption is based on CalEEMod outputs from the air quality analysis.
The outputs include Title 24 standards for the various land uses of the project and are baseline
values determined through CEC surveys and studies.
As shown in Table 4.5-2, vehicle trips related to the project would require approximately 2.2 million
gallons of gasoline and 400,963 gallons of diesel fuel, or 301,296 MMBtu annually (refer to
Appendix E for energy calculation sheets). Gasoline and diesel fuel demands would be met by
existing gasoline stations in the vicinity of the project site. Furthermore, vehicles driven by future
residents of development facilitated by the project would be subject to increasingly stringent State
fuel efficiency standards, thereby minimizing the potential for the inefficient consumption of vehicle
fuels. As a result, vehicle fuel consumption resulting from the project would not be wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary.
Table 4.5-2 Project Operational Energy Usage per Year
Source Energy Consumption Energy Consumption (in MMBtu)
Vehicle Trips
Gasoline 2,284,614 gallons 250,189
Diesel 400,963 gallons 51,107
Built Environment
Electricity 15,321,131 kWh 52,276
Natural Gas Usage 45,272,866 kBtu 25,913
Note: MMBtu = millions of British thermal units; kWh = kilowatt-hours; kBtu = thousands of British thermal
units.
See Appendix B for CalEEMod default values for fleet mix and average distance of travel and Appendix E for energy calculation sheets.
As shown in Table 4.5-3, in addition to transportation energy use, development facilitated by the
projects would require permanent grid connections for electricity and natural gas. Development
facilitated by the project would consume approximately 15 million kilowatt-hours (kWh), or 53,275
MMBtu per year of electricity for lighting and large appliances, and approximately 45.2 million kBtu,
or 25,913 MMBtu per year of natural gas for heating and cooking (see Appendix B for CalEEMod
results). Electricity would be provided by SCE. As discussed in detail in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards require installation of solar photovoltaic
systems for residential buildings of three stories and less to generate an amount of electricity equal
to or greater than the expected electricity usage. Given historic electricity use, CEC’s and CPUC’s
long-range planning efforts, and future on-site solar generation, there would be adequate capacity
to meet demand for electricity. Furthermore, utility-driven California natural gas demand is
expected to decrease at a rate of one percent per year from 2019 to 2035; therefore, the
incremental increase in natural gas consumption from development facilitated by the project would
not indirectly result in the need to secure additional natural gas supplies or construct new or
expanded natural gas processing plants (California Gas and Electric Utilities 2020).
Development facilitated by the project would comply with the 2019 California Building Energy
Efficiency Standards and CALGreen (CCR Title 24, Parts 6 and 11) or later versions, which are
anticipated to be more stringent than the 2019 codes. The 2019 standards require the provision of
electric vehicle charging equipment, water-efficient plumbing fixtures and fittings, recycling
services, solar on low-rise residential development, and other energy efficiency measures that
would reduce the potential for the inefficient use of energy.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.5-12
Table 4.5-3 Project Consistency with the Fontana General Plan
Policies Project Consistency
General Plan Chapter 10: Infrastructure and Green Systems
Policy: Promote renewable energy
and distributed energy systems in
new development and retrofits of
existing development to work toward
becoming a zero net energy city.
Consistent. Development facilitated by the project would be required to
comply with the latest Title 24 standards. Development facilitated by the
project would be required to use efficiency lighting, implement sustainable
purchasing, and study feasibility of solar or other renewable energy.
General Plan Chapter 12: Sustainability and Resilience
Policy: Continue organizational and
operational improvements to
maximize energy and resource
efficiency and reduce waste.
Consistent. Development facilitated by the project would be required to
comply with energy conservation regulations and policies applicable to new
residential developments, including California’s Energy Efficiency Standards
(CCR Title 24, Part 6) and CALGreen. Development facilitated by the project
would be required to comply with City energy conservation standards and
would be constructed per the most recent energy efficiency standards, as
required for new residential developments. Development would be located in
proximity to transit, Downtown jobs, services, and open spaces, which would
reduce motor vehicle use and support alternative forms of transportation.
Policy: Promote energy-efficient development in Fontana. Consistent. The project buildings would be designed and constructed to be solar ready, to facilitate easy installation of solar PV infrastructure for solar power generation. Project buildings would be designed to implement energy
conservation features, including efficient HVAC systems, pursuant to the most
recent Title 24 standards.
Policy: Meet or exceed state goals for
energy efficient new construction.
Consistent. Project buildings would be designed pursuant to Title 24
requirements, which mandates that unitary heating or cooling systems not
controlled by a central energy management control system (EMCS) must have
a setback thermostat with a clock mechanism.
Source: Fontana General Plan 2015
Some of the anticipated new residents that would be accommodated by the project, as identified in
section 4.12, Population and Housing, are likely already living in the city or within the area under
San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) jurisdiction, and therefore they would not
create substantial energy demands in the region beyond that which they consume at this time.
Further, development facilitated by the project would be located in the vicinity of transit,
Downtown jobs, services, and open space, which would reduce energy use by lowering VMT. As
described above, development facilitated by the project would not result in a wasteful, inefficient,
or unnecessary consumption of energy, and would not result in potentially significant
environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Environmental Impact Analysis Energy
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.5-13
Threshold 2: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency?
Impact E-2 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH OR OBSTRUCT
AN APPLICABLE RENEWABLE ENERGY OR ENERGY EFFICIENCY PLAN. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT.
The City of Fontana has not adopted any specific renewable energy or energy efficiency plan. As
described Section 4.5.2, Regulatory Setting, the Fontana General Plan contains policies targeting
energy efficiency. As demonstrated in Table 4.5-3, the project would be consistent with applicable
General Plan policies intended to encourage energy efficiency. As such, the project would not
conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and there
would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
4.5.4 Cumulative Impacts
A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an
individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15065[a][3]). The geographic scope for energy consumption is the City of Fontana. This
geographic scope is appropriate because the smallest scale at which energy consumption
information is readily available is the city level. Cumulative buildout of the Fontana General Plan is
considered part of this cumulative analysis. Cumulative development would increase demand for
energy resources, but those resources would not be consumed in a wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary manner. Moreover, new iterations of the California Building Energy Efficiency
Standards and CALGreen would require increasingly more efficient appliances and building materials
that reduce energy consumption in new development. In addition, vehicle fuel efficiency is
anticipated to continue improving through implementation of the existing Pavley Bill regulations
under AB 1493.
As described under Impact E-1, development facilitated by the project would be constructed in
accordance with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. Additionally,
housing development under the proposed project is presumed to lower VMT due to the proximity
to office and commercial uses. Therefore, the project’s contribution to a significant cumulative
energy impact is not cumulatively considerable. Development facilitated by the project would not
result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and operation of the new
residential structures would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, the project would not make
a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.
The geographic scopes for the cumulative impact analysis of consistency with renewable energy and
energy efficiency plans are the State of California and the City of Fontana. Projects throughout the
State of California are required to adhere to applicable renewable energy and energy efficiency
laws, programs, and policies such as California’s RPS, AB 1493, and Title 24 standards. All other
pending and future projects in the county would be required to adhere to General Plan policies to
mitigate energy impacts where feasible. In addition, all pending and future projects would be
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.5-14
reviewed for consistency with the Fontana General Plan. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be
less than significant. As discussed under Impact E-2, development facilitated by the project would
be consistent with the energy-related goals, policies, and actions of the statewide plans, and the
Fontana General Plan. Therefore, the project would not make a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative impact with respect to consistency with renewable energy
and energy efficiency plans.
Environmental Impact Analysis Geology and Soils
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.6-1
4.6 Geology and Soils
This section analyzes potential impacts related to geology and soils. Specific issues addressed
include seismic hazards, underlying soil characteristics, slope stability, and erosion. Data used to
prepare this section was obtained from the Fontana General Plan, the United States Geological
Survey, California Geological Survey, California Department of Conservation, and Southern California
Earthquake Data Center.
4.6.1 Setting
a. Regional Geology and Drainage
San Bernardino County is geographically and topographically diverse, encompassing mountains,
hills, and flatlands. The city of Fontana is located in the southwest portion of San Bernardino
County. The numerous faults in southern California include active, potentially active, and inactive
faults. The criteria for these major groups are based on criteria developed by the California Geologic
Survey (CGS) for the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Program. By definition, an active fault is
one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). A
potentially active fault has demonstrated surface displacement during Quaternary time
(approximately the last 1.6 million years) but has had no known Holocene movement. Faults that
have not moved in the last 1.6 million years are considered inactive.
The Sierra Madre-Cucamonga Fault System includes several fault segments along the southern
margin of the San Gabriel Mountains in the County. The Sierra Madre Fault Zone runs along the
base of the central San Gabriel Mountains and the Cucamonga Fault Zone runs along the base of the
eastern San Gabriel Mountains. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard
Maps have indicated this fault as active, with a maximum magnitude of 7.0. Several additional faults
run throughout the county; the second closest fault being the San Jacinto Fault located
approximately 1.6 miles northeast of the city; the farthest being the Sierra Madre (central) Fault
located approximately 14.5 miles west of the city.
The County of San Bernardino is underlain by various soil types. Particularly, alluvium, lake, playa,
and terrace deposits along with mesozoic granite, quartz monzonite, granodiorite, and quartz
diorite can be found in and near the City of Fontana (California Department of Conservation (DOC)
2018). Areas within the county that are susceptible to seismic hazards include most locations in the
southwestern region of the county and some areas located in the northwestern region. As denoted
in Geology and Soils of the County’s Countywide Plan EIR, areas within the county that are
susceptible to landslides exists along the northern boundary of the mountain region and the
southern portion of the valley region. Furthermore, areas with high susceptibility for liquefaction
occur in areas with alluvial fans and floodplain deposits along the Santa Ana River, Mill Creek, City
Creek, Cajon Creek, and Lytle Creek, Southern Chino and much of southern San Bernardino are also
susceptible to liquefaction. In addition, Ontario’s New Model Colony (the Ranch area) has also been
found to be susceptible to liquefaction. Liquefaction is also a concern in some smaller areas near
water bodies such as Big Bear Lake, Erwin Lake, and Baldwin Lake (County of San Bernardino 2019).
The project site lays within the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin (RCGB) which is controlled and
monitored by the West Valley Water District (WVWD). The Rialto-Colton subbasin underlies a
portion of the upper Santa Ana Valley in southwestern San Bernardino County and northwestern
Riverside County. This subbasin is about 10 miles long and varies in width from about 3.5 miles in
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.6-2
the northwestern portion located along foothills near Lytle Creek Road, to about 1.5 miles in the
southeastern portion located near the I-10 and I-215 intersection. This subbasin is bounded by the
San Gabriel Mountains on the northwest, the San Jacinto fault on the northeast, the Badlands on
the southeast, and the Rialto-Colton fault on the southwest. The WVWD and its predecessors have
been utilizing the Rialto Basin for water supply for more than 80 years. The basin shows quick rises
of water levels during high precipitation years and slower decline over several years. Under normal
conditions, when the basin is not in adjudication, WVWD has unlimited extraction rights. During
drought conditions when the adjudication is in effect, the WVWD’s extraction right ranges from
3,067 AFY in the most severe drought periods to a maximum of 6,134 AFY. Existing wells in the
Rialto Basin have the capacity to extract up to 10,000 AFY during normal conditions (Water Systems
Consulting, Inc. 2020).
b. Local Geology
The City of Fontana is divided into two distinct geographical areas. The southern and central
portions of the city are primarily flat with areas of gradual slopes to the south and west. The
northern portion of the city consists of gently rising foothills (City of Fontana 2018).
The city is located within the northern portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of
California, near the boundary with the Transverse Ranges Province. The project site is located at the
northeastern corner of a structural block within the Peninsular Ranges. This block is known as the
Perris Block. The Perris Block is bounded by two faults, the San Jacinto Fault on the northeast and
the Elsinore Fault on the southwest. The city is underlain by relatively young (Holocene and late
Pleistocene) alluvial deposits of the Lytle Creek alluvial fan. In the southern portion of the city, the
deposits are relatively fine-grained (mainly pebbles and cobbles) and become coarser grained
(cobbles and boulders) to the north (City of Fontana 2018).
Sediments on the site consist of alluvial fan deposits, which include sandy gravels and gravelly sands
with silty sand interbeds. Colluvial deposits are present on the project site and include clayey silt,
sandy silt and silty clays with scattered rocks and pebbles. Bedrock materials are undivided igneous
and metamorphic rock complex of marble, slate-like material and massive coarse-crystalline rocks
(City of Fontana 2007). There are no large open bodies of water near the site, which may create
tsunami hazards during an earthquake event in the area. Also, no enclosed bodies of water that can
experience seiche during an earthquake are present in the project area. Flooding due to failure of a
dam or other water retaining structure is considered negligible due to the absence of dams near the
site.
Geologic Hazards
Soils
The City of Fontana is highly urbanized. Surface soils in the city may no longer reflect natural soil
associations and characteristics since topsoil in the city has been developed. The project site is
underlain by Hanford coarse sandy loam (Hac) on the northern section and Tujunga gravelly loamy
sand (Tvc) on the southern section (USDA 2019). This type of soil is characterized of having low to
moderate erosion hazard, and expansive properties. Runoff is typically low to medium, and the
erosion hazard is slight to moderate. The soil retains a relatively high amount of water (City of
Fontana 2007).
Environmental Impact Analysis Geology and Soils
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.6-3
Seismicity and Surface Fault Rupture
There are no major active faults within the city boundaries and thus on the project site. However,
there are a number of faults that border the Lytle Creek alluvial basin such as the Chino,
Cucamonga, San Andreas, and San Jacinto faults. The nearest earthquake fault to the project site is
the Cucamonga Fault, which is located approximately 0.2-mile northwest of the site, at Lytle Creek
Canyon. Additionally, the project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and has
no active faults that pass directly beneath it (City of Fontana 2018).
Furthermore, the San Jacinto Fault and the Lytle Creek Fault, are located approximately 1.6 miles
northwest of the project site. However, in 2007, geologic investigations at this fault zone showed no
evidence of faulting, anomalous disruption of the lenses, or areas of rotated clasts. Thus, it was
determined that active faulting was not present at the city’s northern end. Table 4.6-1 illustrates the
surrounding regional faults in relation to the projects site. Figure 4.6-1 shows the fault zones in
proximity to the project site.
Table 4.6-1 Regional Faults in Relation to the Project Site
Fault Name Distance to Project Site (miles) Estimated Slip Rate (mm/yr) Estimated Maximum Earthquake (MW)
Cucamonga 0.2 5.00 7.0
San Jacinto – San Bernardino 1.6 12.00 6.7
San Andreas - Southern 6.7 24.0 7.4
Cleghorn 9.3 3.0 6.5
San Andreas – 1857 Rupture 10.9 34.0 7.8
San Jose 13.9 0.5 6.5
North Frontal Fault Zone (west) 14.1 1.0 7.0
Sierra Madre (central) 14.5 3.0 7.0
Source: City of Fontana 2007
Subsidence
Subsidence occurs when a large portion of land is displaced vertically, usually due to the withdrawal
of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. Soils particularly subject to subsidence include those with high
silt or clay content. Soils with high shrink-swell potential can be particularly susceptible to
subsidence during a loss of soil moisture. The project site is located on Hanford coarse sandy loam
and Tujunga soils on a zero to two percent slope, which has a very slow runoff potential and slight
erosion hazards. They are slightly acid throughout and rapidly permeable. Both Hanford and
Tujunga soils have slight to moderate erosion hazard and low shrink-swell potential. Additionally,
subsidence hazards can occur from the settlement of under-consolidated soils that may occur
during earthquake shaking. The city has no ongoing or planned large-scale extractions of
groundwater or petroleum that would cause subsidence associated with fluid withdrawal.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.6-4
Figure 4.6-1 Reqional Earthquake Fault Zones
Environmental Impact Analysis Geology and Soils
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-5
4.6.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
U.S. Congress passed the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act in 1977 to reduce the risks to life and
property from future earthquakes through the establishment and maintenance of an effective
earthquake hazards reduction program. To accomplish this goal, the act established the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. This program was substantially amended in November
1990 by the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Act, which refined the description of
agency responsibilities, program goals, and objectives to focus on minimizing loss from earthquakes
after they occur. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program promotes the adoption of
earthquake hazard reduction activities by all scales of government and works to develop national
building standards and model codes for use by engineers, architects, and all others involved in the
planning and construction of buildings and infrastructure.
b. State Regulations
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 provides a mechanism for reducing losses
from surface fault rupture on a statewide basis. The intent of the Act is to ensure public safety by
prohibiting the siting of most structures for human occupancy across traces of active faults that
constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. Generally, siting of
structures for human occupancy must be set back from the fault by approximately 50 feet. This Act
groups faults into categories of active, potentially active, and inactive. Historic and Holocene age
faults are considered active, Late Quaternary and Quaternary age faults are considered potentially
active, and pre-Quaternary age faults are considered inactive.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 directs the California Geological Survey (CGS) to delineate
Seismic Hazard Zones. The purpose of the Act is to reduce the threat to public health and safety and
to minimize the loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating seismic hazards. Cities,
counties, and State agencies are directed to use seismic hazard zone maps developed by CGS in
their land-use planning and permitting processes. The Act requires that site-specific the preparation
of geotechnical investigations, including mitigation measures based on site-specific conditions, prior
to permitting most urban development projects in seismic hazard zones.
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 provides protection for paleontological resources
on public lands, where Section 5097.5(a) states, in part, that:
No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface,
any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological
site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, rock art, or any other
archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the
express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over the lands.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.6-6
California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC) is contained in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2,
which is a portion of the California Building Standards Code. Title 24 is assigned to the California
Building Standards Commission, which by law is responsible for coordinating all building standards.
The CBC incorporates by reference the federal Uniform Building Code with necessary California
amendments. The CBC is the regulatory tool that includes building code standards to address
geologic and seismic hazards. Approximately one-third of the text in the CBC has been tailored for
California earthquake conditions. Fontana, along with all of southern California, is in Seismic Zone 4,
the area of greatest risk and subject the strictest building standards.
c. Local Regulations
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana General Plan Noise and Safety chapter seeks to reduce risks from geologic hazards in
the city of Fontana (City of Fontana 2018). Goals and policies that relate to geologic hazards and
would apply to the project include the following:
Goal 4: Seismic injury and loss of life, property damage, and other impacts caused by seismic
shaking, fault rupture, ground failure, earthquake-induced landslides, and other
earthquake-induced ground deformation are minimized in Fontana.
Policy: The City shall monitor development or redevelopment in areas where faults have
been mapped through the city.
Policy: The City shall continue to ensure that current geologic knowledge and peer (third
party) review are incorporated into the design, planning, and construction stages of
a project and that site-specific data are applied to each project.
Policy: The City shall continue to ensure to the fullest extent possible that, in the event of a
major disaster, essential structures and facilities remain safe and functional, as
required by current law. Essential facilities include hospitals, police stations, fire
stations, emergency operation centers, communication centers, generators and
substations, and reservoirs.
Goal 5: Risk to life or limb and property damage resulting from geologic hazards are minimized in
Fontana.
Policy: The City shall continue to participate in regional programs designed to protect the
groundwater resources and to protect the area from the hazard of regional ground
subsidence through careful management of the regional groundwater basin that
underlies the area.
Goal 6: Injury, loss of life, property damage, and economic and social disruption caused by flood and
inundation hazards are minimized in Fontana.
Policy: The City shall discourage new development in flood-hazard areas and implement
mitigation measures to reduce the hazard to existing developments located within
the 100- and 500-year flood zones.
Environmental Impact Analysis Geology and Soils
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-7
4.6.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds
The following thresholds of significance were developed based on the Appendix G of the CEQA
Guidelines. The project would have a significant impact with respect to geology and soils if it would:
Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault
Strong seismic ground shaking
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature
Impacts to geology and soils were analyzed in an Initial Study (see appendix A-2). The Initial Study
determined that impacts related to risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground
failure, including liquefaction or landslide would be less than significant because the project site is
not within a fault or liquefication hazard zone, no portion of the project site is in a landslide hazard
area, and there are no designated landslide hazard areas in the vicinity. In addition, impacts related
to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant based on compliance with existing
regulatory requirements, including implementation of applicable best management practices
(BMPs) related to wind and water erosion control. Furthermore, the project would not have any
impacts related to use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems because the
project be connected to the city’s sewer system for wastewater collection. Therefore, these impacts
are not further evaluated in this section.
b. Methodology
To evaluate project impacts, resource conditions that could pose a risk to development of the
project were identified through review of documents pertaining to these topics. Sources consulted
include the City of Fontana General Plan, U.S. Geological Survey and California Geological Survey
technical maps and guides; the Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey (available
through the Soil Survey Geographic Database); the 2007 EIR; and published geologic literature. The
information obtained from these sources was reviewed and summarized to establish the existing
conditions (described above) and identify potential environmental hazards. In determining level of
significance, the analysis assumes that the project would comply with relevant laws, regulations,
and guidelines.
c. Standard Conditions
The following standard conditions related to geology and soils, and identified in the 2007 EIR,
remain applicable to the proposed project:
Standard Condition 4.7.1: The project shall comply with seismic design criteria in the California
Building Code, the City’s building standards, and other pertinent building regulations.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.6-8
Standard Condition 4.7.2: Recommendations of the geotechnical investigation for the project
site, as they pertain to structural design and construction recommendations for earthwork
(excavation, grading, volume adjustments, soil disposal, slopes), foundation design (types of
foundations and slabs on grade, pavements, retaining walls, trench backfill, sulfate exposure),
and other necessary geologic and seismic considerations would need to be implemented for
building construction.
Standard Condition 4.7.3: Site-specific geotechnical investigations shall be performed for
proposed commercial structures to determine the factors to be considered in the structural
design of these structures.
d. Project Impacts
Threshold 1a: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault?
Threshold 1b: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
Impact GEO-1 THE PROJECT SITE IS NOT LOCATED IN AN ALQUIST-PRIOLO FAULT ZONE AND NO FAULT
LINES TRAVERSE DIRECTLY UNDER THE SITE. THOUGH THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR BOTH EARTHQUAKES AND
GROUNDSHAKING IN THE PROJECT AREA, COMPLIANCE WITH CITY GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES AND
THE CBC WOULD REDUCE POTENTIAL IMPACTS RELATED TO SEISMIC GROUND SHAKING TO A LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT LEVEL.
The southern California region is considered to be seismically active. Ground shaking can result in
significant structural damage or structural failure in the absence of appropriate seismic design.
Settlement of the ground surface (settlement) can be accelerated and accentuated by earthquakes
due to the rearrangement of soil particles during prolonged ground shaking. Settlement can also
cause damage to structures and infrastructure. However, the project site is not directly located in an
Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone and does not contain any known fault lines (CGS 2016; City of Fontana
2007). However, there are a number of regional fault lines in close proximity to the project area,
which have the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes. The nearest earthquake zone
includes the Cucamonga Fault Zone in the Sierra Madre Fault System, located approximately 0.2-
mile northwest of the project site, at Lytle Creek Canyon. In addition, the San Jacinto Fault is located
approximately 1.6 miles northeast of the project site. The project site could potentially be subject to
ground shaking generated from fault activities from the Cucamonga Fault, approximately 0.2 mile
north of the projects site, and the San Jacinto fault, approximately 1.6 miles northeast of the project
site (DOC 2018).
Project implementation would include residential villages, commercial uses, a focal point piazza, a
campanile tower feature, and the construction of Lytle Creek Road, as described in Section 2,
Project Description. The project site may thus experience moderate to potentially severe ground
shaking from earthquakes generated on known faults such as the Cucamonga and the San Jacinto
Faults. The project site is located approximately 0.4 mile south of an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone (DOC
2018). However, based on previous geologic investigations, the 2007 EIR determined that the fault
Environmental Impact Analysis Geology and Soils
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-9
zone presented no evidence of active faulting. Therefore, active faulting was determined to not be
present at the city’s northern end (City of Fontana 2007).
Furthermore, proposed structures would be constructed to comply with the seismic design criteria
of the CBC. The CBC requires various measures of all construction in California to minimize risks
associated with seismic shaking. These measures include standards for structural design, necessary
tests and inspections, provisions addressing building foundations, and standards for the use of
certain materials (City of Fontana 2018). With adherence to the requirements of the CBC, as
required by the Fontana Code of Ordinances, the project would result in less than significant
impacts related to seismically-induced ground shaking from nearby faults. The project would be
required to comply with the City Seismic Requirements and the latest CBC, to ensure that all new
and modified buildings would be capable of withstanding anticipated levels of ground shaking. Thus,
compliance with City General Plan Goals and Policies and CBC would reduce the potential impacts
related to seismic ground shaking to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Threshold 2: Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or
property?
Impact GEO-2 THE PROJECT SITE IS UNDERLAIN BY SOILS POSSESSING MODERATE COLLAPSE POTENTIAL
AND LOW EXPANSIVE POTENTIAL. HOWEVER, IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH SOIL CHARACTERISTICS WOULD BE
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION.
Newly constructed buildings, pavements, and utilities could be damaged by differential settlement
due to soil expansion and contraction. When structures are located on expansive soils, foundations
have the tendency to rise during the wet season and shrink during the dry season. Movements can
vary under the structures, which in turn create new stresses on various sections of the foundation
and connected utilities. These variations in ground settlement can lead to structural failure and
damage to infrastructure. Soil borings at the site determined that the on-site soils are not expansive
but have moderate collapse potential. In addition, they have negligible sulfate exposure to concrete
and are moderately corrosive to ferrous metals. Future development associated with the project
would be constructed on vacant undeveloped land surrounded by existing development and thus,
would not be subject to changes in soil type than what is already existing on the project site.
Therefore, the project site does not have expansive soil. However, the site has onsite soil
characteristics which warrant consideration for collapse potential and corrosivity.
Site characteristics including on-site soils, the expansion, compaction, moisture content, and other
geologic properties of the site need to be considered in the design of structures and infrastructure,
to ensure that the structural integrity of on-site buildings and infrastructures is not compromised.
The geotechnical investigation included in the 2007 EIR provides structural design and construction
recommendations for earthwork (subgrade preparation, rock removal, backfill, over excavation,
shrinkage and subsidence, site drainage, utility trench backfill,) foundation design (foundations,
lateral earth pressures, settlement, slabs on grade, pavement design, retaining walls, pipe bedding),
and other necessary geologic and seismic considerations that would need to be considered in design
and implemented for building construction. In addition, the project would comply with design
requirements in the UBC, which would minimize risks to life and property related to soil
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.6-10
characteristics. Therefore, the impacts related to soil characteristics would be potentially significant
without specific design considerations.
Mitigation Measure
The 2007 EIR identified specific mitigation based on recommendations in a preliminary geotechnical
investigation to address the subjects of collapse in temporary excavations, corrosion and other soil
characteristics in final design. These mitigation measures are supplanted by new Mitigation
Measure GEO-2, which allows for the consideration of additional geotechnical and/or engineering
analysis based on the specific design for each planning area:
GEO-2 Implement Engineering Recommendations
Final design for each planning area shall incorporate engineering recommendations based on site
specific soil investigations, and shall consider collapsible soils, protection from corrosive soils, and
other applicable soil conditions. More specifically, final design shall incorporate recommendations
from the Preliminary Geological Investigation Approximately 81.1-Acre Site Duncan Canyon, City of
Fontana California, prepared by Converse Consultants in September 2005, or subsequent analysis.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Threshold 3: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
Impact GEO-3 THE PROJECT SITE IS UNDERLAIN BY GEOLOGIC UNITS POSSESSING PALEONTOLOGICAL
SENSITIVITY RANGING FROM LOW TO HIGH. POTENTIAL FOR PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES MAY OCCUR
DURING GROUND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS. MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN
IDENTIFIED TO REDUCE IMPACTS IN THE EVENT OF AN UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY OF PALEONTOLOGICAL
RESOURCES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.
The project site is underlain by old alluvial fan deposits including sandy gravels and gravelly sands
with silty sand interbeds, which includes marine and nonmarine (continental) sedimentary rocks. Of
all the geological formations present within the city, only the Pleistocene deposits have the
potential to contain fossils. According to the City’s General Plan EIR (2018), review of online
databases found no fossil localities in the city. Due to the paucity of fossils recovered from
Pleistocene alluvium near the San Gabriel Mountains, Pleistocene deposits found south of SR-210,
located approximately 2.73 miles from the project site, are considered to have moderate but
unknown sensitivity for paleontological resources, though the possibility of discovering such
resources may increase beyond eight feet below the ground surface (City of Fontana 2018). The
2007 EIR determined that no paleontological resources have been identified in the city or the
project site based on the General Plan. However, native soils may have the potential for
paleontological resources.
Ground-disturbing activities during project construction may impact previously unknown
paleontological resources that may be present below the project site surface. Therefore,
disturbance of potential paleontological resources may occur during ground-disturbing activities at
depths beyond eight feet below ground surface. A significant impact on paleontological resources
could result if an inadvertent discovery is made during ground-disturbing activities associated with
Environmental Impact Analysis Geology and Soils
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-11
construction of the project. Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources would be potentially
significant.
Mitigation Measure
The 2007 EIR identified specific mitigation to address potential for paleontological resources by
requiring monitoring throughout excavation activities extending to estimated depths of 10 feet or
more below the ground surface. The project would be required to implement measures under
Mitigation Measure GEO-3, which is a reinstatement and similar to Mitigation Measure 4.10.6, with
a minor update for monitoring throughout excavation activities extending to depths of eight feet or
more instead of 10 feet to acknowledge the possibility of discovering resources at eight feet per the
City’s General Plan EIR.
GEO-3 Paleontological Monitoring
Monitoring shall be conducted for excavation activities extending to estimated depths of eight feet
or more below the existing ground surface. If required, the palaeontologic monitor shall be
equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove
samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and
vertebrates. Monitors are empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of
abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are
not present in the subsurface, or if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by
qualified palaeontologic personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources. Also, the
following measures shall be made during the monitoring of excavation activities on undisturbed
subsurface Pleistocene sediments.
During monitoring, preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and
permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and
vertebrates should occur.
During monitoring, identification and curation of specimens into a museum repository with
permanent retrievable storage should occur. The paleontologist must have a written repository
agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities.
During monitoring, preparation of a report of findings with an itemized inventory of specimens
should occur. The report and inventory, when submitted to the City of Fontana (as the Lead
Agency), will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological
resources.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
4.6.4 Cumulative Impacts
The planned and pending projects in the project site vicinity are listed in Table 3-1 of Section 3,
Environmental Setting. Cumulative projects considered in this analysis include 22 residential
projects, three warehouse/storage projects, and a commercial center/hotel project. The project, in
conjunction with other planned and pending projects in the project site vicinity, would cumulatively
increase the potential to encounter geologic phenomena (faults, seismic ground shaking, landslides,
etc.), similar soil conditions, and paleontological resources.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.6-12
Each individual project would be required to investigate and address the site specific geologic and
soil conditions in conjunction with engineering recommendations incorporated into the final design,
consistent with CBC requirements. Similarly, in the event that paleontological resources are
discovered, each individual project would be required to comply with the applicable regulatory
requirements and mitigate any potential impacts to resources on the individual project site.
Compliance with CEQA requirements, including the implementation of recommendations provided
in project-specific resource studies, on all new development, would reduce impacts at a project
level, and in-turn avoid significant impacts on a cumulative basis. Potential impacts of the project
would be reduced to a less-than-significant level due to implementation of Mitigation Measures
GEO-2 and GEO-3. The site-specific soil characteristics of the project site will be considered in the
engineering requirements and the final design for each planning area.
In the event that paleontological resources are uncovered, each individual project would be
required to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements to mitigate potential impacts. Such
recommendations may include implementation of a mitigation plan, monitoring, recovery and
curation. Therefore, cumulative impacts to geology and soils, including paleontological resources,
would be less than significant.
Environmental Impact Analysis Greenhouse Gas
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.7-1
4.7 Greenhouse Gas
This section analyzes greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the project and potential
impacts related to climate change. It considers both the temporary impacts relating to construction
activity and potential long-term impacts associated with project operation. The 2007 EIR did not
consider GHG emissions, therefore no comparison will be drawn between analysis in the 2007 EIR
and that for the proposed project contained herein. The analysis herein is supported by the Air
Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study (Appendix B) prepared for the project by Rincon Consultants, Inc.
4.7.1 Setting
a. Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and
oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and
storms) over an extended period. The term “climate change” is often used interchangeably with the
term “global warming,” but climate change is preferred because it conveys other changes are
happening in addition to rising temperatures. The baseline against which these changes are
measured originates in historical records that identify temperature changes that occurred in the
past, such as during previous ice ages. The global climate is changing continuously, as evidenced in
the geologic record which indicates repeated episodes of substantial warming and cooling. The rate
of change has typically been incremental, with warming or cooling trends occurring over the course
of thousands of years. The past 10,000 years have been marked by a period of incremental
warming, as glaciers have steadily retreated across the globe. However, scientists have observed
acceleration in the rate of warming over the past 150 years. The United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expressed that the rise and continued growth of atmospheric CO2
concentrations is unequivocally due to human activities in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report
(2021). Human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land, which has led the climate to
warm at an unprecedented rate in the last 2,000 years. It is estimated that between the period of
1850 through 2019, a total of 2,390 gigatons of anthropogenic CO2 was emitted. It is likely that
anthropogenic activities have increased the global surface temperature by approximately 1.07
degrees Celsius between the years 2010 through 2019 (IPCC 2021). Furthermore, since the late
1700s, estimated concentrations of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have
increased by over 43 percent, 156 percent, and 17 percent, respectively, primarily due to human
activity (U.S. EPA 2021a). Emissions resulting from human activities are thereby contributing to an
average increase in Earth’s temperature.
Gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere are called GHGs. The gases
widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced climate change include carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxides (N2O), fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Water vapor is excluded from the list of
GHGs because it is short-lived in the atmosphere, and natural processes, such as oceanic
evaporation, largely determine its atmospheric concentrations.
GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are
emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are usually by-products
of fossil fuel combustion, and CH4 results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.7-2
landfills. Human-made GHGs, many of which have greater heat-absorption potential than CO2,
include fluorinated gases and SF6 (U.S. EPA 2021a).
Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWP). The GWP of a GHG is the
potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally,
100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used
to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emitted, referred to as “carbon
dioxide equivalent” (CO2e), which is the amount of GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. Carbon
dioxide has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, methane has a GWP of 30, meaning its global
warming effect is 30 times greater than CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis (IPCC 2021).
The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature. Without the
natural heat-trapping effect of GHGs, the earth’s surface would be about 33 degrees Celsius (°C)
cooler (World Meteorological Organization 2020). However, since 1750, estimated concentrations
of CO2, CH4, and N2O in the atmosphere have increased by 47 percent, 156 percent, and 23
percent, respectively, primarily due to human activity (IPCC 2021). GHG emissions from human
activities, particularly the consumption of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation,
are believed to have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level
of concentrations that occur naturally.
b. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
In 2015, worldwide anthropogenic GHG emissions totaled 47,000 million MT of CO2e, which is a 43
percent increase from 1990 GHG levels (U.S. EPA 2021b). Specifically, 34,522 million metric tons
(MMT) of CO2e of CO2, 8,241 MMT of CO2e of CH4, 2,997 MMT of CO2e of N2O, and 1,001 MMT of
CO2e of fluorinated gases were emitted in 2015. The largest source of GHG emissions was energy
production and use (which includes fuels used by vehicles and buildings), which accounted for 75
percent of global GHG emissions. Agriculture uses and industrial processes contributed 12 percent
and six percent, respectively. Waste sources and international transportation sources contributed
for three percent and two percent, respectively. These sources account for approximately 98
percent of total GHG emissions because there was a net sink of two percent from land-use change
and forestry. (U.S. EPA 2021b).
Federal Emissions Inventory
Total U.S. GHG emissions were 6,558 MMT of CO2e in 2019. Emissions decreased by 1.7 percent
from 2018 to 2019; since 1990, total U.S. emissions have increased by an average annual rate of
0.06 percent for a total increase of 1.8 percent between 1990 and 2019. The decrease from 2018 to
2019 reflects the combined influences of several long-term trends, including population changes,
economic growth, energy market shifts, technological changes such as improvements in energy
efficiency, and decrease carbon intensity of energy fuel choices. In 2019, the industrial and
transportation end-use sectors accounted for 30 percent and 29 percent, respectively, of
nationwide GHG emissions while the commercial and residential end-use sectors accounted for 16
percent and 15 percent of nationwide GHG emissions, respectively, with electricity emissions
distributed among the various sectors (U.S. EPA 2021c).
California Emissions Inventory
Based on the CARB California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2019, California produced 418.2
MMT of CO2e in 2019, which is 7.2 MMT of CO2e lower than 2018 levels. The major source of GHG
emissions in California is the transportation sector, which comprises 40 percent of the state’s total
Environmental Impact Analysis Greenhouse Gas
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.7-3
GHG emissions. The industrial sector is the second largest source, comprising 21 percent of the
state’s GHG emissions, while electric power accounts for approximately 14 percent (California Air
Resources Board [CARB] 2021). The magnitude of California’s total GHG emissions is due in part to
its large size and large population compared to other states. However, a factor that reduces
California’s per capita fuel use and GHG emissions as compared to other states is its relatively mild
climate. In 2016, the State of California achieved its 2020 GHG emission reduction target of reducing
emissions to 1990 levels as emissions fell below 431 MMT of CO2e (CARB 2021). The annual 2030
statewide target emissions level is 260 MMT of CO2e (CARB 2017).
Local Emissions Inventory
The City of Fontana generated a total of 1,238,926 MT CO2e in a 2008 GHG baseline inventory.
Transportation GHG emissions were the largest contributor at approximately 51 percent of the total
GHG emissions or 635,066 MT CO2e. The second largest sector was building energy, which
generated approximately 483,783 MT CO2e or 39 percent of the total. Off-road equipment
generated 73,650 MT CO2e or 6 percent of the total. The remaining four percent of the total GHG
emissions are generated from solid waste management (19,570 MT CO2e), water conveyance
(15,265 CO2e), wastewater treatment (7,842 MT CO2e), and agriculture (3,850 MT CO2e) (City of
Fontana 2015).
c. Potential Effects of Climate Change
Globally, climate change has the potential to affect numerous environmental resources though
potential impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. Scientific modeling
predicts that continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would induce more extreme
climate changes during the twenty-first century than were observed during the twentieth century.
Long-term trends have found that each of the past three decades has been warmer than all the
previous decades in the instrumental record. The World Meteorological Organization observed that
the 2011 through 2020 decade was the warmest decade on record with 2020 being the warmest
year to date (World Meteorological Organization 2021). The average global temperature in 2020
was about 14.9 degrees Celsius (°C), which is 1.2 (± 0.1) °C above the pre-industrial levels from 1850
through 1900 level. Furthermore, several independently analyzed data records of global and
regional Land-Surface Air Temperature (LSAT) obtained from station observations confirm that LSAT
as well as sea surface temperatures have increased. Due to past and current activities,
anthropogenic GHG emissions are increasing global mean surface temperature at a rate of 0.2°C per
decade. In addition to these findings, there are identifiable signs that global warming is currently
taking place, including substantial ice loss in the Arctic over the past two decades (IPCC 2014 and
2018).
According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, statewide temperatures from 1986 to
2016 were approximately 1° Fahrenheit (F) to 2°F higher than those recorded from 1901 to 1960.
Potential impacts of climate change in California may include loss in water supply from snowpack,
sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more large forest fires, and more drought years
(State of California 2018). While there is growing scientific consensus about the possible effects of
climate change at a global and statewide level, current scientific modeling tools are unable to
predict what local impacts may occur with a similar degree of accuracy. In addition to statewide
projections, California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment includes regional reports that
summarize climate impacts and adaptation solutions for nine regions of the state as well as
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.7-4
regionally specific climate change case studies (State of California 2018). Below is a summary of
some of the potential effects that could be experienced in California as a result of climate change.
Air Quality
Scientists project that the annual average maximum daily temperatures in California could rise by
2.5 to 5.8°F in the next 50 years and by 5.6 to 8.8°F in the next century. Higher temperatures are
conducive to air pollution formation, and rising temperatures could therefore result in worsened air
quality in California. As a result, climate change may increase the concentration of ground-level
ozone, but the magnitude of the effect, and therefore its indirect effects, are uncertain. In addition,
as temperatures have increased in recent years, the area burned by wildfires throughout the state
has increased, and wildfires have occurred at higher elevations in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. In
southern California, the average size of summertime non-Santa Ana based fires has significantly
increased from 1,129 hectares in the 1960s to 2,121 hectares in the 2000s (State of California 2018).
If higher temperatures continue to be accompanied by an increase in the incidence and extent of
large wildfires, air quality could worsen. Severe heat accompanied by drier conditions and poor air
quality could increase the number of heat-related deaths, illnesses, and asthma attacks throughout
the state. However, if higher temperatures are accompanied by wetter, rather than drier conditions,
the rains could tend to temporarily clear the air of particulate pollution, which would effectively
reduce the number of large wildfires and thereby ameliorate the pollution associated with them
(California Natural Resources Agency 2009).
Water Supply
Analysis of paleoclimatic data (such as tree-ring reconstructions of stream flow and precipitation)
indicates a history of naturally and widely varying hydrologic conditions in California and the west,
including a pattern of recurring and extended droughts. Uncertainty remains with respect to the
overall impact of climate change on future precipitation trends and water supplies in California. For
example, many southern California cities have experienced their lowest recorded annual
precipitation twice within the past decade; however, in a span of only two years, Los Angeles
experienced both its driest and wettest years on record (California Department of Water Resources
[DWR] 2008). This uncertainty regarding future precipitation trends complicates the analysis of
future water demand, especially where the relationship between climate change and its potential
effect on water demand is not well understood. However, the average early spring snowpack in the
western United States, including the Sierra Nevada Mountains, decreased by about ten percent
during the last century. During the same period, sea level rose over 5.9 inches along the central and
southern California coast (State of California 2018). The Sierra snowpack provides most of the
California's water supply by accumulating snow during the state’s wet winters and releasing it slowly
during the state’s dry springs and summers. A warmer climate is predicted to reduce the fraction of
precipitation falling as snow and result in less snowfall at lower elevations, thereby reducing the
total snowpack (DWR 2008; State of California 2018). The State of California projects that average
spring snowpack in the Sierra Nevada and other mountain catchments in central and northern
California will decline by approximately 66 percent from its historical average by 2050 (State of
California 2018).
Hydrology and Sea Level Rise
Climate change could potentially affect the amount of snowfall, rainfall, and snowpack; the intensity
and frequency of storms; flood hydrographs (flash floods, rain or snow events, coincidental high tide
Environmental Impact Analysis Greenhouse Gas
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.7-5
and high runoff events); sea level rise and coastal flooding; coastal erosion; and the potential for
saltwater intrusion. Climate change has the potential to induce substantial sea level rise in the
coming century (State of California 2018). The rising sea level increases the likelihood and risk of
flooding. The rate of increase of global mean sea levels over the 2001-2010 decade, as observed by
satellites, ocean buoys and land gauges, was approximately 3.2 millimeters (mm) per year, which is
double the observed 20th century trend of 1.6 mm per year (World Meteorological Organization
[WMO] 2013). As a result, global mean sea levels averaged over the last decade were about eight
inches higher than those of 1880 (WMO 2013). Sea levels are rising faster now than in the previous
two millennia, and the rise is expected to accelerate, even with robust GHG emission control
measures. The most recent IPCC report predicts a mean sea–level rise of 10 to 37 inches by 2100
(IPCC 2018). A rise in sea levels could completely erode 31 to 67 percent of southern California
beaches, result in flooding of approximately 370 miles of coastal highways during 100-year storm
events, jeopardize California’s water supply due to saltwater intrusion, and induce groundwater
flooding and/or exposure of buried infrastructure (State of California 2018). In addition, increased
CO2 emissions can cause oceans to acidify due to the carbonic acid it forms. Increased storm
intensity and frequency could affect the ability of flood-control facilities, including levees, to handle
storm events (State of California 2018).
Agriculture
California has a $50 billion annual agricultural industry that produces over a third of the country’s
vegetables and two-thirds of the country’s fruits and nuts (California Department of Food and
Agriculture 2018). Higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use
efficiency. However, if temperatures rise and drier conditions prevail, certain regions of agricultural
production could experience water shortages of up to 16 percent; water demand could increase as
hotter conditions lead to the loss of soil moisture; crop-yield could be threatened by water-induced
stress and extreme heat waves; and plants may be susceptible to new and changing pest and
disease outbreaks (State of California 2018). In addition, temperature increases could change the
time of year certain crops, such as wine grapes, bloom or ripen, and thereby affect their quality
(California Climate Change Center 2006).
Ecosystems
Climate change and the potential resulting changes in weather patterns could have ecological
effects on a global and local scale. Increasing concentrations of GHGs are likely to accelerate the
rate of climate change. Scientists project that the annual average maximum daily temperatures in
California could rise by 4.4 to 5.8°F in the next 50 years and by 5.6 to 8.8°F in the next century (State
of California 2018). Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense rainstorms are
likely to become more frequent. Rising temperatures could have four major impacts on plants and
animals related to: (1) timing of ecological events; (2) geographic distribution and range; (3) species’
composition and the incidence of nonnative species within communities; and (4) ecosystem
processes, such as carbon cycling and storage (Parmesan 2006; State of California 2018).
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.7-6
4.7.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Federal Clean Air Act
The U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al.
([2007] 549 U.S. 05-1120) held that the USEPA has the authority to regulate motor-vehicle GHG
emissions under the federal Clean Air Act. The USEPA issued a Final Rule for mandatory reporting of
GHG emissions in October 2009. This Final Rule applies to fossil fuel suppliers, industrial gas
suppliers, direct GHG emitters, and manufacturers of heavy-duty and off-road vehicles and vehicle
engines and requires annual reporting of emissions. In 2012, the USEPA issued a Final Rule that
establishes the GHG permitting thresholds that determine when Clean Air Act permits under the
New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Operating Permit
programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.
In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (134 S. Ct. 2427 [2014]) held
that USEPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is
a major source required to obtain a PSD or Title V permit. The Court also held that PSD permits that
are otherwise required (based on emissions of other pollutants) may continue to require limitations
on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT).
Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule
On September 27, 2019, the USEPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
published the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program.
The SAFE Rule Part One revokes California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and to
adopt its own zero-emission vehicle mandates. On April 30, 2020, the USEPA and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration published Part Two of the SAFE Vehicles Rule, which revised
corporate average fuel economy and CO2 emissions standards for passenger cars and trucks of
model years 2021 to 2026 such that the standards increase by approximately 1.5 percent each year
through model year 2026 as compared to the approximately five percent annual increase required
under the 2012 standards (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2020). To account for the
effects of the SAFE Vehicles Rule, CARB released off-model adjustment factors on June 26, 2020, to
adjust GHG emissions outputs from the EMFAC model.
b. State Regulations
CARB is responsible for the coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control
programs in California. California has numerous regulations aimed at reducing the State’s GHG
emissions. These initiatives are summarized below.
California Global Warming Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 32)
The “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” Assembly Bill (AB) 32, outlines California’s
major legislative initiative for reducing GHG emissions. AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing
GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and requires CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the
main state strategies for reducing GHG emissions to meet the 2020 target. In addition, AB 32
requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG
emissions. Based on this guidance, CARB approved a 1990 statewide GHG level and 2020 target of
Environmental Impact Analysis Greenhouse Gas
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.7-7
431 MMT of CO2e. On December 11, 2008, CARB approved the Climate Change Scoping Plan, which
included measures to address GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water
use, and recycling and solid waste, among other sectors (CARB 2008). Many of the GHG emission
reduction measures included in the Scoping Plan (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard and Cap-and-
Trade) have been adopted since the plan’s approval.
CARB approved the 2013 Scoping Plan Update in May 2014. The update defined CARB’s climate
change priorities for the next five years and set the groundwork to reach post-2020 statewide goals.
The update highlighted California’s progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 GHG emission
reduction goals defined in the original Scoping Plan. It also evaluated how to align the state’s longer
term GHG reduction strategies with other state policy priorities, including those for water, waste,
natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use (CARB 2014).
On September 8, 2016, the governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 32 into law, extending the California
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 by requiring the state to further reduce GHG emissions to
40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On
December 14, 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for
achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of
existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program, and implementation of
recently adopted policies and legislation, such as SB 1383 (detailed below). The 2017 Scoping Plan
also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic
investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan Update, the 2017 Scoping Plan
does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development. Instead, it recommends that
local governments adopt policies and locally appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent with
statewide per capita goals of six metric tons (MT) of CO2e by 2030 and two MT of CO2e by 2050
(CARB 2017). As stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan, these goals may be appropriate for plan-level
analyses (city, county, sub-regional, or regional level), but not for specific individual projects
because they include all emissions sectors in the state (CARB 2017).
Senate Bill 375
SB 375, signed in August 2008, enhances the state’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing CARB to
develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020
and 2035. In addition, SB 375 directs each of the state’s 18 major Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs) to prepare a “sustainable communities strategy” (SCS) that contains a growth
strategy to meet these emission targets for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005
levels by 2020 and 2035. Western Regional Council of Governments (WRCOG) is a subregion within
the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region. SCAG was assigned targets of an
eight percent reduction in GHGs from transportation sources by 2020 and a 19 percent reduction in
GHGs from transportation sources by 2035. In the SCAG region, SB 375 also provides the option for
the coordinated development of subregional plans by the subregional councils of governments and
the county transportation commissions to meet SB 375 requirements.
Senate Bill 1383
Adopted in September 2016, SB 1383 requires CARB to approve and begin implementing a
comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. The bill requires the
strategy to achieve a reduction of 40 percent of both Methane and Hydrofluorocarbon below 2013
levels. Additionally, anthropogenic black carbon emissions must be reduced to 50 percent of 2013
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.7-8
levels. The bill also requires the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
(CalRecycle), in consultation with the CARB, to adopt regulations that achieve specified targets for
reducing organic waste in landfills.
Senate Bill 100
Adopted on September 10, 2018, SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the
electricity sector by accelerating the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, which was last
updated by SB 350 in 2015. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from
eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030,
and 100 percent by 2045.
Executive Order B-55-18
On September 10, 2018, the governor issued Executive Order (EO) B-55-18, which established a new
statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining net negative emissions
thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing statewide GHG reduction targets established by
SB 375, SB 32, SB 1383, and SB 100.
California Building Code
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) is referred to as the California Building Code
(CBC). It consists of a compilation of several distinct standards and codes related to building
construction including plumbing, electrical, interior acoustics, energy efficiency, and handicap
accessibility for persons with physical and sensory disabilities. The current iteration is the 2019
Title 24 standards. The CBC’s energy-efficiency and green building standards are outlined below.
Part 6 – Building Energy Efficiency Standards/Energy Code
CCR Title 24, Part 6 is the Building Energy Efficiency Standards or California Energy Code. This code,
originally enacted in 1978, establishes energy-efficiency standards for residential and non-
residential buildings in order to reduce California’s energy demand. New construction and major
renovations must demonstrate their compliance with the current Energy Code through submittal
and approval of a Title 24 Compliance Report to the local building permit review authority and the
California Energy Commission (CEC).
Part 11 – 2019 California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) was added to Title 24 as Part 11, first in
2009 as a voluntary code, which then became mandatory effective January 1, 2011 (as part of the
2010 California Building Standards Code). The 2019 CALGreen includes mandatory minimum
environmental performance standards for all ground-up new construction of residential and non-
residential structures. It also includes voluntary tiers (Tiers I and II) with stricter environmental
performance standards for these same categories of residential and non-residential buildings. Local
jurisdictions must enforce the minimum mandatory CALGreen standards and may adopt additional
amendments for stricter requirements.
Environmental Impact Analysis Greenhouse Gas
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.7-9
The mandatory standards require:
20 percent reduction in indoor water use relative to specified baseline levels;1
65 percent construction/demolition waste diverted from landfills;
Inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency;
Low-pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials such as paints, carpets, vinyl
flooring, and particleboards;
Dedicated circuitry to facilitate installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations in newly
constructed attached garages for single-family and duplex dwellings (“EV ready”); and
Designation of at least ten percent of parking spaces for multi-family residential developments
as electric vehicle charging spaces capable of supporting future electric vehicle supply
equipment (“EV capable”).
The voluntary standards require:
Tier I: stricter energy efficiency requirements, stricter water conservation requirements for
specific fixtures, 65 percent reduction in construction waste with third-party verification,
10 percent recycled content for building materials, 20 percent permeable paving, 20 percent
cement reduction, and cool/solar reflective roof; and
Tier II: stricter energy efficiency requirements, stricter water conservation requirements for
specific fixtures, 75 percent reduction in construction waste with third-party verification,
15 percent recycled content for building materials, 30 percent permeable paving, 25 percent
cement reduction, and cool/solar reflective roof.
California Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bill 341)
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, as modified by AB 341 in 2011, requires
each jurisdiction’s source reduction and recycling element to include an implementation schedule
that shows: (1) diversion of 25 percent of all solid waste by January 1, 1995, through source
reduction, recycling, and composting activities and (2) diversion of 50 percent of all solid waste on
and after January 1, 2000.
California Environmental Quality Act
Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97, the Resources Agency has adopted amendments to the
CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions. The
adopted CEQA Guidelines provide general regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of
GHG emissions in CEQA documents, while giving lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or
qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts. To
date, a variety of air districts have adopted quantitative significance thresholds for GHGs.
For more information on the Senate and Assembly Bills, Executive Orders, and reports discussed
above, and to view reports and research referenced above, please refer to the following websites:
www.climatechange.ca.gov d www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cc.htm.
1 Similar to the compliance reporting procedure for demonstrating Energy Code compliance in new buildings and major renovations,
compliance with the CALGreen water-reduction requirements must be demonstrated through completion of water use reporting forms.
Buildings must demonstrate a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use by either showing a 20 percent reduction in the overall baseline water use as identified by CALGreen or a reduced per-plumbing-fixture water use rate.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.7-10
c. Regional and Local Regulations
2020-2045 SCAG RTP/SCS
On May 7, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (titled Connect SoCal) for
federal transportation conformity purposes and considered approval of the full plan and for all
other purposes within 120 days of this date. Following initial adoption, SCAG formally adopted the
2020-2045 RTP/SCS on September 3, 2020, to provide a roadmap for sensible ways to expand
transportation options, improve air quality and bolster Southern California’s long-term economic
viability. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS builds upon the progress made through implementation of the
2016-2040 RTP/SCS and includes ten goals focused on promoting economic prosperity, improving
mobility, protecting the environment, and supporting healthy/complete communities. The SCS
implementation strategies include focusing growth near destinations and mobility options,
promoting diverse housing choices, leveraging technology innovations, and supporting
implementation of sustainability policies. The SCS establishes a land use vision of center-focused
placemaking, concentrating growth in and near Priority Growth Areas, transferring of development
rights, urban greening, creating greenbelts and community separators, and implementing regional
advance mitigation (SCAG 2020).
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana General Plan does not have a specific GHG chapter. However, the following policies
from the Infrastructure and Green Systems and the Sustainability and Resilience chapters would be
applicable:
Infrastructure and Green Systems
Goal 2 Policy: Encourage use of processed water from the IEUA systems using recycled water
for all non-drinking water purposes.
Goal 3 Policy: Support landscaping in public and private spaces with drought-resistant plants.
Goal 5 Policy: Support incorporation of greywater systems in new developments.
Goal 7 Policy: Promote renewable energy and distributed energy systems in new development
and retrofits of existing development to work towards the highest levels of low-carbon energy-
efficiency.
Goal 8 Policy: Continue to maximize landfill capacity by supporting recycling innovations, such
as organic waste recycling for compost.
Sustainability and Resilience
Goal 3 Policy: Promote renewable energy programs for government, Fontana business, and
Fontana residences.
Goal 5 Policy: Promote green building through guidelines, awards, and nonfinancial incentives.
Goal 6 Policy: Promote energy-efficient development in Fontana.
Goal 6 Policy: Meet or exceed state goals for energy-efficient new construction.
Goal 7 Policy: Continue to promote and implement best practices to conserve water.
Environmental Impact Analysis Greenhouse Gas
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.7-11
4.7.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds
Individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create significant project-specific
environment effects. However, the environmental effects of a project’s GHG emissions can
contribute incrementally to cumulative environmental effects that are significant, contributing to
climate change, even if an individual project’s environmental effects are limited (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064[h][1]). The issue of a project’s environmental effects and contribution towards
climate change typically involves an analysis of whether or not a project’s contribution towards
climate change is cumulatively considerable. Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines Section
15064[h][1]).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 recommends that lead agencies quantify GHG emissions of
projects and consider several other factors that may be used in the determination of significance of
GHG emissions from a project, including the extent to which the project may increase or reduce
GHG emissions; whether a project exceeds an applicable significance threshold; and the extent to
which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a plan for the
reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 does not establish a threshold of significance. Lead agencies have
the discretion to establish significance thresholds for their respective jurisdictions, and in
establishing those thresholds, a lead agency may appropriately look to thresholds developed by
other public agencies, or suggested by other experts, as long as any threshold chosen is supported
by substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7[c]).
According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, one option for analyzing a project’s GHG impacts
is its consistency with a qualified GHG reduction plan adopted by a local agency. However, the City
has not adopted such a plan.
In the absence of a qualified GHG reduction plan, the 2017 Scoping Plan recommends statewide
targets that are appropriate at the plan-level. As discussed in the 2017 Scoping Plan goals, local
jurisdictions may demonstrate consistency with Scoping Plan goals (i.e., SB 32’s emission reduction
target) by establishing communitywide emissions targets tied to the statewide per capita goals of
6 MT CO2e per capita by 2030. Based on SCAG Regional Growth Forecasts, the City of Fontana is
anticipated to have a population of approximately 247,196 persons and 65,619 jobs in 2030. As
shown in Table 4.7-1 on the following page, the communitywide emissions target of 6 MT CO2e may
be equated to approximately 4.7 MT CO2e/SP.
Project-Specific Efficiency Thresholds
For the proposed project, a 2030 efficiency threshold was calculated based on the year 2030 GHG
emission levels for Fontana that would be consistent with the State’s 2030 target. This locally
appropriate, project-specific quantitative threshold is derived, in part, from the City’s baseline 2008
GHG emissions inventory in line with the CARB’s recommendations in the 2008 Climate Change
Scoping Plan and the 2017 Scoping Plan (CARB 2008 and 2017). Consistent with the legal guidance
provided in the Golden Door (2018) and Newhall Ranch (2015) decisions regarding the correlation
between state and local conditions, the City’s 2008 baseline GHG emissions inventory was used to
calculate a locally appropriate, evidence-based, project-specific threshold consistent with the State’s
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.7-12
2030 target. Accordingly, the threshold established to analyze the proposed project is a locally
applicable, project-specific threshold, as opposed to a threshold for general use.
The 2017 Scoping Plan recommends statewide targets that are appropriate at the plan-level. As
discussed in the 2017 Scoping Plan goals, local jurisdictions may demonstrate consistency with
Scoping Plan goals (i.e., SB 32’s emission reduction target) by establishing communitywide emissions
targets tied to the statewide per capita goals of 6 MTCO2e per capita by 2030. Based on SCAG
Regional Growth Forecasts, the City of Fontana is anticipated to have a population of approximately
247,196 persons and 65,619 jobs in 2030. As shown in Table 4.7-1, the communitywide emissions
target of 6 MT CO2e may be equated to approximately 4.7 MT CO2e/SP.
Table 4.7-1 GHG Performance Threshold Determination
Metric Quantity
Service Population
2030 Population 247,196 persons
2030 Employment 65,619 jobs
2030 Service Population 312,815 SP
2030 Communitywide Target Derivation
Per Capita Target 6.0 MT CO2e per capita
Mass Emissions Target1 1,483,176 MT CO2e
Service Population Target2 4.7 MT CO2e/SP
MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; SP = service population
1 6.0 MT CO2e per capita * 247,196 persons = 1,483,176 MT CO2e
2 1,483,176 MT CO2e/312,815 SP = 4.7 MT CO2e/SP
Source: 2020-2045 Growth Forecast (SCAG 2020)
b. Methodology
The 2007 EIR did not consider GHG emissions, as standards for the evaluation of GHG emissions
were not in place at the time the project was considered. Therefore, no reference to previous
analysis will be provided in this section.
Construction and operational GHG emissions were estimated using the California Emissions
Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod uses project-specific information,
including the project’s land uses, square footages for different uses (e.g., mid-rise apartments, strip
mall, supermarket), and location, to estimate a project’s construction and operational emissions.
See Appendix B for CalEEMod results.
Construction Emissions
Construction activities emit GHGs primarily though combustion of fuels (mostly diesel) in the
engines of off-road construction equipment and in on-road construction vehicles and in the
commute vehicles of the construction workers. Smaller amounts of GHGs are emitted indirectly
through the energy required for water used for fugitive dust control and lighting for the
construction activity. Every phase of the construction process, including demolition, grading, paving,
building, and architectural coating, emits GHG emissions in volumes proportional to the quantity
and type of construction equipment used. Heavier equipment typically emits more GHGs per hour
than does lighter equipment because of its engine design and greater fuel consumption. CalEEMod
Environmental Impact Analysis Greenhouse Gas
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.7-13
estimates construction emissions by multiplying the time equipment is in operation by emission
factors.
Construction would generally consist of site preparation, grading, erection of the proposed
buildings, paving, and architectural coating. Construction emissions were modeled in accordance
with the methodology outlined in in Section 2, Air Quality. In accordance with the South Coast Air
Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) recommendation, GHG emissions from construction of
the proposed project were amortized over a 30-year period and added to annual operational
emissions to determine the project’s total annual GHG emissions (SCAQMD 2008).
Energy Emissions
GHGs are emitted on-site during the combustion of natural gas for space and water heating and
off-site during the generation of electricity from fossil fuels in power plants. CalEEMod estimates
GHG emissions from energy use by multiplying average rates of residential and non-residential
energy consumption by the quantities of residential units and non-residential square footage
entered in the land use module to obtain total projected energy use. This value is then multiplied by
electricity and natural gas GHG emission factors applicable to the project location and utility
provider. Building energy use is typically divided into energy consumed by the built environment
and energy consumed by uses that are independent of the building, such as plug-in appliances. Non-
building energy use, or “plug-in energy use,” can be further subdivided by specific end-use
(refrigeration, cooking, office equipment, etc.). In California, Title 24 governs energy consumed by
the built environment, mechanical systems, and some types of fixed lighting.
The project would be served by Southern California Edison (SCE). Therefore, SCE’s specific energy
intensity factors (i.e., the amount of CO2e per megawatt-hour) are used in the calculations of GHG
emissions (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association [CAPCOA] 2021). Also, the CalEEMod
version 2020.4.0 includes the building energy efficiency requirements stipulated under the 2019
Title 24 standards.
Area Source Emissions
Area sources include GHG emissions that would occur from the use of landscaping equipment and
fireplaces, which emit GHGs associated with fuel combustion. The landscaping equipment emission
values were derived from the 2011 Off-Road Equipment Inventory Model (CAPCOA 2021). In
accordance with SCAQMD Rule 445, no wood-burning devices would be installed.
Solid Waste Emissions
The disposal of solid waste produces GHG emissions from the transportation of waste, anaerobic
decomposition in landfills, and incineration. To calculate the GHG emissions generated by solid
waste disposal, the total volume of solid waste was calculated using waste disposal rates identified
by the CalRecycle. The methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste are based on the
IPCC method, using the degradable organic content of waste.
Water and Wastewater Emissions
The amount of water used and the amount of wastewater generated by a project generate indirect
GHG emissions. These emissions are a result of the energy used to supply, convey, and treat water
and wastewater. In addition to the indirect GHG emissions associated with energy use, the
wastewater treatment process itself can directly emit both methane and nitrous oxide.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.7-14
The indoor and outdoor water use consumption data for each land use subtype comes from the
Pacific Institute’s Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California
(2003).2 Based on that report, a percentage of total water consumption was dedicated to landscape
irrigation, which is used to determine outdoor water use. Wastewater generation was similarly
based on a reported percentage of total indoor water use.
Mobile Source Emissions
Mobile source emissions consist of emissions generated by residents to and from the project site.
For mobile sources, CO2 N2O, and CH4 emissions were quantified in CalEEMod based on trip
generation rates provided in the Traffic Study prepared by Urban Crossroads (Appendix I).
Service Population
Average household size varies throughout California; therefore, the service population attributed to
this project is based on average household size data specific to Fontana. A household size of 4.07
persons per dwelling unit was used based on the Fontana General Plan (City of Fontana 2017),
which is sourced from the California Department of Finance’s 2016 persons per household rate. For
the commercial uses, the rate of 1,009 square feet per employee from the SCAG Employment
Density Study Summary Report was used (SCAG 2001). Table 4.7-2 summarizes the service
population. Based on these rates, the full buildout of the project would generate 6,801 residents
and 473 employees for a total of 7,274 persons.
Table 4.7-2 Service Population for Proposed Project
Land Use Density Factor Phase 1 Units
Phase 1 Service
Population
Full Buildout
Units
Full Buildout
Service Population
Residential 4.07 persons/DU 538 DU 2,190 1,671 DU 6,801 population
Commercial 1,009 SF/employee 180,000 SF 178 476,500 SF 473 employees
Total – − 2,368 persons – 7,274 persons
DU = dwelling unit; SF = square feet
These density factors are consistent with the project transportation analysis.
Source: City of Fontana 2017, SCAG 2001
c. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the environment?
Impact GHG-1 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD GENERATE
TEMPORARY AND LONG-TERM INCREASES IN GHG EMISSIONS THAT WOULD NOT RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT RELATED TO CLIMATE CHANGE. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Construction and operation development allowed by the project would generate GHG emissions.
This analysis considers the combined impact of GHG emissions from both construction and
operation. Calculations of CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions are provided to identify the magnitude of
potential project effects.
2 California Emissions Estimator Model, User Guide, Appendix D. Available at: http://www.caleemod.com/
Environmental Impact Analysis Greenhouse Gas
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.7-15
Construction Emissions
Construction facilitated by the project would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily from the
operation of construction equipment on-site as well as from vehicles transporting construction
workers to and from the project site and heavy trucks to transport building materials and soil
export. As shown in Table 4.7-3 construction associated with the full buildout of the project would
generate 7,191 MT CO2e. Amortized over a 30-year period in accordance with SCAQMD guidance,
construction and operation associated with the full buildout of the project would generate 240 MT
CO2e per year.
Table 4.7-3 Construction GHG Emissions
Phase Year Project Emissions MT CO2e
Phase 1 2022 1,920
2023 1,294
Phase 2 2023 89
2024 759
2025 162
Phase 3 2025 598
2026 1,061
2027 690
2028 63
Phase 4 2028 317
2029 238
Total 7,191
Amortized over 30 Years 240
MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Source: Appendix A CalEEMod worksheets
Combined Annual Emissions
The full buildout of the project would generate approximately 19,313 MT CO2e. The emissions
would be 2.7 MT CO2e per year per service population. These emissions would be below the 4.7 MT
CO2e per service population level necessary to demonstrate consistency with the statewide 2030
GHG reduction targets established by SB 32. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the
statewide 2030 GHG reduction targets established by SB 32. Impacts would be less than significant.
Table 4.7-4 Construction GHG Emissions
Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT CO2e)
Construction1 240
Operational 19,073
Area 29
Energy 5,161
Mobile 11,612
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.7-16
Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT CO2e)
Solid Waste 1,612
Water 659
Total 19,313
Service Population 7,274
Emissions per Service Population 2.7
2017 CARB Scoping Plan
Communitywide Threshold2
4.7
Exceed Threshold? No
MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
1 Amortized construction related GHG emissions over 30 years
2 The 4.7 MTCO2e/SP is a communitywide threshold derived from the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan
Source: Appendix A CalEEMod worksheets
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Threshold 2: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
Impact GHG-2 THE PROJECT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND GHG REDUCTION MEASURES
OF THE SCAG’S 2040 RTP/SCS, AS WELL AS WITH APPLICABLE MEASURES IN THE 2008 AND 2017 SCOPING PLAN. THEREFORE, IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Several plans and policies have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions in the southern California
region, including the State’s 2017 Scoping Plan and SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The project
consistency with these plans is discussed in the following subsections.
2017 Scoping Plan
The principal State plans and policies are AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006, and the subsequent legislation, SB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and the goal of SB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent
below 1990 levels by 2030. Pursuant to the SB 32 goal, the 2017 Scoping Plan was created to outline
goals and measures for the state to achieve the reductions. The 2017 Scoping Plan’s strategies that
are applicable to the project include reducing fossil fuel use, energy demand, and vehicle miles
traveled (VMT); maximizing recycling and diversion from landfills; and increasing water
conservation. The project would be consistent with these goals through project design, which
includes complying with the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Efficiency Energy
Standards, providing EV parking spaces and charging equipment, and complying with the AB 341
waste diversion goal of 75 percent. Cumulative VMT would also decrease with development of the
project. In addition, the project would receive electricity from SCE, which is required to reduce GHG
emissions by increasing procurement from eligible renewable energy by set target years.
Furthermore, as discussed in Impact GHG-1, the project would not exceed the 2030 communitywide
service population threshold derived from the 2017 Scoping Plan recommendations for
Environmental Impact Analysis Greenhouse Gas
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.7-17
demonstrating consistency with the SB 2030 target. Therefore, the project would not conflict with
the 2017 Scoping Plan.
Connect SoCal: 2020-2045 SCAG RTP/SCS
The SCAG Connect SoCal RTP/SCS is forecast to help California reach its GHG reduction goals by
reducing GHG emissions from passenger cars by 8 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and
19 percent by 2035 in accordance with the most recent CARB targets adopted in March 2018. The
2020-2045 RTP/SCS includes ten goals with corresponding implementation strategies for focusing
growth near destinations and mobility options, promoting diverse housing choices, leveraging
technology innovations, and supporting implementation of sustainability policies. The project would
also be consistent with relevant goals and strategies embodied in Chapter 3, A Path to Greater
Access, Mobility & Sustainability, of the Connect SoCal (SCAG 2020). These strategies include similar
measures to the 2017 Scoping Plan, such as encouraging use of electric vehicles. The project’s
consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is discussed in Table 4.7-5. As shown therein, the project
would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction strategies contained in the 2020-2045
RTP/SCS.
Given the aforementioned, the project is consistent with state and local policies for reducing GHG
emissions and impacts would be less than significant.
Table 4.7-5 Project Consistency with Applicable SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Strategies
Reduction Strategy Project Consistency
Focus Growth Near Destinations & Mobility Options.
Emphasize land use patterns that facilitate multimodal
access to work, educational and other destinations
Focus on a regional jobs/housing balance to reduce
commute times and distances and expand job
opportunities near transit and along center-focused main
streets
Plan for growth near transit investments and support
implementation of first/last mile strategies
Promote the redevelopment of underperforming retail
developments and other outmoded nonresidential uses
Prioritize infill and redevelopment of underutilized land to
accommodate new growth, increase amenities and
connectivity in existing neighborhoods
Encourage design and transportation options that reduce
the reliance on and number of solo car trips (this could
include mixed uses or locating and orienting close to
existing destinations)
Identify ways to “right size” parking requirements and
promote alternative parking strategies (e.g., shared parking
or smart parking)
Consistent. The project would allow for high-density
infill developments on vacant parcels. Medium
density residences, high density residences, mixed-
use, commercial use, and open space would be
constructed in an urbanized area near existing
residences and other commercial uses. Thus,
providing additional amenities and services to the
regional area. The project would also redevelop
Duncan Canyon Road, Citrus Avenue, and Lytle Creek
Road to provide more access to the site.
Proposed land uses allowed by the project would be
in close proximity to the City of Fontana’s regional
trails, which include existing bike lanes and walking
trails that connect to parks and other commercial
uses within the city. Notable destinations include the
Fontana North Skate Park and the Fontana Park
Aquatic Center, which are approximately 0.3 mile
south of the plan site. The plan would also provide
bus stops along Lytle Creek Road for the Omnitrans
Route 82 and the bus stops would be approximately
half a mile south of the plan’s southern boundary.
This bus route specifically provides stops in Fontana,
Ontario, and Rancho Cucamonga. Omnitrans also
services all of the urbanized southwestern sections of
San Bernardino County with some services in
Riverside and Los Angeles Counties.
Furthermore, the project would be required to
implement TCMs to reduce vehicular emissions from
SOVs per Mitigation Measure 4.5.4 from the 2007
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.7-18
Reduction Strategy Project Consistency
EIR, which require transportation control measures
to reduce trips. Therefore, the proposed project
would focus growth near destinations, and increase
amenities and connectivity in existing
neighborhoods.
Promote Diverse Housing Choices
Preserve and rehabilitate affordable housing and prevent
displacement
Identify funding opportunities for new workforce and
affordable housing development
Create incentives and reduce regulatory barriers for
building context-sensitive accessory dwelling units to
increase housing supply
Provide support to local jurisdictions to streamline and
lessen barriers to housing development that supports
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
Consistent. The project will add a total of 538
medium density and 396 high density residential
units to Fontana’s housing supply Furthermore, the
project would integrate 19.4 acres of commercial
uses which would provide nearby jobs and reduce
vehicle trips.
Leverage Technology Innovations.
Promote low emission technologies such as neighborhood
electric vehicles, shared rides hailing, car sharing, bike
sharing and scooters by providing supportive and safe
infrastructure such as dedicated lanes, charging and
parking/drop-off space
Improve access to services through technology—such as
telework and telemedicine as well as other incentives such
as a “mobility wallet,” an app-based system for storing
transit and other multi-modal payments
Identify ways to incorporate “micro-power grids” in
communities, for example solar energy, hydrogen fuel cell
power storage and power generation
Consistent. Future development allowed under the
project would need to comply with the electric
vehicle requirements in the CALGreen code. In
addition, Wi-Fi hotspots and adequate
telecommunications in all future residences will be
provided as required per Mitigation Measure 4.5.4
from the 2007 EIR. Thus, the project would promote
low emission technologies and improve access to
services through technology.
Support Implementation of Sustainability Policies.
Pursue funding opportunities to support local sustainable
development implementation projects that reduce GHG
emissions
Support statewide legislation that reduces barriers to new
construction and that incentivizes development near
transit corridors and stations
Support local jurisdictions in the establishment of
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs),
Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities
(CRIAs), or other tax increment or value capture tools to
finance sustainable infrastructure and development
projects, including parks and open space
Work with local jurisdictions/communities to identify opportunities and assess barriers to implement sustainability strategies
Enhance partnerships with other planning organizations to promote resources and best practices in the SCAG region
Continue to support long range planning efforts by local jurisdictions
Provide educational opportunities to local decision makers and staff on new tools, best practices and policies related to implementing the Sustainable Communities Strategy
Not Applicable. These measures are applicable to
municipal actions as opposed to individual
developments. The project would not conflict with
any of these policies.
Environmental Impact Analysis Greenhouse Gas
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.7-19
Reduction Strategy Project Consistency
Promote a Green Region.
Support development of local climate adaptation and
hazard mitigation plans, as well as project implementation
that improves community resiliency to climate change and
natural hazards
Support local policies for renewable energy production,
reduction of urban heat islands and carbon sequestration
Integrate local food production into the regional landscape
Promote more resource efficient development focused on
conservation, recycling and reclamation
Preserve, enhance and restore regional wildlife
connectivity
Reduce consumption of resource areas, including
agricultural land
Identify ways to improve access to public park space
Consistent. The project is an infill development that
would involve construction of residences and
commercial uses in an urbanized area and would
therefore not interfere with regional wildlife
connectivity or convert agricultural land. The project
would comply with applicable conservation policies
such as the Fontana General Plan, Title 24, and
CALGreen. Therefore, the project would support
development of a green region.
Source: SCAG 2020
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
4.7.4 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope for related projects considered in the cumulative impact analysis for GHG
emissions is global because the impacts of climate change are experienced on a global scale
regardless of the location of GHG emission sources. Therefore, GHG emissions and climate change
are, by definition, cumulative impacts. As discussed under Section 4.7.1, Potential Effects of Climate
Change, the adverse environmental impacts of cumulative GHG emissions, including sea level rise,
increased average temperatures, more drought years, and more large forest fires, are already
occurring. As a result, cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions are significant. Thus, the issue
of climate change involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact is
cumulatively considerable.
Refer to Impacts GHG-1 and GHG-2 for detailed discussions of the impacts of the project related to
climate change and GHG emissions. Impacts related to GHG emissions and climate change are, by
definition, cumulative impacts, as they affect the accumulation of greenhouse gasses in the
atmosphere. The Ventana at Duncan Canyon Project would be consistent with applicable plans and
programs aimed at reducing emissions. As discussed therein, project impacts related to GHG
emissions would be less than significant and would therefore not be cumulatively considerable.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.7-20
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Impact Analysis Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.8-1
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This section analyzes the project’s potential impacts associated with potential exposure to hazards
and hazardous materials. This analysis contains a description of hazards and hazardous materials
that may exist on site or impact the project; and addresses impacts related to hazardous materials
use and transportation, the accidental release of hazardous materials, development on
contaminated sites, air traffic hazards, and interference with emergency response and evacuation
plans. Appropriate mitigation measures are identified to reduce, lessen, or eliminate the proposed
project impacts. The analysis is supported by the Additional Hazardous Materials Review Letter
prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (2021), which is included as Appendix F.
4.8.1 Setting
a. Terminology
Hazardous Waste
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) defines a “hazardous waste” as a
substance that: (1) may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in
serious, irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness, and (2) poses a substantial present or
potential future hazard to human health or the environment when it is improperly treated, stored,
transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed (40 Federal Code of Regulations (CFR) 261.10).
Hazardous waste is also defined as ignitable, corrosive, explosive, or reactive and is identified by the
USEPA by its form: solids, semi-solids, liquids, and gases. Producers of such wastes include private
businesses and federal, State, and local government agencies. A material may also be classified as
hazardous if it contains defined amounts of toxic chemicals. USEPA regulates the production and
distribution of commercial and industrial chemicals to protect human health and the environment.
USEPA also prepares and distributes information to inform the public about these chemicals and
their effects, and provides guidance to manufacturers in pollution prevention measures, such as
more efficient manufacturing processes and recycling used materials.
Hazard versus Risk
Public health is potentially at risk whenever hazardous materials have been used or where there
could be exposure to such materials. Ecological communities, such as avian and terrestrial habitats
and the aquatic environment, may be at risk, depending on the type of populations and locations
relative to potential exposure sources. Important to the setting and analyses presented in this
section are the concepts of the “hazard” of these materials and the “risk” they pose to human
health and the ecological environment.
Exposure to some chemical substances may harm internal organs or systems in the human body,
ranging from temporary effects to permanent disability or death. Aquatic, terrestrial, or avian
species may be similarly adversely affected. Hazardous materials that result in adverse effects are
generally considered toxic. However, chemical materials may be corrosive or react with other
substances to form other hazardous materials, but they are not considered toxic because organs or
systems are not affected. Because toxic materials can result in adverse health effects, they are
considered hazardous materials, but not all hazardous materials are necessarily toxic. For purposes
of the information and analyses presented in this section, the terms hazardous substances and
hazardous materials are used interchangeably and include materials that are considered toxic.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.8-2
The risk to human health and the ecological environment is determined by the probability of
exposure to a hazardous material and the severity of harm such exposure would pose. The
likelihood and means of exposure, along with the inherent toxicity of a material, are used to
determine the degree of risk to human health or the ecosystem. For example, a high probability of
exposure to a low toxicity chemical would not necessarily pose an unacceptable human health or
ecological risk, whereas a low probability of exposure to a very high toxicity chemical might. Various
regulatory agencies, such as USEPA, California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA),
State Water Resources Control Board, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC),
and federal and State Occupational Safety and Health Administrations (OSHA) are responsible for
developing and/or enforcing risk-based standards to protect the public and the environment.
b. Physical Setting
The project site consists of approximately 105 acres of land located in the southwestern corner of
San Bernardino County in the city of Fontana, California. The land is currently vacant and
undeveloped. The surrounding properties consist of vacant land, some of which are in the process
of being developed, as well as Interstate 15 (I-15) that runs along the west boundary of the project
site. The project site is at an elevation of approximately 1,767 feet above mean sea level. The
regional topographic gradient is flat in the east/west direction; there is a slight downward gradient
from north to south. Based on the topography, surface water on the property infiltrates the ground
surface or flows towards the southwest. Furthermore, the project site was historically used as
vineyards and the 2007 EIR concluded that residual pesticides concentrations may be present in the
soils onsite.
The Additional Hazardous Material Review identified the following recognized environmental
conditions associated with the project site:
A 550-gallon gasoline underground storage tank (UST) was removed from the property in
December 2006. Excavation bottom soil sample confirmation results were non-detect for TPH-g
and VOCs. Based on the review of the closure report, the County Fire Department issued a no
further investigation letter for the UST on January 3, 2007. Although the exact location of the
UST is unknown, it may have been located in currently proposed Planning Area 2 or Planning
Area 4. Although results of the confirmation soil sample were non-detect, there is the potential
for residual concentrations of hydrocarbons to be present in the vicinity of the former gasoline
UST.
The project area was historically used for agricultural purposes, which are commonly associated
with the use of pesticides and arsenic. Shallow soil beneath the project area may be impacted
by these chemicals.
The project site features numerous soil piles from an unknown origin, concrete/rubble debris,
and trash scattered throughout the project area, indicating the area has been used an illegal
dumping ground.
Soil in the project area adjacent to I-15 has the potential to be impacted by aerially deposited
lead (ADL).
These conditions warrant further investigation and/or mitigation to address potential for exposure.
Though the project site is currently vacant, construction of the proposed project could result in
accidental conditions due to any of the following: direct dermal contact with hazardous materials;
incidental ingestion of hazardous materials, or inhalation of airborne dust released from dried
hazardous materials. Given the potential for residual concentrations of pesticides, arsenic,
Environmental Impact Analysis Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.8-3
hydrocarbons, ADLs and other hazardous chemicals to be present on site, project construction has
the potential to create a significant hazard to construction workers and/or the public and
environment during routine activities such as excavation, soil transport, and off-site soil disposal.
Pesticides
Historical agricultural activities have the potential for residual pesticides or arsenic associated with
herbicide applications and may be present. Residual Agricultural Chemicals Diazinon, chlorpyrifos,
and other “Group A” pesticides are insecticides used to control pests on crops as well as in
individual home use. Diazinon is a nonsystemic organophosphate insecticide classified by USEPA as
a Restricted Use Pesticide (RUP) and is for professional pest control operator use only. In 1988,
USEPA canceled registration of diazinon for use on golf courses and sod farms because of die-offs of
birds that often congregated in these areas. Diazinon is used to control cockroaches, silverfish, ants,
and fleas in residential, non-food buildings. Diazinon bait is used to control scavenger yellow jackets
in the western United States. It is used on home gardens and farms to control a wide variety of
sucking and leaf-eating insects. It is also used on rice, fruit trees, sugarcane, corn, tobacco, potatoes,
and on horticultural plants and used as an ingredient in pest strips. Diazinon may be found in
formulations with a variety of other pesticides, including pyrethrins, lindane, and disulfoton. Birds
are significantly more susceptible to diazinon poisoning than other wildlife, and it is highly toxic to
fish and to bees.
Diazinon has a low persistence in soil. Diazinon seldom migrates below the top half inch in soil, but
in some instances, it may contaminate groundwater. Diazinon is absorbed by plant roots when
applied to the soil and translocated to other parts of the plant. Chlorpyrifos is a broad-spectrum
organophosphate insecticide classified by USEPA as a General Use Pesticide. While originally used
primarily to kill mosquitoes, it is no longer registered for this use. Chlorpyrifos is effective in
controlling cutworms, corn rootworms, cockroaches, grubs, flea beetles, flies, termites, fire ants,
and lice. It is used as an insecticide on grain, cotton, field, fruit, nut, and vegetable crops, as well as
on lawns and ornamental plants. It is also registered for direct use on sheep and turkeys, for horse
site treatment, dog kennels, domestic dwellings, farm buildings, storage bins, and commercial
establishments. Chlorpyrifos acts on pests primarily as a contact poison, with some action as a
stomach poison. Chlorpyrifos is moderately to very highly toxic to birds and highly toxic to
freshwater fish, aquatic invertebrates, and estuarine and marine organisms. Due to its high acute
toxicity and its persistence in sediments, chlorpyrifos may represent a hazard to smaller organisms.
Aquatic and general agricultural uses of chlorpyrifos pose a serious hazard to wildlife and
honeybees. Various agricultural operations that were once located within the project.
Lead and Asbestos
There is potential for aerially deposited lead (ADL) in shallow soil adjacent to I-15. The project site
does not contain any existing structures on the site and would not require demolition. Therefore,
there are no potential hazards from lead-based paint or asbestos containing building materials on
the project site.
Perfluorooctanoic Acid
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was detected at a concentration of 3.8 nanograms per liter (NG/L) in
public drinking water well F-13A, B. This well is located roughly 2.75 miles southeast of the
southeast corner of the project area along Citrus Avenue. The well is located south of the Mid-Valley
Landfill, across State Route 210 (SR 210). The direction of groundwater flow reported at the Mid-
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.8-4
Valley Landfill for the October 2020-March 2021 semi-annual monitoring event was reported as to
the southeast (away from the project area) and depth to groundwater was reported as 320.89 feet
below top of casing to 513.14 feet below top of casing.
Landfills
The Mid-Valley Landfill is located approximately 2.3 miles southeast of the site at the southeastern
corner of Summit and Mango Avenues. Groundwater contamination associated with landfilling
activities has been reported at the Mid-Valley Landfill. However, the project site is upgradient of the
landfill and groundwater flow is toward the south. Thus, contamination at the landfill is not likely to
migrate to the site.
Fire Hazard
In California, State and local agencies share responsibility for wildfire prevention and suppression
and federal agencies take part as well. Federal agencies are responsible for federal lands in Federal
Responsibility Areas (FRA). The State of California has determined that some non-federal lands in
unincorporated areas with watershed value are of statewide interest and have classified those lands
as State Responsibility Areas (SRA). California Department of Forestry and Fire Protections (CAL
FIRE) manages SRAs. All incorporated areas and unincorporated lands not in FRAs or SRAs are
classified as Local Responsibility Areas (LRA).
While nearly all of California is subject to some degree of wildfire hazard, there are specific features
that make certain areas more hazardous. CAL FIRE is required by law to map areas of significant fire
hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors (Public Resources Code 4201-
4204, California Government Code 51175-89). As described above, the primary factors that increase
an area’s susceptibility to fire hazards include slope, vegetation type and condition, and
atmospheric conditions. CAL FIRE maps fire hazards based on zones, referred to as Fire Hazard
Severity Zones (FHSZ). There are three levels of severity: 1) Moderate FHSZs; 2) High FHSZs; and 3)
Very High FHSZs (VHFHSZ). Each of the zones influence how people construct buildings and protect
property to reduce risk associated with wildland fires. Under State regulations, areas within
VHFHSZs must comply with specific building and vegetation management requirements intended to
reduce property damage and loss of life in those areas.
The project site is not a designated VHFHSZ within an LRA or SRA; however, the project site is
surrounded to the north, east, and west by lands that are within a VHFHSZ. Specifically, areas west
of, and adjacent to Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3 (as identified under the proposed project) are within a
VHFHSZ under an LRA. Furthermore, areas north of, and adjacent to Planning Areas 2, 4, and 5 (as
identified under the proposed project) are within a VHFHSZ or Moderate FHSZ under an SRA
(California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CAL FIRE] 2021). Figure 4.8-1 shows fire
hazard zones in the project vicinity. Impacts associated with wildfire are further addressed in
Section 4.16, Wildfire. Refer to Figure 2-4 in Section 2, Project Description, for a map showing the
configuration and location of Planning Areas 1 through 6 within the Specific Plan area.
Environmental Impact Analysis Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.8-5
Figure 4.8-1 Fire Hazard Severity Zones Near the Project
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.8-6
Historical Use Information
The historical records review completed as part of this analysis includes aerial photographs,
topographic maps, and City directories as detailed in the following sections. Table 4.8-1 displays a
summary of historical uses of the Specific Plan area and adjoining properties.
Table 4.8-1 Historical Use of the Specific Plan Area and Surrounding Properties
Year Source Plan Area Use Adjacent Property Use
1896,
1898,
1901, 1936
Topographic
Map
Vacant land; Duncan Canyon Road and
Citrus Avenue appears to have been
constructed by 1936
Mostly vacant land and unmarked roads;
wash and mountains to the northwest
1938 Aerial
Photographs
Vacant land used for agricultural
purposes; Duncan Canyon Road and
Citrus Avenue have been constructed;
there appears to be two separate
developed parcels present on the south
side of Duncan Canyon Road which may
be farm/residential land use
North (N): Vacant and agricultural land use,
as well as a mountain wash traveling from
the northeast to the southwest
East (E): Citrus Avenue, followed by vacant
land Residential
South (S): Vacant and agricultural land use
West (W): Vacant and agricultural land use
1941, 1942 Topographic
Map
Similar to the 1936 topographic map;
few scattered structures depicted on
the south side of Duncan Canyon Road
by 1942
Similar to the 1936 topographic map;
however, Citrus Road is depicted to the east
and Los Angeles Boulder Dam Power Lines
to the north and west
The southeastern NE-SW trending gas
transmission pipeline easement is depicted on the 1942 map
1949 Aerial
Photographs
Similar to the 1938 aerial photographs Similar to the 1938 aerial photographs
1953 Aerial Photographs Similar to the 1949 aerial photographs Similar to the 1949 aerial photographs
1954, 1966 Topographic
Map
South of Duncan Canyon Road is
depicted as agricultural land use
N: Vacant land and a water tank,
agricultural land use
E: Vacant land and a gas transmission
easement, agricultural land use
S: Agricultural land and the gas transmission
easement
W: Agricultural land use, vacant land, and a
wash
1959 Aerial Photographs Similar to the 1953 aerial photographs Similar to the 1953 aerial photographs
1966 Aerial
Photographs
Similar to the 1959 aerial photographs;
the eastern adjacent gas transmission
pipeline easement is visible in the AP;
the northeastern parts of the project
area have appeared to become fallow
agricultural land
Similar to the 1959 aerial photographs
1975 Aerial
Photographs
The subject property generally appears
to consist of fallow agricultural land; the
two separate developed parcels still
appear to be present on the south side
of Duncan Canyon Road; I-15 is under
N: I-15 followed by vacant land
E: Citrus Road, vacant land and the gas
transmission easement
S: Vacant land and a gas transmission
easement
Environmental Impact Analysis Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.8-7
Year Source Plan Area Use Adjacent Property Use
construction to the west and Lytle Creek Road has been constructed W: I-15, some buildings depicted
1975 Topographic
Map
I-15 is depicted, as well as Lytle Creek
Road
N: Vacant land with new roads
E: Citrus Road, vacant land and the gas
transmission easement
S: Vacant land and the gas transmission
easement
W: New roads, some buildings depicted
1985 Aerial
Photographs
Similar to the 1975 aerial photographs;
the easternmost developed parcel
appears to be vacant by this time
Similar to the 1975 aerial photographs
1989 Aerial
Photographs
Similar to the 1985 aerial photographs Similar to the 1985 aerial photographs
1990 Aerial
Photographs
Similar to the 1989 aerial photographs;
however, the land is traversed by
undeveloped roadways
Similar to the 1989 aerial photographs
1994 Aerial
Photographs
Similar to the 1990 aerial photographs;
the one developed parcel along the
south side of Duncan Canyon Road at
the intersection of Lytle Creek Road
remains present
Similar to the 1990 aerial photographs
2002, 2005 Aerial
Photographs
Similar to the 1994 aerial photographs Similar to the 1994 aerial photographs
2002, 2003 City Directory 15885 Duncan Canyon Road: occupied by Quoss Verla in 2002 and 2003 Not evaluated as part of this research
2009, 2012 Aerial
Photographs
Vacant, fallow agricultural land use; the
developed parcel at the intersection of
Lytle Creek Road and Duncan Canyon
Road is vacant land
Adjacent properties are being graded for
residential development or are already
occupied by residential development; north
of I-15 appears to remain as mostly vacant
land
2016 Aerial Photographs Similar to the 2012 aerial photographs; there is a vacant area of disturbed soil centrally located on the project area, east of the intersection of Lytle Creek Road and Duncan Canyon Road
Similar to the 2012 aerial photographs
Based on Table 4.8-1, the following historical uses of the project area have the potential to impact
the project:
Agricultural land use from 1938 through approximately 1966-1975
Disturbed land along Duncan Canyon Road from approximately 2009 through present day
Site Reconnaissance
Rincon completed a site reconnaissance of the project area on May 13, 2021. The site
reconnaissance was conducted by observing the subject property from public thoroughfares,
observing the adjacent properties from public thoroughfares, and observing the subject property
from driveways, roads, and walking paths. At the time of the reconnaissance, the project area
consisted of vacant land. There were no structures present onsite. Surrounding land use generally
consisted of roadways, I-15, vacant land, and residential communities.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.8-8
The use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials was not observed during the site
reconnaissance. No evidence of aboveground or underground storage tanks was observed. No
odors, pools of liquid, industrial drums, or indications of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were
noted. There were no drains, clarifiers, sumps, degreasers, or parts washers noted onsite. However,
Rincon noted a significant amount of soil piles from an unknown origin, concrete/rubble debris, and
trash scattered throughout the site.
4.8.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
United States Environmental Protection Agency
USEPA is the agency primarily responsible for enforcement and implementation of Federal laws and
regulations pertaining to hazardous materials. Applicable federal regulations pertaining to
hazardous materials are contained in the CFR Titles 29, 40, and 49. Hazardous materials, as listed in
49 CFR 172.101. The following laws govern the management of hazardous materials:
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 UUSC 6901 et seq.)
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)
(also called the Superfund Act) (42 USC 9601 et seq.), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (1986)
Toxic Substances Control Act (15 USC 2601 et seq.)
These laws and associated regulations include specific requirements for facilities that generate, use,
store, treat, and/or dispose of hazardous materials. USEPA provides oversight and supervision for
Federal Superfund investigation/remediation projects, evaluates remediation technologies, and
develops hazardous materials disposal restrictions and treatment standards.
Toxic Substances Control Act (1976) and the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976
These acts established a program administered by the USEPA for the regulation of the generation,
transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA was amended in 1984 by
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act, which affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of
regulating hazardous wastes and waste generation. Among other things, the use of certain
techniques for the disposal of some hazardous wastes was prohibited specifically by Hazardous and
Solid Waste Act.
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 expanded the scope of RCRA and increased
the level of detail in many of its provisions, reaffirming the regulation from generation to disposal
and to prohibiting the use of certain techniques for hazardous waste disposal. The USEPA has largely
delegated responsibility for implementing the RCRA program in California to the State, which
implements this program through the California Hazardous Waste Control Law.
RCRA regulates landfill siting, design, operation, and closure for licensed landfills. In California, RCRA
landfill requirements are delegated to the California Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery (CalRecycle).
Environmental Impact Analysis Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.8-9
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
This law provides broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of
hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. Among other things,
CERCLA established requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites,
provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous substances at these sites, and
established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified.
CERCLA also enabled revision of the National Contingency Plan, which provided the guidelines and
procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants. The National Contingency Plan also established the National Priorities
List and in compliance with CERCLA.
U.S. Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Transport Act (49 USC 5101)
The U.S. Department of Transportation, in conjunction with the USEPA, is responsible for
enforcement and implementation of Federal laws and regulations pertaining to transportation of
hazardous materials. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act directs the U.S. Department of
Transportation to establish criteria and regulations regarding the safe storage and transportation of
hazardous materials. CFR 49, 171–180 and Title 13 California Code of Regulations (CCR), regulates
the transportation of hazardous materials, types of material defined as hazardous, and the marking
of vehicles transporting hazardous materials. It requires that every employee who transports
hazardous materials receive training to recognize and identify hazardous materials and become
familiar with hazard materials requirements. Carriers are required to report accidental releases of
hazardous materials to the U.S. Department of Transportation at the earliest practical moment.
Other incidents that must be reported include deaths, injuries requiring hospitalization, and
property damage exceeding $50,000. The California Highway Patrol and California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) are the State agencies with primary responsibility for enforcing federal
and State regulations related to transportation within California. These agencies respond to
hazardous materials transportation emergencies. Together, these agencies determine container
types to be used and grant licenses to hazardous waste haulers for hazardous waste transportation
on public roads.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl Substances Action Plan
In February 2019, the USEPA published the Per- and polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan
detailing the agency’s ongoing short-term and long-term regulatory actions pertaining to PFAS
detection, research, and remediation. The PFAS Action Plan describes measures the USEPA is
pursuing to address PFAS contamination at the federal level, including development of a federal
maximum contaminant level under the Safe Drinking Water Act for PFOA and PFOS, creating
groundwater cleanup recommendations for contaminated sites, and pursuing and supporting long-
term research initiatives.1 The Action Plan further notes that the USEPA has initiated the regulatory
process for listing PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA and is exploring the
possibility of developing PFAS ambient water quality criteria for human health under the Clean
Water Act Section 304(a).
1 Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) are part of the larger group of chemicals that comprise PFAS. USEPA. 2017. Technical Fact Sheet – PFOS and PFOA. [online]: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/ffrrofactsheet_contaminants_pfos_pfoa_11-20-17_508_0.pdf. Accessed September 2021.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.8-10
OSHA Worker Safety Requirements
The U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible at
the federal level for ensuring worker safety. OSHA sets federal standards for implementation of
workplace training, exposure limits, and safety procedures for the handling of hazardous substances
(as well as other hazards). OSHA also establishes criteria by which each state can implement its own
health and safety program.
b. State Regulations
Department of Toxic Substances Control
As a department of the CalEPA, DTSC is the primary agency in California that regulates hazardous
waste, oversees the cleanup of existing contamination, and identifies ways to reduce hazardous
waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the
authority of RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code.
DTSC also administers the California Hazardous Waste Control Law to regulate hazardous wastes.
While the California Hazardous Waste Control Law is generally more stringent than RCRA, until the
USEPA approves the California program, both State and federal laws apply in California. The
California Hazardous Waste Control Law lists 791 chemicals and approximately 300 common
materials that may be hazardous; establishes criteria for identifying, packaging, and labeling
hazardous wastes; prescribes management controls; establishes permit requirements for treatment,
storage, disposal, and transportation; and identifies some wastes that cannot be disposed of in
landfills.
Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the DTSC, the State Department of Health Services, the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and CalRecycle to compile and annually update lists
of hazardous waste sites and land designated as hazardous waste sites throughout the State; also
referred to as the Cortese List. The Secretary for Environmental Protection consolidates the
information submitted by these agencies and distributes it to each city and county where sites on
the lists are located. Before the lead agency accepts an application for any development project as
complete, the applicant must consult these lists to determine if the site at issue is included.
If any soil is excavated from a site containing hazardous materials, it would be considered a
hazardous waste if it exceeded specific criteria identified by the DTSC in Title 22, Division 4.5
Section 66261.10. Remediation of hazardous wastes found at a site may be required if excavation of
these materials is performed, or if certain other soil disturbing activities would occur. Even if soil or
groundwater at a contaminated site does not have the characteristics required to be defined as
hazardous waste, remediation of the site may be required by regulatory agencies subject to
jurisdictional authority. Cleanup requirements are determined on a case-by-case basis by the agency
taking jurisdiction.
Cal/Occupational Safety and Health Act
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (CCR Title 8) is implemented by the Cal/OSHA,
which is responsible for ensuring worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the
workplace. In California, Cal/OSHA has primary responsibility to develop and enforce workplace
safety regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials in the workplace, including
requirements for employee safety training, availability of safety equipment, accident and illness
prevention programs, hazardous substance exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire
Environmental Impact Analysis Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.8-11
prevention plan preparation. For example, under Title 8 CCR 5194 (Hazard Communication
Standard), construction workers must be informed about hazardous substances that may be
encountered. Compliance with Injury Illness Prevention Program requirements (Title 8 CCR 3203)
would ensure that workers are properly trained to recognize workplace hazards and to take
appropriate steps to reduce potential risks due to such hazards. This would be relevant if previously
unidentified contamination or buried hazards are encountered. If additional investigation or
remediation is determined to be necessary, compliance with Cal/OSHA standards for hazardous
waste operations (Title 8 CCR 5192) would be required for those individuals involved in the
investigation or cleanup work. A Site Health and Safety Plan must be prepared prior to commencing
any work at a contaminated site or involving disturbance of building materials containing hazardous
substances, to protect workers from exposure to potential hazards. Cal/OSHA also enforces hazard
communication program regulations, including procedures for identifying and labeling hazardous
substances. It requires Material Safety Data Sheets to be available for employee information and
training programs.
California Emergency Services Act
The California Emergency Services Act (Government Code Section 8550 et seq.) was adopted to
establish the State’s roles and responsibilities during human-made or natural emergencies that
result in conditions of disaster and/or extreme peril to life, property, or the resources of the State.
This act is intended to protect health and safety by preserving the lives and property of the people
of the State.
Assembly Bill 756
On July 31, 2019, California’s governor signed into law Assembly Bill (AB) 756, the State’s premier
regulatory response to PFAS contamination. Effective January 1, 2020, AB 756 authorizes SWRCB to
require monitoring and reporting of detectable PFAS levels in drinking water supplies. The law
establishes tiers of PFAS notification and response, including publication of any detectable levels of
PFAS in the public water system’s Consumer Confidence Report. A public water system detecting
PFAS in excess of established notification levels—5.1 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and 6.5 ppt for
PFOS—must provide notification within 30 days to its governing body and, if applicable, the
California Public Utilities Commission, pursuant to Section 116455 of the California Health and
Safety Code. Public water systems detecting PFAS in excess of the 70-ppt response level must either
remove the water source from use or comply with more stringent notification requirements,
including notification to consumers via mail/direct delivery, e-mail, website, and newspaper notices
(Aleshire & Wynder LLP 2019; SWRCB 2019).
In advance of AB 756 taking effect, the SWRCB announced updated PFAS detection and reporting
guidelines for local water agencies in August 2019. Furthermore, the SWRCB announced that it had
requested the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment develop a public health goal for
PFAS, an initial step toward establishing a regulatory maximum contaminant level for PFAS in
drinking water.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.8-12
c. Local Regulations
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana General Plan Noise and Safety chapter contains citywide goals and policies to prevent
the loss of life and property, and to minimize injuries and property damage in the event of hazards
such as floods, fires, earthquakes, landslides, and other hazards.
Goal 1: Enhanced public safety and the protection of public and private property.
Goal 2: Provide effective emergency response to natural or human-induced disasters that
minimizes the loss of life and damage to property, while also reducing disruptions in the delivery
of vital public and private services during and following a disaster.
Goal 3: The City of Fontana is a community that implements proactive fire hazard abatement
strategies, and as a result, is minimally impacted by wildland and urban fires.
Goal 6: The City shall continue to ensure to the fullest extent possible that, in the event of a
major disaster, essential structures and facilities remain safe and functional as required by
current law. Essential facilities include hospitals, police stations, fire stations, emergency
operation centers, communication centers, generators and substations, and reservoirs.
City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) identifies the region’s hazards, reviews and assesses past
disaster occurrences, estimates the probability of future occurrences and sets goals to mitigate
potential risks to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural and
man-made hazards. The LHMP, updated every five years and approved by FEMA, is comprised of
participating federal, State and local jurisdictions agencies, special districts, school districts, non-
profit communities, universities, businesses, tribes and general public (City of Fontana 2017).
4.8.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds
Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, and for purposes of this EIR, implementation of the project
may result in or cause potentially significant hazards/hazardous materials impacts if it would:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the
environment;
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school;
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan; or
Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires.
Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials were analyzed in the Initial Study (Appendix A-
2). The Initial Study concluded that potential impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials during construction and operation would be less than significant.
The project is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled
Environmental Impact Analysis Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.8-13
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, thus, would not create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment. Additionally, the project is not located within an airport land use
plan, and there are no public airports or private airstrips located within two miles of the project site;
thus, the project would not result in a related safety hazard or exposure to excessive noise.
Therefore, these impacts will not be further discussed in this section. Impacts associated with
wildfire are further addressed in Section 4.16, Wildfire.
b. Methodology
An Additional Hazardous Material Review assessed potential existing hazards on the project site.
Based on the age of the available supporting documents (greater than 10 years), Rincon prepared
the Additional Hazardous Material Review to provide updated hazardous materials and waste
information with regards to current/recent property uses within the project area. The following
tasks were undertaken as part of the Additional Hazardous Material Review (Rincon 2021):
Performed a reconnaissance of the project area to identify obvious indicators of the existence of
hazardous materials.
Observed adjacent or nearby properties from public thoroughfares in an attempt to see if such
properties are likely to use, store, generate, or dispose of hazardous materials.
Obtained and reviewed an environmental records database search to obtain information about
the potential for hazardous materials to exist at the Specific Plan Area or at properties located in
the vicinity of the project area.
Reviewed files for the project area and immediately adjacent properties as identified in the
database report, as applicable.
Reviewed the current United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map to obtain
information about the project area and regional topography and uses of the project area and
surrounding sites.
Reviewed additional pertinent record sources (e.g., California Geologic Energy Management
Division [CalGEM] records, online databases of hazardous substance release sites), as necessary,
to identify the presence of environmental concerns.
Reviewed the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 2019 Statewide Per- and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Investigation online Public Map Viewer regarding current
PFAS orders at any facilities located in the vicinity of the project area.
Reviewed reasonably ascertainable historical resources (e.g., aerial photographs, topographic
maps, fire insurance maps, city directories) to assess the historical land use of the project area
and adjacent properties.
c. Standard Conditions
The following standard conditions related to hazards and hazardous materials, and identified in the
2007 EIR, remain applicable to the proposed project:
Standard Condition 4.15.1: Construction activities and commercial developments that utilize
hazardous materials shall comply with applicable regulations regarding hazardous materials use,
handling, storage, transport, and disposal.
Standard Condition 4.15.2: Reconstruction of Lytle Creek Road across the SCE right-of-way shall
comply with SCE guidelines for structures and improvements near power transmission lines and
towers.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.8-14
Standard Condition 4.15.3: Work within the I-15 Freeway right-of-way or near the utility boxes
by the freeway shall comply with the conditions outlined in the encroachment permit from the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
Standard Condition 4.15.4: If unusual soil staining and/or odors are encountered during grading
and excavation activities, future assessment of the soils shall be conducted prior to the
continuation of grading or excavation activities. If the results of the soil testing show the
presence of chemical below regulatory levels, grading or excavation may proceed accordingly.
Remediation and/or removal of contaminated soils shall be made prior to development, if
chemical levels are above regulatory standards. Remediation shall be made in coordination with
the local health department, SCAQMD, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control,
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency or other regulatory agencies and in compliance with
established maximum contaminant levels.
d. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the environment?
Impact HAZ-1 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION WOULD POTENTIALLY CREATE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO THE
PUBLIC OR THE ENVIRONMENT THROUGH REASONABLY FORESEEABLE UPSET AND ACCIDENT CONDITIONS
INVOLVING THE LIKELY RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT. PROJECT OPERATION
WOULD NOT CREATE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC OR THE ENVIRONMENT. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS
THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.
The previous 2007 EIR determined that construction activities associated with the development of
the project site would involve the use of hazardous materials for construction. With implementation
of the standard conditions and mitigation measures, impacts related to hazardous materials would
be reduced to less than significant levels.
Construction-Related Impacts
The project site generally consists of undeveloped, vacant land and has undergone changes in uses,
including an onsite structure demolition and removal, conducted between October 2007 and June
2009, and use as a soil/materials storage and construction staging area in June 2009. Improvement
to the adjacent Duncan Canyon Road traffic interchange was constructed in 2016.
The transportation of hazardous materials on area roadways is regulated by the California Highway
Patrol (CHP), U.S. Department of Transportation (Hazardous Materials Transportation Act) and
Caltrans, and use of these materials is regulated by the DTSC (22 Cal. Code Regs. Section 66001, et
seq.). The use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials by developers, contractors, business
owners, and others are required to be in compliance with local, State, and federal regulations during
project construction and operation. Facilities that use hazardous materials are required to obtain
permits and comply with appropriate regulatory agency standards designed to avoid hazardous
waste releases. All existing and future projects on the project site would be required to comply with
federal, State, and local regulations regarding the handling, transportation, disposal, and cleanup of
hazardous materials.
In addition, the standard conditions as referenced above from the 2007 EIR would also apply to
prevent public health and safety hazards associated with the use of hazardous materials by future
Environmental Impact Analysis Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.8-15
developments on the site. Therefore, impacts associated with worker exposure and environmental
release of pesticides, arsenic, hydrocarbons, ADLs or other hazardous chemicals would be
potentially significant.
Operation-Related Impacts
Implementation of the project with the proposed residential and non-residential uses would involve
the storage, use, and transport of hazardous materials (e.g., gasoline fuels, demolition materials,
asphalt, lubricants, toxic solvents, pesticides, and herbicides) during construction, demolition, and
landscaping activities. In addition, certain commercial uses, including swimming pool facilities, gas
stations, and dry cleaners that store, use, and routinely transport hazardous material to and from
their facilities, could pose a potential hazard to the environment. Electrical transformers and
industrial products containing polychlorinated biphenyls and heavy metals, as well as persistent
residual chemicals including pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers have the potential to pose a health
and safety risk via accidental release, misuse, or historic use at the project site.
There is a northeast-southwest trending Southern California Gas Company active natural gas
transmission line adjacent to the southeast of the project area. The gas line is associated with a
waste description of benzene since benzene can leak from underground storage tanks or other
hazardous waste; however, details regarding the waste description listing were not provided by
Environmental Database Resources. At its closest location to the project area, the gas transmission
line runs adjacent to the southeast and south of the intersection of Citrus Avenue and Duncan
Canyon Road. Based on the proximity of the natural gas pipeline to project area, if there was an
incident or gas release, impacts could potentially affect the project area, more specifically, Planning
Area 2. The 2007 EIR determined that roadway improvements of Citrus Avenue along the eastern
edge of the site would not occur over the gas line right-of-way and would not adversely affect the
adjacent high-pressure gas lines or the nearby pumping facility (City of Fontana 2007).
Generally, maintenance and upkeep of any onsite facility, including cleaning of workspaces, parking
areas, restroom facilities and maintenance of landscaping occasionally require the use of various
solvents, cleaners, paints, oils/fuels, and pesticides/herbicides. Transport, use, and storage of
hazardous materials during the construction and operation of the site would be conducted pursuant
to all applicable local, State, and federal laws.
Adherence to Fontana and San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health plans and
regulations would reduce the potential for contamination from hazardous materials through proper
cleanup, disposal, and remediation. The San Bernardino County Office of the Fire Marshall regulates
and enforces the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code relating to hazardous materials, including the
use and storage of hazardous materials that are ignitable, reactive, corrosive, or toxic. Businesses
using such materials are subject to permitting and inspection. Potential hazardous materials, such as
fuel, paint products, lubricants, solvents, and cleaning products, may be used and/or stored on-site
during the construction of the proposed project. However, due to the limited quantities of these
materials to be used by the project, they are not considered hazardous to the public at large (Rincon
2021). Though the previous 2007 EIR did not analyze operation-related impacts, however, the EIR
does require project compliance with standard conditions that reduce potential risk related to
hazardous materials. Compliance with relevant federal, State, and local regulations by future
commercial uses on the site would preclude the creation of hazards to on-site users and adjacent
areas (City of Fontana 2007). Therefore, impacts due to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions during operation of the project would be less than significant.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.8-16
Mitigation Measures
The 2007 EIR includes mitigation measures to remove and dispose of asbestos-containing material
associated with former structures onsite. However, the relevant structures have been removed, and
there are no existing structures on the project site. Therefore, these mitigation measures are no
longer applicable. The 2007 EIR included mitigation measure to address contaminated soil. The
original mitigation measure has been replaced with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1A and is considered
functionally equivalent. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1A, HAZ-1B and HAZ-1C would safeguard
construction workers from residual pesticides, arsenic, ADLs, or other hazardous chemicals found on
the project site.
HAZ-1A Soil Sampling – Phase II ESA
Prior to the start of construction (demolition or grading), the project applicant will retain a qualified
environmental consultant, California Professional Geologist (PG) or California Professional Engineer
(PE), to prepare a Phase II ESA of the project site that will be developed, to determine whether the
soil has been impacted at concentrations exceeding regulatory screening levels for
residential/commercial land uses. The Phase II ESA will be completed prior to construction and will
be focused on the former agricultural use of the property (all Planning Areas), potential presence of
aerially deposited lead (Planning Areas 3, 4, 5b, and 6), and the onsite presence of undocumented
soil piles/trash (Planning Areas 4 and 6).
As part of the Phase II ESA, the qualified environmental consultant will screen the analytical results
against the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board environmental screening levels
(ESL). These ESLs are risk-based screening levels for direct exposure of a construction worker under
various depth and land use scenarios. The lead agency will review and approve the Phase II ESA
prior to demolition and grading (construction).
If the Phase II ESA for the development site indicates that contaminants are detected in the
subsurface at the project site, the project applicant will take appropriate steps to protect site
workers and the public. This may include the preparation of a Soil Management Plan for Impacted
Soils (see Mitigation Measure HAZ-1B) prior to project construction.
If the Phase II ESA for the contaminant site indicates that contaminants are present at
concentrations exceeding hazardous waste screening thresholds for contaminants in soil and/or
groundwater (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 22, Section 66261.24 Characteristics of
Toxicity), the project applicant will take appropriate steps to protect site workers and the public.
This may include the completion of remediation (see Mitigation Measure HAZ-1C) at the proposed
project prior to onsite construction.
HAZ-1B Soil Management Plan for Impacted Soils
If impacted soils or other impacted wastes are present at the project site, the project applicant will
retain a qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE), to prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP)
prior to construction. The SMP, or equivalent document, will be prepared to address onsite handling
and management of impacted soils or other impacted wastes, and reduce hazards to construction
workers and offsite receptors during construction. The plan must establish remedial measures
and/or soil management practices to ensure construction worker safety, the health of future
workers and visitors, and the off-site migration of contaminants from the site. These measures and
practices may include, but are not limited to:
Stockpile management including stormwater pollution prevention and the installation of BMPs
Environmental Impact Analysis Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.8-17
Proper disposal procedures of contaminated materials
Monitoring and reporting
A health and safety plan for contractors working at the site that addresses the safety and health
hazards of each phase of site construction activities with the requirements and procedures for
employee protection
The health and safety plan will also outline proper soil handling procedures and health and
safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during
construction.
The lead agency will review and approve the development site Soil Management Plan for Impacted
Soils prior to demolition and grading (construction).
HAZ-1C Remediation
If soil present within the construction envelope at the development site contains chemicals at
concentrations exceeding hazardous waste screening thresholds for contaminants in soil (California
Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 22, Section 66261.24), the project applicant will retain a qualified
environmental consultant (PG or PE), to conduct additional analytical testing and recommend soil
disposal recommendations, or consider other remedial engineering controls, as necessary.
The qualified environmental consultant will utilize the development site analytical results for waste
characterization purposes prior to offsite transportation or disposal of potentially impacted soils or
other impacted wastes. The qualified environmental consultant will provide disposal
recommendations and arrange for proper disposal of the waste soils or other impacted wastes (as
necessary), and/or provide recommendations for remedial engineering controls, if appropriate.
The project applicant will review and approve the disposal recommendations prior to transportation
of waste soils offsite, and review and approve remedial engineering controls, prior to construction.
Remediation of impacted soils and/or implementation of remedial engineering controls, may
require additional delineation of impacts; additional analytical testing per landfill or recycling facility
requirements; soil excavation; and offsite disposal or recycling.
The lead agency will review and approve the development site disposal recommendations prior to
transportation of waste soils offsite and review and approve remedial engineering controls, prior to
construction.
Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1A requires a soil investigation for agricultural residue (pesticides, arsenic,
etc.). Mitigation Measures HAZ-1B and HAZ-1C would reduce impacts associated with on-site
hazards by implementing an SMP to reduce exposure to impacted soil, and would require proper
assessment and disposal of trash and soil piles. Impacts would be less than significant with the
implementation of mitigation.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.8-18
Threshold 2: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Impact HAZ-2 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT EMIT HAZARDOUS EMISSIONS OR HANDLE HAZARDOUS OR
ACUTELY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, SUBSTANCES, OR WASTE WITHIN ONE-QUARTER MILE OF AN EXISTING OR
PROPOSED SCHOOL. NONETHELESS, MITIGATION WOULD ENSURE THAT CONTAMINATED SOILS PRESENT ON THE
PROJECT SITE ARE INVESTIGATED, REMEDIATED, AND HANDLED ACCORDING TO APPLICABLE STATE AND
FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.
There is one school located in close proximity to the project site, Falcon Ridge Elementary School,
which is located approximately 0.25 mile to the south of the site. Children are particularly
susceptible to long-term effects from exposure to hazardous materials. Locations where children
spend extended periods of time, such as schools, are considered sensitive to hazardous air
emissions and accidental release associated with the handling of extremely hazardous materials,
substances, or wastes.
Construction-Related Impacts
The 2007 EIR determined that construction activities associated with the development under the
existing Specific Plan would involve the use of hazardous materials for construction. However,
compliance with relevant federal, state, and local regulations, including standard conditions, on the
project site would preclude the creation of hazards to on-site users and adjacent areas and reduce
impacts to a less than significant level (City of Fontana 2007).
As described under Impact HAZ-1, the project site generally consists of undeveloped, vacant land.
The site has been previously developed with agricultural and residential structures, but
subsequently cleared and disturbed. The land uses in the general vicinity consist of vacant and
residential land use, as well as freeway (I-15) and a school. Adjacent properties are occupied by
single-family residential homes, a park, and residential construction. Project construction would
involve the removal and transport of potentially contaminated soils during grading and excavation
activities. Project construction has the potential to expose students to hazardous construction
wastes if contaminated soils are improperly handled and transported along routes nearby Falcon
Ridge Elementary School. This has the potential for significant impacts on nearby residents, students
and staff.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1A and HAZ-1B would ensure that
contaminated soils present on the project site are investigated, remediated, and handled according
to applicable State and federal requirements. Therefore, project construction would result in less
than significant impacts with mitigation.
Operation-Related Impacts
As discussed under Impact HAZ-1, project operation would include residential and commercial uses,
which would not involve the use or storage of significant quantities of hazardous materials. The
occasional use or disposal of hazardous materials generally associated with these types of uses
include unused paint, aerosol cans, cleaning agents (solvents), landscaping-related chemicals, and
other common cleaning products and household substances. These materials are generally disposed
of at non-hazardous Class II and III landfills (along with municipal solid waste). The 2007 EIR does
require project compliance with standard conditions, as discussed under Impact HAZ-1, that reduce
potential risks associated with hazardous materials. Compliance with the procedures and guidelines
Environmental Impact Analysis Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.8-19
described in Section 4.8.2, Regulatory Setting, regarding the handling of such materials throughout
project operation would ensure that operation of the project would not create a significant hazard
to Falcon Ridge Elementary School. Therefore, with compliance with existing regulations, project
operational impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures HAZ-1A and HAZ-1B.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Threshold 3: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Impact HAZ-3 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH VEHICULAR CIRCULATION ROUTES OR THE ABILITY
OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES. THEREFORE, IT WOULD NOT IMPAIR IMPLEMENTATION OF OR PHYSICALLY
INTERFERE WITH AN ADOPTED EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN OR EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLAN. IMPACTS
WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The 2007 EIR determined that the project site is not used for emergency evacuation, and that
development on the project site would not affect evacuation along the surrounding streets
including I-15, Duncan Canyon Road, Citrus Avenue and Lytle Creek Road (City of Fontana 2007).
Furthermore, development under the existing Specific Plan would be required to comply with
applicable City codes and regulations pertaining to emergency response and evacuation plans
maintained by the City police and fire departments. The project would not interfere with the
implementation of the City’s emergency management plans from the City’s General Plan Safety and
Noise Element. Ultimately, the development of the newly aligned Lytle Creek Road would improve
connectivity and emergency access for the area. Therefore, the 2007 EIR determined that impacts
related to adopted emergency response plans would be less than significant.
An efficient roadway and circulation system is vital for the evacuation of residents and the mobility
of fire suppression, emergency response, and law enforcement vehicles. The project includes the
construction of commercial and residential land uses and the realigned Lytle Creek Road. The
resulting changes in land use patterns could increase the potential for conflicts with existing
emergency response or emergency evacuation plans by making implementation of emergency
response activities more difficult. This increased difficulty would place more people at risk of serious
injury or death and property at greater risk of serious damage. Construction and operation of the
project would increase traffic around the project site and vicinity. However, project construction
and operational activities would not result in any street closures that could impede emergency
access or evacuation.
However, Goal 6 of the General Plan’s Noise and Safety Element provides that the city of Fontana
shall ensure that sufficient resources are available to expand emergency protection and safety
services as the community grows. As discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services, both San Bernardino
County Fire Department (SBCFD) and Fontana Police Department (FPD) would be able to service the
project at existing staffing levels. Further, temporary impacts to traffic and access during project
construction would be addressed through the implementation of the project Construction Traffic
Management Plan, which would include coordination with emergency service providers.
Development of the project would not interfere with the city of Fontana’s LHMP, nor cause
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.8-20
permanent alteration to vehicle circulation routes, as discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation.
Section 17 of the Initial Study, Transportation, concludes that the project would comply with City of
Fontana roads standards and would not include any design features that would increase circulation
hazards. The development would not result in roadway uses that would be incompatible with the
existing land uses surrounding the project site, which consist of residential and commercial uses.
Therefore, impacts related to hazards associated with design features, emergency access, or
incompatible uses would be less than significant.
Further, the project does not propose or require facilities or operations that would interfere with
any identified emergency response or emergency evacuation plan. In accordance with City policies,
coordination with the local fire and police departments during construction would ensure that
potential interference with emergency response and evacuation efforts are avoided. Therefore, the
potential for the project to impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Threshold 4: Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Impact HAZ-4 THE PROJECT WOULD COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE AND CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE AND WOULD UNDERGO PROCEDURAL REVIEW BY THE CITY OF FONTANA AND FONTANA FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT. THE PROJECT WOULD NOT EXPOSE PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO A SIGNIFICANT RISK OF
LOSS, INJURY, OR DEATH INVOLVING WILDLAND FIRES AND IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The 2007 EIR determined that development under the existing Specific Plan would reduce the
potential for brush fires on the project site (City of Fontana 2007). Pre-construction coordination
and adherence to local fire regulations during construction and operation of the project would be
required, acting to reduce potential fire hazards. The existing Specific Plan does not include facilities
or operations that would exacerbate or contribute substantively to any existing fire hazards.
Therefore, the 2007 EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.
The City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LMHP) states that the potential for large and damaging fires
to the city of Fontana is present throughout much of the year, specifically during summer and
autumn months when the Santa Ana winds are present (City of Fontana 2017). While there are no
wildlands located in the vicinity of the project site, the project site is surrounded to the north, east,
and west by lands that are within a VHFHSZ, as discussed in Setting. Figure 4.8-1 displays designated
fire hazard areas near the project site. The Noise and Safety chapter of the City’s General Plan states
that single- and multi-family dwellings located within FHSZs have a greater potential of being
impacted by wildfires because the structures are the least fire resistant and the population groups
that inhabit them are the least prepared to evacuate in a large-scale wildfire event (City of Fontana
2018).
As discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services, and Section 4.16, Wildfire, the Fontana Fire Protection
District (FFPD) provides emergency, preventive, and administrative services across 52.4 square miles
within the city limits through a contract with the SBCFD. The SBCFD serves the southwestern section
of San Bernardino County. There are seven fire stations, an administrative office, and a fire
prevention office serving the City (City of Fontana 2018). Total department staffing at the seven fire
stations includes 33 full time fire suppression employees consisting of eight fire captains, eight fire
Environmental Impact Analysis Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.8-21
engineers, nine firefighter medics, three firefighter paramedics, and five firefighters. The nearest
fire station to the project site is Station 79 located approximately 0.1 mile west of the project site, at
4075 Coyote Canyon Road, Fontana. Station 79 operates one medic engine, houses a four-person
engine company, and is staffed with one captain, one engineer, and one firefighter medic (City of
Fontana 2021, City of Fontana 2018). Fire Station 79 is approximately three minutes travel time
from the project site (Herbert Spitzer 2021). The average response time to fires within Fontana is
four minutes, 51 seconds.2 The project site’s proximity to Fire Station 79 and other stations with
availability to quickly respond to potential fires would help reduce impacts to people and structures
associated with wildfire spread. The site is also adjacent to I-15 to the west, which acts as a large fire
break from properties on the western portion of the site.
The proposed project would be required to include the fire protection measures for consistency
with the California Building Code and Fire Code. The safety measures under the California Fire Code
include ignition-resistant construction with exterior walls of noncombustible or ignition resistant
material from the surface of the ground to the roof system, and sealing any gaps around doors,
windows, eaves and vents to prevent intrusion by flame or embers. Development would also be
required to meet California Building Code requirements, including CCR Title 24, Part 2, which
includes specific requirements related to exterior wildfire exposure. CCR Title 14 sets forth the
minimum development standards for emergency access, fuel modification, setback, signage, and
water supply, which help prevent loss of structures or life by reducing wildfire hazards risk.
Compliance with existing regulatory requirements for implementation of fire protection measures
(e.g., ignition-resistant construction materials and measures) would further reduce impacts
associated with wildfire spread. Impacts associated with exposure of people or structures to
significant risk involving wildland fires is less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
4.8.4 Cumulative Impacts
Planned and pending projects in Fontana and surrounding areas are listed in Table 3-1 in Section 3,
Environmental Setting, and include residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. The project, in
conjunction with other planned and pending projects in the project site vicinity, would cumulatively
increase the potential for exposure of people to hazards and hazardous materials when considering
the potential for these hazards to be present at other development sites, including soil
contamination, pesticides, LBP, asbestos, groundwater contamination of PCE, and upset risks along
major transportation routes such as I-15. In the event that hazardous materials are utilized or
encountered, each individual project would be required to comply with the applicable regulatory
requirements and mitigate any potential impacts to resources on the individual project site.
Potential impacts of the project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level due to
implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1A, HAZ-1B, and HAZ-1C that would safeguard
construction workers from residual pesticides, arsenic, ADLs, or other hazardous chemicals found on
the project site. Compliance with CEQA requirements, including the implementation of
recommendations provided in project-specific hazardous materials technical studies, on all new
development would ensure that the project would not be cumulatively significant. In the event that
hazardous materials are encountered or handled, each individual project would be required to
2 Communication from Lauri Lockwood of the SBCFD (November 2, 2021)
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.8-22
comply with the applicable regulatory requirements to determine and mitigate any potential
impacts. Such recommendations may include soil management plans, soil sampling, and/or other
measures determined to be necessary based on the situation. Therefore, cumulative impacts
related to hazardous materials would be less than significant.
Environmental Impact Analysis Hydrology and Water Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.9-1
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
This section analyzes the effects of the proposed project on water quality and hydrological
resources. The analysis is based on data and information in the Water Supply Assessment for the
Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan (WSA) prepared by Water Systems Consulting, Inc. for the
project (Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2020; Appendix G). In addition, water demand projections
were analyzed from the 2015 San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) (UWMP 2015).
4.9.1 Setting
a. Existing Hydrologic and Water Conditions
The project site is within the South Coast Hydrologic Region, which covers approximately
10,600 square miles of southern California watersheds draining to the Pacific Ocean. The South
Coast Hydrological Region includes all of Orange County, most of San Diego and Los Angeles
Counties, and parts of Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties. The region is bound by the
Transverse Ranges (including the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains) to the north, the
San Jacinto Mountains and low-lying Peninsular Range to the east, and the international boundary
with Mexico to the south (California Department of Water Resources 2020).
The project site is within the Santa Ana River Watershed. The nearest National Hydrography
Dataset-delineated flowlines to the project site are Lytle Creek Wash, which runs approximately
1.8 miles northeast of the project site. The project site is approximately 47 miles northeast of the
Pacific Ocean. The project site is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) (Region 8). The Santa Ana RWQCB sets water quality objectives and
monitors surface water quality through the implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan for
Region 8, which includes the project site (Basin Plan). Most of the City of Fontana is underlain by the
Chino Groundwater Basin, however, the northern portion of the city, including the project site, is
underlain by the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin, as shown in Figure 4.9-2.
Fontana receives its water primarily from ground water. West Valley Water District (WVWD) has
several local wells that pump water from five ground basins: Lytle Creek, Rialto, Bunker Hill, Chino
and North Riverside groundwater basins. WVWD is in the southwest region of San Bernardino
County, California, and serves the Cities of Rialto, Fontana, Colton, and Jurupa Valley, and
unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County. Water from underground wells is pumped into
booster stations where it is blended with imported water (City of Fontana 2007). The project site is
located entirely within the WVWD’s northern section. WVWD’s total water service area
encompasses approximately 31 square miles and is located approximately 50 miles east of Los
Angeles. The project area consists of 105 acres in the northern portion of the City of Fontana,
California, north of Lytle Creek Rd and east of Interstate-15. The project site lies within pressure
zone 7 of the northern section of WVWD’s water service area, a public water system as defined in
CWC Section 10912 (Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2020).
Watershed and Surface Water
Three main creeks flow through the WVWD service area: North Fork Lytle Creek, Middle Fork Lytle
Creek, and South Fork Lytle Creek, as shown in Figure 4.9-1. These three creeks serve to convey
storm water flows to the lower watershed during the wet season. Smaller flows associated with rare
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.9-2
Figure 4.9-1 Surface Waters
Environmental Impact Analysis Hydrology and Water Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.9-3
Figure 4.9-2 Groundwater Subbasins
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.9-4
summer storm runoff, irrigation runoff, industrial/ commercial runoff, and natural seeps and
springs, also pass through the creeks.
WVWD has the right to divert and export out 2,290 gallons per minute (gpm) of the Lytle Creek
Region when it is available. WVWD can also purchase an additional 1,350 gpm of Lytle Creek flows
through an agreement with the City of San Bernardino (San Bernardino is not able to utilize their
surface water flows), which is treated at the Oliver P. Roemer Water Filtration Facility. WVWD also
utilizes Lytle Creek surface water flows for groundwater recharge in the Lytle Creek Basin. WVWD
has utilized up to 5,500 acre-feet per year (AFY) during normal times from Lytle Creek surface flows
and projects a minimum of 2,130 AFY during extended drought conditions. WVWD and its
predecessors have utilized Lytle Creek surface flows for water supply for more than 130 years
(Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2020).
Topography
The topographical conditions in the City of Fontana varies, consisting of hillside terrain in the
northern (San Gabriel Mountains) and southern (Jurupa Hills) portions of the city. Flat or level
topography constitutes a large percentage of the terrain in the city (City of Fontana 2018).
The project site is located within northern Fontana in an undeveloped area. The project site is
situated at an elevation of 573 meters (1880 feet) above mean sea level. Ridgelines are described in
Section 4.1, Aesthetics, and topographic conditions are described in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils.
b. Water Supply
WVWD utilizes three primary sources for drinking water supply: local surface water from the east
side of the San Gabriel Mountains, including North Fork Lytle Creek, Middle Fork Lytle Creek, and
South Fork Lytle Creek; groundwater; and imported water from the State Water Project (SWP).
Groundwater is the primary source of supply. WVWD’s distribution system is divided into eight
pressure zones and utilizes 25 reservoirs for a total storage capacity of 72.6 million gallons (MG).
WVWD also operates a 14.4 MGD water filtration facility. WVWD does not currently have a recycled
water distribution system. WVWD’s plans for recycled water are still preliminary, and the expected
beneficial use has not been quantified. To the extent feasible, if and when recycled water is
available to WVWD, this water will be offered to WVWD customers.
Purchased or Imported Water
WVWD purchases SWP water from the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (Valley
District) through the Lytle Turnout off the San Gabriel Pipeline Feeder. SWP water is treated at
WVWD’s Oliver P. Roemer Water Filtration Facility and used for potable supply, or can be used to
supply non-potable customers, or for groundwater recharge in the Lytle Creek Basin. In 2006, the
Water Filtration Facility was expanded to increase production capacity to 14.4 MGD and will be
expanded to have a capacity of 21.6 MGD. WVWD has utilized SWP water through the Lytle Turnout
since 1999 (Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2020).
Groundwater
WVWD extracts groundwater from five regional groundwater basins: Bunker Hill, Lytle Creek, Rialto-
Colton, Riverside North, and Chino Basins. All five basins have been adjudicated and are managed.
Details on adjudication and management are provided in the 2015 RUWMP. WVWD, in a joint
venture with the City of Rialto and Valley District, constructed 25,000 feet of 48-inch transmission
Environmental Impact Analysis Hydrology and Water Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.9-5
line known as the Baseline Feeder. Through an agreement with Valley District, WVWD can receive
up to 5,000 AFY of supply through this transmission line. WVWD has received water through the
Baseline Feeder since 1998.
WVWD draws approximately 46 percent of its water supply from its three wells. WVWD’s normal
operating practice is to pump its wells 16 hours a day during off peak hours to take advantage of
Southern California Edison’s time of use rate. If, for some reason, wells are not in service
(maintenance or repair), WVWD has the ability and the right to pump its wells up to 24 hours per
day. WVWD has approximately 32 MGD production capability from all its wells in operation
24 hours per day (Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2020).
There has been a historical trend associated with drier years and an increase in water use among
agencies. Conservation efforts have proven to be effective in decreasing water use in dry years, such
as the historical drought of 2013-2015. Table 4.9-1 and Table 4.9-2 below present a comparison of
supply and demand projections for a normal year and single dry year.
Table 4.9-1 Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison
Totals 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Supply 34,000 41,900 45,400 48,400 48,400
Demand 20,799 22,256 23,802 25,492 27,312
Difference 13,201 19,644 21,598 22,908 21,088
Source: 2015 RUWMP
Table 4.9-2 Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison
Totals 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Supply 33,030 38,530 42,030 45,030 45,030
Demand 22,879 24,481 26,183 28,041 30,043
Difference 10,151 14,049 15,847 16,989 14,987
Source: 2015 RUWMP
In the 2015 RUWMP, WVWD had estimated that demands could increase by 10 percent during a
single dry year. During a multiple dry year period, it is expected that conservation messaging and
restrictions would lead to consumption dropping back down to normal year levels in the second dry
year and falling an additional 10 percent in the third dry year. Table 4.9-3 below presents a
comparison of supply and demand projections for multiple dry years.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.9-6
Table 4.9-3 Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison
Year Totals 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
First Year Supply 33,030 38,530 42,030 45,030 45,030
Demand 22,879 24,481 26,183 28,041 30,043
Difference 10,151 14,049 15,847 16,989 14,987
Second Year Supply 33,030 38,530 42,030 45,030 45,030
Demand 20,799 22,256 23,802 25,492 27,312
Difference 12,231 16,274 18,228 19,538 17,718
Third Year Supply 33,030 38,530 42,030 45,030 45,030
Demand 18,719 20,030 21,422 22,943 24,580
Difference 14,311 18,500 20,608 22,087 20,450
Source: 2015 RUWMP
According to the projections above from the WSA, WVWD has adequate supplies to meet their
customer demands and replacement water needs during average, single dry and multiple dry years
throughout the 20-year planning period. Project demands were included in supply projections.
c. Flood Hazards
Flooding can cause widespread damage to affected areas. Buildings and vehicles can be damaged or
destroyed, while smaller objects can be buried in flood-deposited sediments. Floods can also cause
drowning or isolation of people or animals. In addition, floodwaters can break utility lines,
interrupting services and potentially affecting health and safety, particularly in the case of broken
sewer or gas lines.
The secondary effects of flooding are due to standing water, which can result in crop damage, septic
tank failure, and well water contamination. Standing water can also damage roads, foundations, and
electrical circuits.
FEMA 100-Year Flood Hazard
As shown on Figure 4.9-3, the northern portion of the project site is in the 100-year floodplain as
delineated by the FEMA Flood Rate Insurance Maps (FIRMs). This section of the project site is
subject to flood hazards. The 100-year flood, or “base flood”, refers to the flood resulting from a
storm event that has a probability of occurring once every 100 years, or a one percent chance of
occurring in any given year. Areas mapped in the 100-year floodplain area are subject to inundation
during a 100-year storm event (FEMA 2020).
Dam Inundation, Seiche, or Tsunami
Fontana is not in the dam inundation area for any major stream or river in the region. The project
site is over 30 miles from the Pacific Ocean. No substantial bodies of water pose seiche or tsunami
risks to the project site. Mudflows are commonly associated with landslide risks, however, the
project site is relatively flat with no identified landslide risks that could trigger mudflows.
Environmental Impact Analysis Hydrology and Water Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.9-7
Figure 4.9-3 FEMA Flood Hazard Zones
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.9-8
d. Water Quality
The primary sources of pollution to surface and groundwater resources include stormwater runoff
from paved areas, which can contain hydrocarbons, sediments, pesticides, herbicides, toxic metals,
and coliform bacteria. Improperly placed septic tank leach fields and properly placed septic tanks
that do not have proper residence time or are not properly maintained or have improperly disposed
of household cleaners and other materials can cause similar types of contamination. Illegal waste
dumping can introduce contaminants such as gasoline, pesticides, herbicides and other harmful
chemicals. Changes to the quality of imported water could directly impact the amount of water
supplies available to the WVWD.
As discussed above, WVWD extracts groundwater from five regional groundwater basins: Bunker
Hill, Lytle Creek, Rialto-Colton, Riverside North, and Chino Basins. The project site is underlain by the
Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin. The Rialto-Colton subbasin underlies a portion of the upper Santa
Ana Valley in southwestern San Bernardino County and northwestern Riverside County. This
subbasin is about 10 miles long and is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains on the northwest, the
San Jacinto fault on the northeast, the Badlands on the southeast, and the Rialto-Colton fault on the
southwest.
WVWD and its predecessors have been utilizing the Rialto Basin for water supply for more than
80 years. Groundwater storage capacity of the basin is about 210,000 AF, with an estimated
120,000 AF for the Rialto portion of the sub-basin and about 93,000 AF for the Colton portion. The
basin shows quick rises of water levels during high precipitation years and slower decline over
several years. Under normal conditions, when the basin is not in adjudication, WVWD has unlimited
extraction rights. During drought conditions when the adjudication is in effect, the WVWD’s
extraction right ranges from 3,067 AFY in the most severe drought periods to a maximum of
6,134 AFY. Existing wells in the Rialto Basin have the capacity to extract up to 10,000 AFY during
normal conditions (Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2020).
4.9.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
The Federal Clean Water Act, enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several times since, is the
primary federal law regulating water quality in the United States and forms the basis for several
State and local laws throughout the country. The Act established the basic structure for regulating
discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. The Clean Water Act gave the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) authority to implement federal pollution control
programs, such as setting water quality standards for contaminants in surface water, establishing
wastewater and effluent discharge limits for various industry contaminants in surface water,
establishing wastewater and effluent discharge limits for various industry categories, and imposing
requirements for controlling nonpoint-source pollution. At the federal level, the Clean Water Act is
administered by the USEPA and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). At the State and
regional levels in California, the act is administered and enforced by the State Water Resources
Board (SWRCB) and the nine regional water quality control boards (RWQCBs).
Environmental Impact Analysis Hydrology and Water Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.9-9
Clean Water Act Section 401
Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, the RWQCBs have regulatory authority over actions in
waters of the United States and/or the State of California through the issuance of water quality
certifications, which are issued in conjunction with any federal permit (e.g., permits issued by the
USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, described above). Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act provides the SWRCB and the RWQCBs with the regulatory authority to waive, certify, or deny
any proposed activity that could result in a discharge to surface waters of the State. To waive or
certify an activity, these agencies must find that the proposed discharge would comply with State
water quality standards, including those protecting beneficial uses and water quality. If these
agencies deny the proposed activity, the federal permit cannot be issued. This water quality
certification is generally required for projects requiring Section 404 authorization involving the
discharge of dredged or fill material to wetlands or other waters of the United States.
Clean Water Act Section 402
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act requires that all construction sites on an acre or greater of land,
as well as municipal, industrial and commercial facilities discharging wastewater or stormwater
directly from a point source (e.g., pipe, ditch, or channel) into a surface water of the United States
must obtain permission under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
All NPDES permits are written to ensure that the surface water receiving discharges will achieve
specified water quality standards.
According to federal regulations, NPDES permit coverage for stormwater discharges associated with
construction activity can be obtained through individual State permits or general permits. Individual
permitting involves the submittal of specific data on a single construction project to the appropriate
permitting agency that will issue a site-specific NPDES permit to a project. NPDES coverage under a
general permit involves the submittal of a Notice of Intent by the regulated construction project
that they intend to comply with a general permit to be developed by USEPA or a state with
delegated permitting authority.
In California, the NPDES program is administered by the SWRCB through the RWQCBs and requires
municipalities to obtain permits that outline programs and activities to control wastewater and
stormwater pollution. The Federal Clean Water Act prohibits discharges of stormwater from
construction projects unless the discharge is in compliance with an NPDES permit. The SWRCB is the
permitting authority in California, and adopted an NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges
Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit)
(Order 2009-0009, as amended by Orders 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ). Containment and
spill cleanup are also encompassed in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). SWPPPs
are associated with construction and industrial stormwater permits, which are issued by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board. This includes inspections for spills, a requirement that
chemicals be stored in watertight containers with secondary containment to prevent spillage or
leakage, procedures for addresses hazardous and non-hazardous spills, including a spill response
and implementation procedure, include on-site equipment for cleanup and spills, and spill training
for construction personnel.1
The order applies to construction sites that include one or more acre of soil disturbance.
Construction activities include clearing, grading, grubbing, excavation, stockpiling, and
reconstruction of existing facilities involving removal or replacement. The Construction General
1 See https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/constpermits/wqo_2009_0009_complete.pdf
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.9-10
Permit requires that the landowner and/or contractor file permit registration documents prior to
commencing construction and then pay a fee annually through the duration of construction. These
documents include a notice of intent, risk assessment, site map, SWPPP, and signed certification
statement. The SWPPP must include measures to ensure that: all pollutants and their sources are
controlled; non-stormwater discharges are identified and eliminated, controlled, or treated; site
best management practices (BMPs) are effective and result in the reduction or elimination of
pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges; and BMPs installed
to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction are completed and maintained. The
Construction General Permit specifies minimum BMP requirements for stormwater control based on
the risk level of the site.
Clean Water Act Section 404
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, proposed discharges of dredged or fill material into
waters of the United States require USACE authorization. Waters of the United States generally
include tidal waters, lakes, ponds, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), and wetlands
(with the exception of isolated wetlands). Federal regulations are currently pending that would
revise the definition of “waters of the United States” subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
as further discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources. The USACE identifies wetlands using a
multi-parameter approach, which requires positive wetland indicators in three distinct
environmental categories: hydrology, soils, and vegetation. According to the Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987), except in certain situations, all three parameters must be
satisfied for an area to be considered a jurisdictional wetland. The Regional Supplement to the Corps
of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (USACE 2008) is also used when
conducting jurisdictional wetland determinations in areas identified within the boundaries of the
arid west.
When an application for a Section 404 permit is made, the applicant must show it has:
Taken steps to avoid impacts to wetlands or waters of the U.S. where practicable;
Minimized unavoidable impacts on waters of the U.S. and wetlands; and
Provided mitigation for unavoidable impacts.
National Flood Insurance Act/Flood Disaster Protection Act
The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 made flood insurance available for the first time. The
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 made the purchase of flood insurance mandatory for the
protection of property located in Special Flood Hazard Areas. These laws are relevant because they
led to mapping of regulatory floodplains and to local management of floodplain areas according to
guidelines that include prohibiting or restricting development in flood hazard zones.
Drinking Water Regulations
The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act was enacted in 1974, allowing the USEPA to promulgate
national primary drinking water standards specifying Maximum Contaminants Levels for each
contaminant present in a public water system with an adverse effect on human health. Primary
Maximum Contaminants Levels have been established for approximately 90 contaminants in
drinking water. The USEPA has also adopted secondary Maximum Contaminants Levels as non-
enforceable guidelines for contaminants that may cause cosmetic or aesthetic effects. States have
the discretion to adopt them as enforceable standards. USEPA has delegated to the State Water
Environmental Impact Analysis Hydrology and Water Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.9-11
Resources Control Board the responsibility for administering California’s drinking-water program. In
1976, California adopted its own safe drinking water act (see California Safe Drinking Water Act
described in the State regulatory section below).
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to provide subsidized flood
insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations limiting development in floodplains.
FEMA also issues Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that identify which land areas are subject to
flooding. These maps provide flood information and identify flood hazard zones in the community.
The design standard for flood protection is established by FEMA. FEMA’s minimum level of flood
protection for new development is the 100-year flood event, also described as a flood that has a
one percent change of occurring in any given year.
FEMA has also developed requirements and procedures for evaluating earthen levee systems and
mapping the areas affected by those systems. Levee systems are evaluated for their ability to
provide protection from 100-year flood events and the results of this evaluation are documented in
the FEMA Levee Inventory System (FLIS). Levee systems must meet minimum freeboard standards
and must be maintained according to an officially adopted maintenance plan. Other FEMA levee
system evaluation criteria include structural design and interior drainage.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The primary regulatory control relevant to the protection of water quality is the NPDES permit
administered by the SWRCB. The SWRCB establishes requirements prescribing the quality of point
sources of discharge and water quality objectives. These objectives are established based on the
designated beneficial uses (e.g., water supply, recreation, and habitat) for a particular surface water
body. The NPDES permits are issued to point source dischargers of pollutants to surface waters
pursuant to Water Code Chapter 5.5, which implements the federal CWA. Examples include, but are
not limited to, public wastewater treatment facilities, industries, power plants, and groundwater
cleanup programs discharging to surface waters (SWRCB, Title 23, Chapter 9, Section 2200). The
RWQCB establishes and regulates discharge limits under the NPDES permits.
b. State Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Division 7 of the California Water Code) is the
primary statute covering the quality of waters in California. Under the act, SWRCB has the ultimate
authority over the State’s water quality policy. SWRCB administers water rights, water pollution
control, and water quality functions throughout the state, while the nine RWQCBs conduct planning,
permitting, and enforcement activities. The RWQCBs also regulate water quality under this act
through the regulatory standards and objectives set forth in Water Quality Control Plans (also
referred to as Basin Plans) prepared for each region.
California Safe Drinking Water Act
The USEPA has delegated to the California Department of Public Health responsibility for
administering California’s drinking-water program. In 1976, two years after the Federal Safe
Drinking Water Act was passed, California adopted its own safe drinking water act (contained in the
Health and Safety Code) and adopted implementing regulations (contained in Title 22 California
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.9-12
Code of Regulations). California’s program sets drinking water standards that are at least as
stringent as the Federal standards. Each community water system also must monitor for a specified
list of contaminants, and the monitoring results must be reported to the state. Responsibility for the
state’s Drinking Water Program was transferred from the Department of Public Health to the
Division of Drinking Water, which is a division of the SWRCB that was created in July 2014.
California General Plan Law, Government Code Section 65302
Government Code Section 65302(a) requires cities and counties located within the state to review
the Land Use, Conservation, and Safety elements of the general plan "for the consideration of flood
hazards, flooding, and floodplains" to address flood risks. The code also requires cities and counties
in the state to annually review the land use element with respect "those areas covered by the plan
that are subject to flooding identified by floodplain mapping prepared by FEMA or the California
DWR."
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
Effective in 2015, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) creates a framework for
sustainable, local groundwater management in California. SGMA allows local agencies to customize
groundwater sustainability plans to their regional economic and environmental needs. This act
requires local regions to create a GSA and to adopt groundwater management plans for
groundwater basins or subbasins that are designated as medium or high priority. High-priority and
medium-priority basins or subbasins must adopt groundwater management plans by 2020 or 2022,
depending upon whether the basin is in critical overdraft. GSAs will have until 2040 or 2042 to
achieve groundwater sustainability.
c. Local Regulations
Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin
Fontana is under the jurisdiction of RWQCB Region 8, the Santa Ana RWQCB (SARWQCB), which
provides permits for projects that may affect surface waters and groundwater locally and is
responsible to prepare the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan).
The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses of waters in the region and establishes narrative and
numerical water quality objectives. Water quality objectives, as defined by the CWA Section
13050(h), are the “limits or levels of water quality constituents or characteristics which are
established for the reasonable protection of beneficial uses or the prevention of nuisance within a
specific area.” California has developed “total maximum daily loads” (TMDLs), which are a
calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet
water quality objectives established by the region. The Basin Plan serves as the basis for the
SARWQCB’s regulatory programs and incorporates an implementation plan to meet water quality
objectives. Basin Plans undergo a triennial review process, with the SARWQCB’s Basin Plan most
recently updated in June 2019 (SARWQCB 2019).
Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit
On January 29, 2010, the SARWQCB adopted Order R8‐2010‐0033, as amended by Order R8-
2013-0024 (NPDES Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for the San Bernardino County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District) otherwise known as the municipal separate storm sewer
system (MS4) permit. The City of Fontana is subject to the NPDES permitting process under its MS4
Environmental Impact Analysis Hydrology and Water Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.9-13
codified as Title 14 (Storm Drains and Floodplain Management) of the Municipal Code. One
component of the MS4 permit requires the development of site-specific Water Quality Management
Plan (WQMPs) for new development and significant redevelopment projects. WQMPs include site
design, source control, and treatment elements to reduce stormwater pollution from urban runoff.
On April 7, 2015, the SARWQCB adopted statewide Trash Provisions to address impacts of trash on
surface waters in the region. The Trash Provisions outline additional requirements for co-permittees
under the MS4 permit, including either installation of Full Capture Systems for all storm drains
capturing runoff from priority land uses, or a combination of full capture systems, multi-benefit
projects, treatment controls, and/or institutional controls to reduce trash accumulation in surface
waters (SARWQCB 2017).
San Bernardino County Municipal Stormwater Management Plan
The San Bernardino County Municipal Stormwater Management Plan (MSMP), developed by the
SBCFCD and other co-permittees to the MS4 Permit, outlines programs and policies to manage
urban runoff. The MSMP includes development review procedures, required construction BMPs and
inspection frequency, annual reporting and evaluation framework, and TMDL implementation
strategies. The purpose of the MSMP was to satisfy NPDES permit conditions for creating and
implementing an Urban Runoff Management Program (URMP) to reduce pollutant discharges (City
of Fontana 2018).
Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans
Developed in 2013 by the County of San Bernardino Areawide Stormwater Program, the Technical
Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans describes low-impact development (LID)
guidelines for projects to reduce downstream erosion by more closely mimicking pre-project
hydrology and minimizing pollutant runoff. The Handbook details strategies for selecting
appropriate LID BMPs, design capture volume requirements for BMPs, and sizing calculation
methodology for BMP implementation in specific watersheds in the County.
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana General Plan Noise and Safety, Sustainability and Resilience, and Infrastructure and
Green Systems chapters contain policies relevant to hydrology and water quality, including the
following:
Noise and Safety
Goal 7: The city shall discourage new development in flood-hazard areas and implement mitigation
measures to reduce the hazard to existing developments located within the 100- and 500-
year flood zones.
Sustainability and Resilience
Goal 7: Conservation of water resources with best practices such as drought-tolerant plant species,
recycled water, greywater systems, has become a way of life in Fontana.
Policy: Continue to promote and implement best practices to conserve water
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.9-14
Infrastructure and Green Systems
Goal 1: Fontana collaborates with public and private agencies for an integrated and sustainable
water resource management program
Policy: Support initiatives to provide a long-term supply of the right water for the right use
through working with regional providers and the One Water One Watershed Plan.
Goal 2: Fontana promotes use of non-potable water for uses where drinking water is not needed.
Policy: Encourage use of processed water from the IEUA systems using recycled water for all
non-drinking water purposes.
Policy: Promote laundry-to-landscape greywater systems for single-family housing units.
Goal 3: The city continues to have an effective water conservation program.
Policy: Support landscaping in public and private spaces with drought resistant plants.
Policy: Continue successful city water conservation programs and partnerships.
Goal 4: The City of Fontana consistently seeks reasonable rates from the city’s drinking water
providers.
Policy: Support City negotiations to keep drinking water rates reasonable for residents and
other users.
Goal 6: The City of Fontana consistently seeks reasonable rates from the city’s drinking water
providers.
Policy: Continue to implement the Water Quality Management Plan for stormwater
management that incorporates low-impact and green infrastructure standards.
Policy: Promote natural drainage approaches (green infrastructure) and other alternative
non-structural and structural best practices to manage and treat stormwater.
Additionally, the Noise and Safety chapter contains policies pertaining to development in floodplain
areas and substantial modification of watercourses. As described above, the northern portion of the
project site is located in a floodplain, however, the site is no longer subject to surface water flows
associated with Lytle Creek due to the construction of levees along the creek. Thus, the project site
does not support any discernible drainage courses, inundated areas, wetland vegetation, or hydric
soils that would be considered jurisdictional watercourses.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
Section 28-111 of Article IV of the Fontana Municipal Code contains the city’s stormwater/urban
runoff management and discharge controls ordinance. The ordinance is intended to reduce
pollutants in stormwater, regulate illicit connections and discharges to the storm drain system, and
protect and enhance the quality of water resources in Fontana in accordance with applicable
federal, state, and regional regulations. Article IX of Chapter 23 prohibits the discharge of any
pollutants to any street, alley, sidewalk, storm drain, inlet, catch basin, or conduit and applies to all
construction sites, new development and redevelopment, existing development, and commercial
and industrial facilities in Fontana. Section 5-14 prohibits discharges in violation of the municipal
NPDES permit (MS4 permit) or any NPDES permit for industrial or construction activity. Finally,
Section 23-516 contains the ordinance’s enforcement provisions and allows Fontana to make BMPs
a condition of approval to the issuance of a city permit.
Environmental Impact Analysis Hydrology and Water Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.9-15
4.9.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a hydrology and water quality impact is
considered significant if the proposed project would:
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality
Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site;
create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
impede or redirect flood flows
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan.
Impacts related to hydrology and water quality were analyzed in an Initial Study (Appendix A-2). The
Initial Study concluded that the northern portion of the project site is in the 100-year floodplain as
delineated by the FEMA Flood Rate Insurance Maps. However, this portion of the site is no longer
subject to surface water flows associated with Lytle Creek due to the construction of levees along
the creek. The southern portion of the project site is designated Zone X on the most recent FEMA
Flood Insurance Rate Map, indicating an area of minimal flood hazard. In addition, the project site is
approximately 47 miles from the Pacific Ocean and not subject to tsunami, and there are no bodies
of surface water in the project vicinity that may be subject to seiche. Therefore, the project site is
not located in an inundation zone and these impacts are not further evaluated in this section.
b. Methodology
The analysis of hydrologic and water quality impacts is based on information and data contained in
the WSA prepared for the project (Appendix G), including site runoff estimates, soil properties,
impervious surface area, and water quality BMPs. Future water supply and demand from the 2015
RUWMP was also considered in this analysis to determine if there is an adequate supply of water for
the project.
In addition to the studies referenced above, aerial imagery, grading plans, and drainage plans for
the site were reviewed to analyze pre- and post-construction hydrology. Documents published by
the SWRCB and SARWQCB, including plans and permits, were reviewed to provide information on
existing water quality as well as required water quality improvement measures. Finally, the federal
Flood Insurance Rate Maps were assessed to determine flood potential on the project site.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.9-16
c. Standard Conditions
The following standard conditions related to hydrology and water quality, and identified in the 2007
EIR, remain applicable to the proposed project:
Standard Condition 4.8.1: The project shall comply with the NPDES General Permit for
Construction Activity, which requires projects on one acre or more to notify the RWQCB and
implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activities.
Standard Condition 4.8.2: The project shall comply with the NPDES regarding the development
and implementation of a Water Quality Management Plan for permanent source and treatment
control measures and other best management practices for long-term stormwater pollutant
mitigation.
Standard Condition 4.8.3: The project shall provide the necessary on-site and off-site storm
drain infrastructure to connect to the City of Fontana’s storm drainage system, in order to
prevent the creation of flood hazards on-site and in downstream areas, as approved by the
Fontana City Engineer.
Standard Condition 4.8.4: The project shall provide the needed storm drain infrastructure and
documentation shall be submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to amend
the designated floodplain and obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to
development of the northern section of the site.
d. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Impact HWQ-1 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROJECT COULD INCREASE EROSION AND
STORMWATER RUNOFF DUE TO SITE DISTURBANCE AND INCREASED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA. COMPLIANCE
WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, INCLUDING PREPARATION OF A SWPPP DURING
CONSTRUCTION AND ON-SITE CAPTURE AND TREATMENT OF STORMWATER RUNOFF THROUGH BIOFILTRATION
SYSTEMS AND DETENTION BASINS DURING OPERATION, WOULD REDUCE WATER QUALITY IMPACTS. IMPACTS
WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Construction-Related Impacts
The 2007 EIR determined that construction activities associated with the project could lead to
pollutants entering drainage systems. Pollutants may include construction debris, construction
equipment fuels, oil and grease, construction materials and solvents, loose soils, and organic waste
materials. These pollutants could potentially degrade stormwater quality and downstream surface
water sources. Implementation of construction BMPs would minimize surficial erosion and transport
of pollutants and would occur in compliance with applicable NPDES and city requirements, thereby
protecting water quality both on- and off-site (City of Fontana 2007).
Grading, excavation, and other construction activities associated with the project could adversely
affect water quality due to erosion resulting from exposed soils and the generation of water
pollutants, including trash, construction materials, and equipment fluids. Soil disturbance associated
with site preparation and grading activities would result in looser, exposed soils, which are more
susceptible to erosion. Erosion factors (K factors) for soils on the project site are estimated at
approximately 0.24, indicating moderate potential for sheet and rill erosion by water (SWRCB 2021).
Environmental Impact Analysis Hydrology and Water Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.9-17
Additionally, spills, leakage, or improper handling and storage of substances such as oils, fuels,
chemicals, metals, and other substances from vehicles, equipment, and materials used during
project construction could contribute to stormwater pollutants or leach to underlying groundwater.
Because the project would result in disturbance of more than one-acre, on-site construction
activities would be subject to the NPDES Construction General Permit. For all covered projects, the
NPDES construction permit requires visual monitoring of stormwater and non-stormwater
discharges, sampling, analysis, and monitoring of non-visible pollutants, and compliance with all
applicable water quality standards established for receiving waters potentially affected by
construction discharges. As such, coverage under the Construction General Permit would require
development and implementation of a project specific SWPPP which identifies BMPs to reduce or
eliminate pollutants in storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges from
construction sites, as well as post-construction standards to achieve the pre-project volume and
rate of stormwater runoff from the project area. A SWPPP typically includes both source-control and
treatment-control BMPs to reduce water quality impacts. The BMPs that are most often used during
construction include watering exposed soils; covering stockpiles of soil; installing sandbags to
minimize off-site runoff; creating temporary desilting basins; construction vehicle maintenance in
staging areas to avoid leaks or spills of fuels, motor oil, coolant, and other hazardous materials;
installation of silt fences and erosion control blankets; and timing grading to avoid the rainy season
(November through April). In addition, coverage under the Construction Permit would also include
implementation of post-construction standards to achieve the pre-project volume and rate of
stormwater runoff from the project area. The proposed project would meet these standards
through installation of active and passive treatment units, as described below.
Furthermore, Section 28-111 Chapter 28 of the FMC contains the city’s policies intended to reduce
pollutants in stormwater. The section requires any construction contractors performing work in the
city to provide filter materials at the catch basin of the storm sewer system to retain debris and dirt.
The section further requires projects subject to the NPDES Construction General Permit to
demonstrate possession of the permit prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. Therefore,
construction of the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements, nor would it otherwise substantially degrade surface water or groundwater
quality.
Operation-Related Impacts
The 2007 EIR determined stormwater and wastewater from future residential and commercial on-
site uses could also lead to pollutants entering drainage systems. During operation, the biofiltration
BMPs and detention basins would capture and treat on-site runoff. Additional permanent structural
and operational BMPs would further reduce pollution of stormwater runoff associated with
proposed land uses on the project site (City of Fontana 2007).
There are no existing impervious surfaces on the project site since the site is currently undeveloped.
The project would increase impervious surface cover on the project site due to the construction of
up to 476,500 sf of commercial uses, 1,671 dwelling units in three separate residential villages, a
focal point “Piazza,” a “campanile” tower feature, pedestrian paseos, and the construction of the
realigned Lytle Creek Road, on an approximately 102-acre site. Increased impervious area on the
project site could result in increased runoff flow and volume, which can carry pollutants to
downstream water bodies and adversely affect water quality. Common pollutants associated with
residential development that could be discharged during operation of the project include
automotive chemicals and metals that accumulate on the driveway and parking lots, fertilizers,
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.9-18
pesticides, and herbicides applied to ornamental landscaping, pet waste, trash, debris, and
sediments.
The City of Fontana is permittee to the Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges within the Watersheds of San Bernardino County. Under the
MS4 permit, permittees, including the City of Fontana, must require the use of control measures,
such as BMPs, to reduce the discharge of pollutants from their MS4 facilities to receiving water
bodies. Implementation of the proposed project could result in stormwater runoff exiting project
sites during project construction. Stormwater runoff during construction could contain pollutants
such as soils and sediments released during grading and excavation activities as well as
petroleum-related pollutants due to spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery. Other
common pollutants that may result from construction activities include solid or liquid chemical
spills; concrete and related cutting or curing residues; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, solvents,
detergents, glues, acids, lime, plaster, and cleaning agents; and heavy metals from equipment.
Construction and operation of the proposed project would include compliance with the NPDES
program described above.
Storm drain infrastructure for the project would include area drains, roof drain connections, and
piped conveyance of stormwater to the water quality treatment basins/devices and connections to
the existing storm drain system. Water quality treatment would consist of biofiltration basins,
proprietary treatment devices, and/or underground storage vaults. These BMPs would slow the
velocity of water and allow sediment and debris to settle out of the water column, thereby
minimizing the potential for downstream flooding, erosion/siltation, or exceedances of stormwater
drainage system capacity. Operation and maintenance of the proposed project would not violate
water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Compliance with federal,
state, and local regulations would require that stormwater runoff is captured and treated on-site,
thereby protecting water quality both on- and off-site. Therefore, operation of the proposed project
would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, nor would it
otherwise substantially degrade surface water or groundwater quality.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Threshold 2: Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Impact HWQ-2 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT INVOLVE ON-SITE GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION
BECAUSE THE PROJECT WOULD BE SERVED BY WVWD’S EXISTING AND PLANNED SUPPLIES, REDUCING
POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO GROUNDWATER LEVELS. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVER WOULD INCREASE ON THE
PROJECT SITE UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT, REDUCING THE POTENTIAL FOR RECHARGE OF THE UNDERLYING
AQUIFER. HOWEVER, ON-SITE RUNOFF WOULD CONTINUE TO DISCHARGE TO LYTLE CREEK, AND ETIWANDA CREEK, WHERE ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL FOR INFILTRATION AND RECHARGE EXISTS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS
THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The 2007 EIR determined that the project would lead to a long-term demand for water and likely
create an increase in groundwater pumping from local wells operated by the WVWD. The WVWD
obtains its water supply from five separate groundwater basins (Lytle Creek, Rialto, Bunker Hill,
Chino and North Riverside groundwater basins) and two surface water sources (Lytle Creek and the
Environmental Impact Analysis Hydrology and Water Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.9-19
State Water Project). However, the WSA that was prepared for the previous 2007 EIR indicated that
there were adequate water resources to serve future development under the Specific Plan (City of
Fontana 2007).
The project site overlies the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin. The Groundwater Basin recharge
areas are Lytle Creek, Reche Canyon, and the Santa Ana River. Furthermore, adverse impacts to
groundwater supply could occur indirectly, by disrupting recharge rates or patterns to the
underlying groundwater basin, or directly, by increasing use of local groundwater supply. The
project would introduce impervious areas through development of residential and commercial uses.
As such, development of the proposed project could substantially interfere with groundwater
recharge due to increased impervious surfaces. Implementation of the project would increase water
demands on the project site due to the introduction of new residents, visitors and employees.
Water service to the project site is provided by the West San Bernardino County Water District.
Water delivered by the city is sourced from local groundwater and surface water resources.
According to the 2015 RUWMP, WVWD still has adequate supplies to meet their customer demands
and replacement water needs during average, single dry and multiple dry years throughout the 20-
year planning period. Water demands determined in the WSA, which included project demands,
were less than the projected growth demands provided in the 2015 RUWMP. It is concluded that
WVWD has adequate supplies to meet demands during average, single dry and multiple dry years
throughout the 20-year planning period. Furthermore, WVWD uses SWP for groundwater recharge.
Therefore, given that WVWD has adequate water supplies to meet the project’s water demand,
impacts with respect to depletion of groundwater supplies and interference with recharge would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.9-20
Threshold 3a: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Threshold 3b: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or
off-site?
Threshold 3c: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Threshold 3d: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
Impact HWQ-3 UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT, ON-SITE STORMWATER RUNOFF WOULD BE CAPTURED AND
TREATED VIA STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM CONSISTING OF CATCHMENT BASINS, BIOFILTRATION SYSTEMS,
AND DETENTION BASINS. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL ON- OR OFF-SITE
HYDROMODIFICATION IMPACTS AND WOULD NOT ALTER THE COURSE OF A RIVER OR STREAM GIVEN THAT THE
PROJECT WOULD COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS, BMPS AND WOULD INCLUDE PROJECT-SPECIFIC DESIGN FEATURES. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT.
The 2007 EIR determined that the project would comply with the NPDES regulations, and which
would reduce potential stormwater pollution potential and prevent adverse impacts to stormwater
quality. Changes in drainage patterns would be internal to the project site and would not impact the
regional hydrology or the drainage flows in the surrounding area. Furthermore, onsite runoff would
flow into on-site retention/detention basins and conveyed toward the existing storm drainage
facilities west of I-15 and south of the site. Runoff from the project site would not affect the course
of a stream or river. The city requires catch basin stenciling to discourage waste disposal into the
storm drain system and provides street sweeping of public streets to remove and prevent debris
from entering the storm drain system (City of Fontana 2007).
The project would not alter the course of a stream or river. However, full build-out of the project
would result in site-specific alterations to the local drainage patterns, and the implementation of
project-specific design features and BMPs would be required to minimize or avoid adverse impacts
associated with soil erosion, sedimentation, and flooding. Planning and design of the project would
include stormwater drainage features to accommodate runoff associated with new project features.
Additional sources of pollution are addressed under Impact HWQ-1 above, for potential impacts
associated with water quality and waste discharge requirements; no additional impacts associated
with polluted runoff have been identified.
The project would increase the area of impervious surfaces on the site and would implement
post-construction stormwater management control measures on-site through infiltration,
Environmental Impact Analysis Hydrology and Water Quality
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.9-21
evapotranspiration, storm water runoff harvest and use, or a combination of the three. In addition,
as described above for significance criterion (a), project specific SWPPPs would be developed and
implemented to minimize or avoid potential water quality impacts during construction and
operation of individual projects. Also as described above, construction and operation of the project
is expected to occur in compliance with applicable water quality standards and waste discharge
requirements, based upon project-specific design features and BMPs.
Continued implementation of city-wide programs would further reduce potential stormwater
pollution from new developments. Implementation of these existing programs and compliance with
NPDES mandates would prevent significant adverse impacts relating to stormwater runoff quality
from occurring with the proposed project. Given that the project would comply with applicable
water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, in addition to project-specific design
features and BMPs, alteration of drainage patterns on the project site would not result in
substantial erosion or siltation off-site or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Threshold 4: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control
plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Impact HWQ-4 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD IMPLEMENT WATER QUALITY BMPS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
APPLICABLE LOCAL AND REGIONAL REQUIREMENTS, REDUCING POTENTIAL DOWNSTREAM WATER QUALITY
IMPACTS. AS SUCH, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH OR OBSTRUCT IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN FOR THE SANTA ANA REGION. THE PROJECT SITE OVERLIES AN
ADJUDICATED GROUNDWATER BASIN AND WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH OR OBSTRUCT IMPLEMENTATION OF A
SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The 2007 EIR determined that stormwater pollution control measures would be implemented in
addition to citywide programs for public awareness and runoff pollution prevention. Therefore,
pollutants that could impact the downstream Santa Ana River would be minimized. Thus, no
significant impacts are expected on water quality within the Santa Ana River. No conflict with the
Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River would occur with the project (City of Fontana
2007). These findings still apply for the current project.
The SARWQCB’s Basin Plan designates beneficial uses for surface waters in the region 8 area and
associated water quality objectives to fulfill such uses. Lytle Creek, and Etiwanda Creek that are
located near the project site, have designated beneficial uses of Municipal and Domestic Supply
(potential), Groundwater Recharge (intermittent), and Wildlife Habitat (SARWQCB 2019).
As discussed under Impact HWQ-1, the project would implement on-site storage of stormwater
runoff, pursuant to Fontana Municipal Code. The requirements of the applicable MS4 permit are
intended to protect water quality and support attainment of water quality standards in downstream
receiving water bodies. The project would not involve use of septic systems, agricultural land or
other land uses commonly associated with high concentrations of nutrients, indicator bacteria, or
chemical toxicity and, therefore, would not exacerbate the existing impairments to Lytle Creek
Wash. The project would not impair existing or potential beneficial uses of nearby water bodies and
would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Basin Plan. The project would result in
increased drinking water and irrigation water demand due to the development of residential and
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.9-22
commercial buildings. As discussed above, increased water demand on the project site, construction
activities, and expanded impervious surface on the project site could potentially impact water
quality and groundwater supplies. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
4.9.4 Cumulative Impacts
Planned and pending projects in Fontana and surrounding areas are listed in Table 3-1 in Section 3,
Environmental Setting, and include residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. The project, in
conjunction with other planned and pending projects in the project site vicinity, would cumulatively
increase the potential to impact hydrology and water quality. In the event that hydrology and water
quality may be impacted, each individual project would be required to comply with the applicable
regulatory requirements and mitigate any potential impacts to resources on the individual project
site.
Compliance with CEQA requirements, including the implementation of recommendations provided
in project-specific hydrology and water quality studies, on all new development would ensure that
the project would not be cumulatively significant. In the event that hydrology and water quality may
be impacted, each individual project would be required to comply with the applicable regulatory
requirements to determine and mitigate any potential impacts. In addition, all projects are required
to comply with the requirements of the NPDES Statewide Construction General Permit, including
preparation and implementation of a SWPPP to minimize construction-related erosion,
sedimentation, and non-point source pollution. All cumulative development projects would also be
subject to the requirements of the applicable MS4 permit, which would require BMPs to capture
and treat on-site stormwater runoff for new development and significant redevelopment projects.
As a result, stormwater detention infrastructure would expand incrementally with the pace of
development in the watershed, which would reduce peak flows and minimize the potential for
downstream flooding or other hydrologic impacts. Planned and pending projects may be required to
implement project-specific flood or HCOC mitigation measures, depending on the significance of
these impacts.
Cumulative development could increase the discharge of urban pollutants to surface waters and
groundwater. However, all new development would be subject to the water quality requirements of
the SARWQCB, the San Bernardino County MS4 permit, and other applicable federal, state, and local
regulations. Adherence to such regulations would address any adverse cumulative impacts resulting
from individual new developments and reduce cumulative impacts with respect to hydrology and
water quality to a less than significant level. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to hydrology and
water quality would be less than significant.
Environmental Impact Analysis Land Use and Planning
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.10-1
4.10 Land Use and Planning
This section analyzes the project’s potential impacts on land use and planning. The analysis contains
a description of the planning context of the project site, the regulatory setting for project site land
use, and a discussion of the project’s consistency with applicable land use plans, policies, and
regulations.
4.10.1 Setting
a. Project Area
The project site is currently undeveloped. The project area includes five windrows of eucalyptus
trees, which are located on the triangular parcel north of Duncan Canyon Road. In addition, there
are distribution lines located along Duncan Canyon Road and Citrus Avenue.
The site is predominately flat, with a gentle slope from approximately 1,835 above mean sea level
(amsl) at the northern edge of the project to approximately 1,675 amsl at the southern edge along
Lytle Creek Road and Interstate 15 (I-15). The site drains from the northeast to the southwest. The
project area is located on an alluvial plain formed by Lytle Creek, which is the primary collector for a
significant watershed that includes large portions of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north.
b. Surrounding Land Uses
Surrounding land uses and major feature are as follows:
Neighboring Specific Plan areas include Arboretum (east), Summit at Rosena (southeast), Citrus
Heights North (south), Westgate (southwest), Hunter’s Ridge (southwest), and Coyote Canyon
(west). Both the Arboretum and Citrus Heights feature residential development near the plan
area.
Vacant land to the north and northeast.
Coyote Canyon Park is located west of, and adjacent to I-15, south of Duncan Canyon Road.
I-15 and the Duncan Canyon Road interchange is adjacent to the northwestern project
boundary.
An SCE transmission line corridor is adjacent to the southeaster project boundary.
c. General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations
According to the City’s General Plan Land Use Map, the Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan
area has two designations of General Commercial (C-G) and Multi Family Residential (R-MF). The
City’s General Plan Zoning map designates the project area as the Ventana at Duncan Canyon
Specific Plan (i.e., existing Specific Plan). The existing Specific Plan includes the following uses:
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR)
Commercial (C)
Mixed Use (MU)
A Specific Plan Amendment (SPA No. 21-0001) is proposed and would modify these uses, including a
change from Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) to High Density Residential (HDR). A General
Plan Amendment (GPA No. 21-0006) is also proposed to amend a portion of the project from
commercial to multi-family use.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.10-2
4.10.2 Regulatory Setting
a. State Regulations
Senate Bill 330, Housing Crisis Act of 2019
Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 9, 2019 and declared a
statewide housing emergency to be in effect until January 1, 2025. SB 330 prohibits cities and
counties from the following actions regarding housing and mixed-use projects:
Establishing rules that would change the land use designation or zoning of parcels to a less
intensive use or reducing the intensity of the land that was allowed under the specific or general
plan as is in effect on January 1, 2018;
Imposing or enforcing a moratorium on housing development within all or a selection of the
local agency’s jurisdictions;
Imposing or enforcing new design standards established on or after January 1, 2020, that are
not objective design standards;
Establishing or implementing limits on permit numbers issued by the local agency unless the
limit was approved before January 1, 2005, in a “predominantly agricultural county.”
b. Regional
Southern California Association of Governments
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the federally recognized metropolitan
planning organization (MPO) for this region, which encompasses over 38,000 square miles, and
comprises representatives of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura
counties. SCAG is a regional planning agency and a forum for addressing regional issues concerning
transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. In addition, SCAG
serves as data clearinghouse and information hub for the region, conducting research and analysis
in pursuit of regional planning goals. In this role, SCAG reviews proposed development and
infrastructure projects to analyze their potential impacts on regional planning programs. As
Southern California’s MPO, SCAG cooperates with the Southern California Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and other agencies in
preparing regional planning documents.
SCAG’s 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), also
referred to as Connect SoCal, was adopted on September 3, 2020. SCAG works to support local
jurisdictions and partnerships by identifying ways to implement the SCS in a way that fits the vision
and needs of each local community. As part of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, SCAG also characterized and
identified priority growth areas (PGAs), which were used to help direct future growth of
employment and households. These PGAs include, but are not limited to, transit priority areas
(TPAs), high quality transit areas (HQTAs), livable corridors, and job centers.
Environmental Impact Analysis Land Use and Planning
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.10-3
c. Local Regulations
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana General Plan expresses the community’s vision of its long-term physical form and
development (City of Fontana 2018). The following objectives and policies pertaining to land use
and planning are drawn from the City’s General Plan and are applicable to the proposed project:
Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design
This Element focuses on goals and policies for the following:
Goal 1: The strategic policy map and the future land use map guide land-use decision making.
Policy: Review citywide land use strategies when considering changes to the land use map.
Policy: Keep zoning and other regulations up to date and consistent with the Future Land
Use Map
Goal 2: Fontana development patterns support a high quality of life and economic prosperity.
Policy: Preserve and enhance stable residential neighborhoods.
Policy: Locate multi-family development in mixed-use centers, preferably where there is
nearby access to retail, services, and public transportation.
Policy: Locate industrial uses where there is easy access to regional transportation routes.
Policy: Promote interconnected neighborhoods with appropriate transitions between lower
intensity and higher intensity land uses.
Policy: Preserve land to achieve an interconnected network of environmentally sensitive
areas, parks, multi-use paths, and recreation areas.
Goal 4: Compact, walkable, mixed-use centers are located at key locations along corridors to be
served by public transit in the future and at intersections where neighborhood retail and
diverse housing options can succeed.
Policy: Promote a land use pattern that provides connections among land uses and a
mixture of land uses.
Goal 7: Public and private development meets high design standards.
Policy: Support high-quality development in design standards and in land use decisions.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
Zoning regulations provide for the types and densities of residential and other uses permitted in
each of the City’s zones. Zoning in the City establishes the maximum allowable development in a
zone. Zoning also includes height limitations and other development standards which together
regulate setbacks, building heights, floor area ratios (FAR), open space and parking for each parcel
within the City, as applicable.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.10-4
Specific Plan Zoning
Where Specific Plan zoning applies, the zoning and design requirements of a project are governed
by the Specific Plan. On subjects not addressed in the Specific Plan, the project shall be governed by
the Fontana Municipal Code.
4.10.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines states the land use and planning impacts of the project would
be significant if the project would:
Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Impacts to land use and planning were analyzed in an Initial Study; see Appendix A-2. The Initial
Study determined that there would be no impact related physically dividing an established
community because the project site is currently undeveloped, and the project does not involve
construction of freeways, or other features that would divide an established community. Therefore,
impacts related to physically dividing an established community will not be further evaluated in this
section.
b. Standard Conditions
The following standard conditions related to land use and planning, and identified in the 2007 EIR,
remain applicable to the proposed project:
Standard Condition 4.2.1: Future developments on the project site shall comply with the
development and design standards in the Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan.
Standard Condition 4.2.2: Future developments on the project site shall comply with the City’s
performance standards and the development policies for land use compatibility.
c. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with
any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Impact LU-1 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DUE TO A
CONFLICT WITH ANY LAND USE PLAN, POLICY, OR REGULATION ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING OR
MITIGATING AN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT DUE TO PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN
STANDARDS IN THE EXISTING VENTANA AT DUNCAN CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN AND CONSISTENCY WITH 2020 RTP/SCS GOALS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The 2007 EIR indicates that the implementation of existing Specific Plan would not conflict with
applicable City plans and programs. The existing Specific Plan was consistent with the Fontana
General Plan, as it would help implement the North Fontana Redevelopment Plan through future
development of the site and provision of utility infrastructure to serve future development on the
site. In addition, the existing Specific Plan would be consistent with the goals of the North Fontana
Economic Zone, by the development of future commercial uses on the site. The Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Analysis Land Use and Planning
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.10-5
required modifications to the City’s Circulation Master Plan in order to reclassify a segment of
Duncan Canyon Road as a Major Highway and set the alignment of Lytle Creek Road. The Specific
Plan was also found to be consistent with SCAG’s regional plans, including the Compass program,
RCPG, RHNA and RTP.
The Specific Plan Amendment would include changes to land use designations, planning areas, and
other elements within the existing Specific Plan. Development under the proposed project would
have many of the same features as that contemplated by the existing Specific Plan, including
residential villages, commercial uses, a focal point piazza, a campanile tower feature, and the
construction of Lytle Creek Road through the project site. The current project would develop nearly
double the residential units—1,671 units, compared to 842 units under the existing Specific Plan.
The additional units are accommodated via an increase in density from 15.0 to 25.9 units per acre,
as well as a small increase in residential acreage of 8.6 acres (15 percent). In addition, the total
commercial area would be reduced by 98,000 square feet (17 percent), from 574,500 square feet
under the existing Specific Plan, to 476,500 for the proposed project.
Table 4.10-1 illustrates the key differences between the approved project, and the proposed
project, in terms of land use, dwelling units and square footage for commercial development.
Table 4.10-1 Comparison of Existing Specific Plan and Proposed Project
Residential Acres Dwelling Units Residential Density Commercial GFA
Existing Specific Plan 56 842 15.0 du/ac 574,500
Proposed Project 64.6 1,671 25.9 du/ac 476,500
Change 8.6 829 10.9 du/ac -98,000
GFA=gross floor area in square feet; du/ac = dwelling units per acre
The existing Specific Plan includes the land use designations Commercial (C), Mixed Use (MU),
Medium Density Residential (MDR), and Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR). The Specific Plan
Amendment proposes Medium Density Residential (MDR), High Density Residential (HDR), Mixed-
Use (MU), and Commercial (COM) land use designations.
Consistency with Land Use Regulations
SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
The SCAG’s 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS),
also referred to as Connect SoCal, was adopted on September 3, 2020. SCAG works to support local
jurisdictions and partnerships by identifying ways to implement the SCS in a way that fits the vision
and needs of each local community. As part of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, SCAG also characterized and
identified priority growth areas (PGAs), which were used to help direct future growth of
employment and households. These PGAs include, but are not limited to, transit priority areas
(TPAs), high quality transit areas (HQTAs), livable corridors, and job centers.
The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS also includes implementation strategies for focusing growth near
destinations and mobility options, promoting diverse housing choices, leveraging technology
innovations, supporting implementation of sustainability policies, and promoting a green region.
These strategies are intended to be supportive of implementing the regional SCS. Table 4.10-2
evaluates the project’s consistency with the strategies of the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.10-6
Table 4.10-2 Project Consistency with Applicable SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Strategies
Reduction Strategy Project Consistency
Focus Growth Near Destinations & Mobility Options
Emphasize land use patterns that facilitate multimodal access
to work, educational and other destinations
Focus on a regional jobs/housing balance to reduce commute
times and distances and expand job opportunities near transit
and along center-focused main streets
Plan for growth near transit investments and support
implementation of first/last mile strategies.
Promote the redevelopment of underperforming retail
developments and other outmoded nonresidential uses
Prioritize infill and redevelopment of underutilized land to
accommodate new growth, increase amenities and
connectivity in existing neighborhoods
Encourage design and transportation options that reduce the reliance on and number of solo car trips (this could include
mixed uses or locating and orienting close to existing
destinations)
Identify ways to “right size” parking requirements and promote alternative parking strategies (e.g., shared parking or smart parking)
Consistent. The project would allow for high-
density infill developments on vacant parcels.
Medium density residences, high density
residences, mixed-use, commercial use, and open
space would be constructed in an urbanized area
near existing residences and other commercial
uses. Thus, providing additional amenities and
services to the regional area. The project would
also redevelop Duncan Canyon Road, Citrus
Avenue, and Lytle Creek Road to provide more
access to the site.
Proposed land uses allowed by the project would
be in close proximity to the City of Fontana’s
regional trails, which include existing bike lanes
and walking trails that connect to parks and other
commercial uses within the city. Notable destinations include the Fontana North Skate Park and the Fontana Park Aquatic Center, which are approximately 0.3 mile south of the plan site. The plan would also provide bus stops along Lytle Creek Road for the Omnitrans Route 82 and the bus stops would be approximately half a mile south of the plan’s southern boundary. This bus route specifically provides stops in Fontana, Ontario, and Rancho Cucamonga. Omnitrans also services all of the urbanized southwestern sections of San Bernardino County with some services in Riverside and Los Angeles Counties.
Furthermore, the project would be required to implement TCMs to reduce vehicular emissions from SOVs per Mitigation Measure 4.5.4 from the 2007 EIR, which require transportation control measures to reduce trips. Therefore, the proposed project would focus growth near destinations, and
increase amenities and connectivity in existing
neighborhoods.
Promote Diverse Housing Choices
Preserve and rehabilitate affordable housing and prevent
displacement
Identify funding opportunities for new workforce and
affordable housing development
Create incentives and reduce regulatory barriers for building
context-sensitive accessory dwelling units to increase
housing supply
Provide support to local jurisdictions to streamline and
lessen barriers to housing development that supports
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
Consistent. The project will add a total of 538
medium density and 396 high density residential
units to Fontana’s housing supply Furthermore,
the project would integrate 19.4 acres of
commercial uses which would provide nearby jobs
and reduce vehicle trips.
Environmental Impact Analysis Land Use and Planning
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.10-7
Reduction Strategy Project Consistency
Leverage Technology Innovations
Promote low emission technologies such as neighborhood electric vehicles, shared rides hailing, car sharing, bike sharing and scooters by providing supportive and safe infrastructure such as dedicated lanes, charging and
parking/drop-off space
Improve access to services through technology—such as telework and telemedicine as well as other incentives such
as a “mobility wallet,” an app-based system for storing
transit and other multi-modal payments
Identify ways to incorporate “micro-power grids” in
communities, for example solar energy, hydrogen fuel cell
power storage and power generation
Consistent. Future development allowed under the project would need to comply with the electric vehicle requirements in the CALGreen code. In addition, Wi-Fi hotspots and adequate telecommunications in all future residences will be
provided as required per Mitigation Measure 4.5.4
from the 2007 EIR. Thus, the project would promote low emission technologies and improve
access to services through technology.
Support Implementation of Sustainability Policies
Pursue funding opportunities to support local sustainable
development implementation projects that reduce GHG
emissions
Support statewide legislation that reduces barriers to new
construction and that incentivizes development near transit
corridors and stations
Support local jurisdictions in the establishment of Enhanced
Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs), Community
Revitalization and Investment Authorities (CRIAs), or other
tax increment or value capture tools to finance sustainable
infrastructure and development projects, including parks and
open space
Work with local jurisdictions/communities to identify
opportunities and assess barriers to implement sustainability
strategies
Enhance partnerships with other planning organizations to
promote resources and best practices in the SCAG region
Continue to support long range planning efforts by local
jurisdictions
Provide educational opportunities to local decision makers
and staff on new tools, best practices and policies related to
implementing the Sustainable Communities Strategy
Not Applicable. These measures are applicable to
municipal actions as opposed to individual
developments. The project would not conflict with
any of these policies.
Promote a Green Region
Support development of local climate adaptation and hazard
mitigation plans, as well as project implementation that
improves community resiliency to climate change and
natural hazards
Support local policies for renewable energy production,
reduction of urban heat islands and carbon sequestration
Integrate local food production into the regional landscape
Promote more resource efficient development focused on
conservation, recycling and reclamation
Preserve, enhance and restore regional wildlife connectivity
Reduce consumption of resource areas, including agricultural
land
Identify ways to improve access to public park space
Consistent. The project is an infill development
that would involve construction of residences and
commercial uses in an urbanized area and would
therefore not interfere with regional wildlife
connectivity or convert agricultural land. The
project would comply with applicable conservation
policies such as the Fontana General Plan, Title 24,
and CALGreen. Therefore, the project would
support development of a green region.
Source: SCAG 2020
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.10-8
A portion of the project would require a General Plan Amendment (GPA 21-0006) to amend a
portion of the project from commercial to multi-family use. However, the project would be
otherwise consistent.
The SCAQMD’s AQMP is discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality. Future development under the
proposed Specific Plan would need to comply with applicable regulations of the SCAQMD that
implement the AQMP, including permits for activities and equipment which would generate
pollutant emissions.
The Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River
Basin is discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. The proposed project would
implement stormwater pollution control measures to comply with the Water Quality Control Plan
for the Santa Ana River Basin and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). No
conflict is expected from the proposed project.
The project would have similar uses as the existing Specific Plan, with the biggest difference being
the increases in residential density. Because of this, the amendment will be consistent with
Fontana’s goal of introducing mixed use areas into the city. Future developments will comply with
the City’s performance standards and the development policies for land use compatibility.
Furthermore, future developments on the project site shall comply with the development and
design standards of the revised Specific Plan. The proposed project would additionally be consistent
with all applicable 2020 RTP/SCS goals. Thus, the project would not cause a significant
environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
4.10.4 Cumulative Impacts
Planned and pending projects in Fontana and surrounding areas are listed in Table 3-1 in Section 3,
Environmental Setting, and include residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Cumulative
development in the City and the surrounding area would modify existing land use patterns through
the development of vacant lots or through redevelopment.
Similar to the project, land use regulations and policy consistency impacts associated with other
cumulative projects would be addressed on a case-by-case basis in order to determine their
consistency with applicable plans and policies. With approval of the proposed land use entitlements,
the project would be consistent with the underlying land use regulations and policies. Therefore,
the project would have a less than significant impact to cumulative land use.
Environmental Impact Analysis Noise
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.11-1
4.11 Noise
This section analyzes the noise effects of the proposed project and considers both the temporary
noise impacts related to construction activity and long-term impacts associated with project
operations. The analysis is based on data and information from the project-specific Noise and
Vibration Study prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Appendix H).
4.11.1 Setting
a. Overview of Sound Measurement
Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being
detected by the hearing organs. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or
undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise
on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep
disturbance, and, in the extreme, hearing impairment (California Department of Transportation
[Caltrans] 2013).
Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level
(dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are
consistent with the human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around
4,000 Hertz and less sensitive to frequencies around and below 100 Hertz (Kinsler, et. al. 1999).
Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to
the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise
source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dBA; reducing the
energy in half would result in a 3 dBA decrease (Crocker 2007).
Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy: the perception of sound is
not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not “sound twice as loud” as
one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA,
increase or decrease (i.e., twice the sound energy); that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible
(8 times the sound energy); and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud
([10.5x the sound energy] Crocker 2007).
Sound changes in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the receiver.
The most obvious change is the decrease in level as the distance from the source increases. The
manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on factors such as the type of sources (e.g.,
point or line, the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions). Noise levels from a
point source typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance (e.g.,
construction, industrial machinery, ventilation units). Noise from a line source (e.g., roadway,
pipeline, railroad) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (Caltrans 2013). The
propagation of noise is also affected by the intervening ground, known as ground absorption. A hard
site, such as a parking lot or smooth body of water, receives no additional ground attenuation and
the changes in noise levels with distance (drop-off rate) result from simply the geometric spreading
of the source. An additional ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance applies to
a soft site (e.g., soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees) (Caltrans 2013). Noise levels may also
be reduced by intervening structures. The amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding”
depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features
such as hills and dense woods, and man-made features such as buildings and walls, can substantially
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.11-2
alter noise levels. Generally, any large structure blocking the line of sight will provide at least a
5-dBA reduction in source noise levels at the receiver (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA]
2011). Structures can substantially reduce exposure to noise as well. The FHWA’s guidelines indicate
that modern building construction generally provides an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of
20 to 35 dBA with closed windows.
The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs and the
duration of the noise are also important factors of project noise impact. Most noise that lasts for
more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors
have been developed. One of the most frequently used noise metrics is the equivalent noise level
(Leq); it considers both duration and sound power level. Leq is defined as the single steady
A-weighted level equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual
fluctuating levels over time. Typically, Leq is summed over a one-hour period. Lmax is the highest root
mean squared (RMS) sound pressure level within the sampling period, and Lmin is the lowest RMS
sound pressure level within the measuring period (Crocker 2007).
Noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that occurring during the day.
Community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (Ldn), which is the 24-hour
average noise level with a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m.) hours; it is also measured using Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the
24-hour average noise level with a +5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
and a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Caltrans 2013). Noise levels
described by Ldn and CNEL usually differ by about 1 dBA or less. The relationship between the peak-
hour Leq value and the Ldn/CNEL depends on the distribution of traffic during the day, evening, and
night. Quiet suburban areas typically have CNEL noise levels in the range of 40 to 50 dBA, while
areas near arterial streets are in the 50 to 60-plus CNEL range. Normal conversational levels are in
the 60 to 65-dBA Leq range; ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA Leq can interrupt conversations
(Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018).
b. Vibration
Groundborne vibration of concern in environmental analysis consists of the oscillatory waves that
move from a source through the ground to adjacent structures. The number of cycles per second of
oscillation makes up the vibration frequency, described in terms of Hz. The frequency of a vibrating
object describes how rapidly it oscillates. The normal frequency range of most groundborne
vibration that can be felt by the human body starts from a low frequency of less than 1 Hz and goes
to a high of about 200 Hz (Crocker 2007).
While people have varying sensitivities to vibrations at different frequencies, in general they are
most sensitive to low-frequency vibration. Vibration in buildings, such as from nearby construction
activities, may cause windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle. Vibration of building
components can also take the form of an audible low-frequency rumbling noise, referred to as
groundborne noise. Groundborne noise is usually only a problem when the originating vibration
spectrum is dominated by frequencies in the upper end of the range (60 to 200 Hz), or when
foundations or utilities, such as sewer and water pipes, physically connect the structure and the
vibration source (FTA 2018). Although groundborne vibration is sometimes noticeable in outdoor
environments, it is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. The primary concern from
vibration is that it can be intrusive and annoying to building occupants and vibration-sensitive land
uses.
Environmental Impact Analysis Noise
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.11-3
Vibration energy spreads out as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration level to diminish
with distance away from the source. High-frequency vibrations diminish much more rapidly than
low frequencies, so low frequencies tend to dominate the spectrum at large distances from the
source. Discontinuities in the soil strata can also cause diffractions or channeling effects that affect
the propagation of vibration over long distances (Caltrans 2020). When a building is affected by
vibration, a ground-to-foundation coupling loss will usually reduce the overall vibration level.
However, under rare circumstances, the ground-to-foundation coupling may actually amplify the
vibration level due to structural resonances of the floors and walls.
Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or RMS vibration velocity.
The PPV and RMS velocity are normally described in inches per second. PPV is defined as the
maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is often used in
monitoring of blasting vibration because it is related to the stresses that are experienced by
buildings (Caltrans 2020).
c. Existing Noise Setting
The most common source of noise in the project site vicinity is vehicular traffic from Interstate 15
(I-15), Duncan Canyon Road, and Citrus Avenue. Aircraft over-flights are also audible on the project
site. Construction was active during noise measurements across Citrus Avenue and along Lytle Creek
Road adjacent to the project site. To characterize ambient sound levels at and near the project site,
three short-term 15-minute noise level measurements were conducted on May 26, 2021. Noise
Measurement (NM) 1 was conducted at the southeastern portion of the project site to capture
noise levels from Citrus Avenue. NM2 was conducted at the central portion of the project site to
capture ambient noise levels from Duncan Canyon Road. NM3 was conducted in the north central
portion of the project site to capture noise levels from I-15 at project noise sensitive receivers.
Table 4.11-1 summarizes the results of the noise measurement, Table 4.11-2 shows the recorded
traffic volumes during noise measurements, and Figure 4.11-1 shows the measurement locations.
Table 4.11-1 Project Site Vicinity Sound Level Monitoring Results
Measurement
Location
Measurement
Location Sample Times
Approximate Distance
to Primary Noise Source
Leq
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
NM1 Southeastern project
boundary, adjacent to
Citrus Avenue
9:19 – 9:34 a.m. Approximately 100 feet to
centerline of Citrus Avenue
53 43 69
NM2 Central project area
north of Duncan
Canyon Road
8:03 – 8:18 a.m. Approximately 100 feet
from Duncan Canyon Road
58 42 78
NM3 North central portion
of the project site
8:41 – 8:56 a.m. Approximately 695 feet
from I-15
51 45 62
Detailed sound level measurement data are included in Appendix H.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.11-4
Table 4.11-2 Sound Level Monitoring Traffic Counts
Measurement Roadway Traffic Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks
NM1 Citrus Avenue 15-minute count 77 2 3
One-hour Equivalent 308 8 12
Percent 94% 2% 4%
NM2 Duncan
Canyon Road
15-minute count 101 1 3
One-hour Equivalent 404 4 12
Percent 96% 1% 3%
Detailed sound level measurement data are included in Appendix H.
d. Sensitive Receivers
Noise exposure standards for different types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities
associated with each of these uses. Sensitive receivers are generally defined as locations where
people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of
the land. The City of Fontana General Plan list of noise sensitive uses includes residential uses;
hospitals; rest homes; long term care facilities; mental care facilities; schools; libraries; places of
worship; and passive recreation uses (City of Fontana 2018). Sensitive receivers in the area include
the single-family residences located across Citrus Avenue (Lennar at Arboretum) to the east of the
project site and single-family residential developments approximately 500 feet (Laurel Oak at Shady
Trails) and approximately 800 feet (Shady Trails Community) to the south of the project site.
Vibration sensitive receivers are similar to noise sensitive receivers, such as residences and
institutional uses (e.g., schools, libraries, and religious facilities). The General Plan does not identify
vibration sensitive receivers; however, concert halls, hospitals, libraries, research operations,
residential areas, schools, and offices would also be considered vibration sensitive uses. Vibration
sensitive receivers also include buildings where vibrations may interfere with vibration-sensitive
equipment, affected by levels that may be well below those associated with human annoyance
(FTA 2018; Caltrans 2013).
Environmental Impact Analysis Noise
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.11-5
Figure 4.11-1 Noise Measurement Locations
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.11-6
4.11.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
FTA Transit and Noise Vibration Impact Assessment Manual
The FTA provides reasonable criteria for assessing construction noise impacts based on the potential
for adverse community reaction in their Transit and Noise Vibration Impact Assessment Manual
(FTA 2018). For residential, commercial, and industrial uses, the daytime noise threshold is 80 dBA
Leq, 85 dBA Leq, and 90 dBA Leq for an 8-hour period, respectively.
b. State Regulations
California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational
noise control criteria, identifies noise standards, and provides guidance for local land use
compatibility. California law requires each county and city to adopt a General Plan that includes a
Noise Element prepared based on guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research. The purpose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive
noise levels. CEQA requires known environmental effects of a project be analyzed, including
environmental noise impacts.
California Noise Control Act of 1973
California Health and Safety Code Sections 46000 through 46080, known as the California Noise
Control Act, find that excessive noise is a serious hazard to public health and welfare and that
exposure to certain levels of noise can result in physiological, psychological, and economic damage.
The act also finds that there is a continuous and increasing bombardment of noise in urban,
suburban, and rural areas. The California Noise Control Act declares that the State of California has a
responsibility to protect the health and welfare of its citizens by the control, prevention, and
abatement of noise. It is the policy of the State to provide an environment for all Californians that is
free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare.
California Building Code
California Code of Regulations Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, and the
California Building Code codify the state noise insulation standards. These noise standards apply to
new construction in California to control interior noise levels as they are affected by exterior noise
sources. The regulations specify that interior noise levels for residential and school land uses should
not exceed 45 dBA CNEL.
c. Local Regulations
City of Fontana General Plan
The City maintains the health and welfare of its residents with respect to noise through abatement
ordinances and land use planning. The Fontana General Plan Noise and Safety chapter includes goals
and policies with the intent to reduce excessive noise impacts:
Goal 8: The City of Fontana protects sensitive land uses from excessive noise by diligent` planning
through 2035.
Environmental Impact Analysis Noise
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.11-7
Policies:
New sensitive land uses shall be prohibited in incompatible areas.
Noise-tolerant land uses shall be guided into areas irrevocably committed to land uses
that are noise-producing, such as transportation corridors.
Where sensitive uses are to be placed along transportation routes, mitigation shall be
provided to ensure compliance with state- mandated noise levels.
Noise spillover or encroachment from commercial, industrial, and educational land uses
shall be minimized into adjoining residential neighborhoods or noise-sensitive uses.
Actions:
A. The following uses shall be considered noise-sensitive and discouraged in areas in
excess of 65 dBA CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level): Residential Uses; Hospitals;
Rest Homes; Long Term Care Facilities; and Mental Care Facilities.
B. The following uses shall be considered noise-sensitive and discouraged in areas in
excess of 65 Leq (12) (Equivalent Continuous Sound Level): Schools; Libraries; Places of
Worship; and Passive Recreation Uses.
C. The State of California Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines shall be
followed with respect to acoustical study requirements.
Goal 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, 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.
Policy:
Residential land uses and areas identified as noise-sensitive shall be protected from
excessive noise from non-transportation sources including industrial, commercial, and
residential activities and equipment.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.11-8
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
Chapter 18, Article II (Noise) and Chapter 30 Articles V (Residential Zoning Districts) and VII
(Industrial Zoning Districts) of the Fontana Municipal Code seeks to control unnecessary, excessive,
and annoying noise and vibration. As applicable to the proposed project, the code prohibits the
following acts, which create loud, excessive, impulsive or intrusive sound or noise:
Section 18-63(b)(6), 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 within 50 feet or more
from the edge of the property.
Section 18-63(b)(7), Construction or repairing of buildings or structures. The erection
(including excavating), demolition, alteration or repair of any building or structure other than
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, except in case of urgent necessity in the interest of public health
and safety Project construction noise is therefore permissible if activities occur within the hours
specified in the City of Fontana Municipal Code, Section 18-63(7) of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. However, if activity
occurs outside of these hours, the City of Fontana stationary-source (operational) noise level
standards of 70 dBA Leq during the daytime hours, and 65 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours
shall apply.
Section 18-63(b)(8), Noise near schools, courts, place of worship or hospitals. The creation of
any loud, excessive, impulsive or intrusive noise on any street adjacent to any school, institution
of learning, places of worship or court while the premises are in use, or adjacent to any hospital
which unreasonably interferes with the workings of such institution, or which disturbs or unduly
annoys patients in the hospital; provided conspicuous signs are displayed in such streets
indicating that the street is a school, hospital or court street.
Section 18-63(b)(10), Piledrivers, hammers, etc. The operation between the hours of 6:00 p.m.
and 7:00 a.m. of any piledriver, steamshovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, steam or electric
hoist or other appliance, the use of which is attended by loud, excessive, impulsive or intrusive
noise.
Section 18-63(b)(11), Blowers. The operation of any noise-creating blower or power fan or any
internal combustion engine other than from the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on a weekday
and the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on a Saturday, the operation of which causes noise
due to the explosion of operating gases or fluids, unless the noise from such blower or fan is
muffled and such engine is equipped with a muffler device sufficient to deaden such noise.
Section 30-469 states that no use shall create or cause to be created any sound that exceeds the
ambient noise standards in Table 4.11-3 in residential zones.
Environmental Impact Analysis Noise
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.11-9
Section 30-470 states that no use shall create or cause to be created any activity that causes a
vibration that can be felt beyond the property line with or without the aid of an instrument.
Table 4.11-3 Noise Standards
Location of Measurements Maximum Allowable
All Zoning Districts 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m.
Interior 45 dBA 45 dBA
Exterior 65 dBA 65 dBA
dBA=A-weighted decibels.
Source: Table 30-469 of the Fontana Municipal Code
4.11.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, significant noise impacts would occur if the
proposed project would result in any of the following conditions:
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.
Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.
Impacts related to noise were analyzed in an Initial Study (Appendix A-2). The Initial Study
determined that the project would not be situated within two miles of a public airport, public use
airport, or an airport land use plan area project and, therefore, would not result in any impacts from
exposure to excessive noise levels generated by airports or private airstrips. As such, impacts related
to exposure of people to excessive noise levels from private airstrips or public airports are not
further evaluated in this section.
The following discussion identifies additional significance thresholds used to support the impact
findings relative to each of the previously listed CEQA threshold.
Construction Noise
Based on the Fontana Municipal Code Section 18-63(b)(7) and FTA construction noise standards,
construction noise would be significant if:
Construction and demolition work are conducted between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
on weekdays and between the hours of 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on Saturdays.
Noise levels exceed the FTA daytime criteria of 80 dBA Leq, 85 dBA Leq, and 90 dBA Leq for an 8-
hour period for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses, respectively.
Operational Noise
Based on the Fontana Municipal Code Section 30-469, operational noise would be significant if noise
levels exceed 45 dBA at interior areas and 65 dBA at exterior areas. Furthermore, traffic-related
noise impacts would be considered significant if project-generated traffic would result in exposure
of sensitive receivers to an unacceptable increase in noise levels. For purposes of this analysis, a
significant impact would occur if project-related traffic increases the ambient noise environment of
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.11-10
noise-sensitive land uses by 3 dBA or more if the locations are subject to noise levels in excess of
conditionally compatible levels, or by 5 dBA or more if the locations are not subject to noise levels in
excess of the conditionally compatible levels identified in the City of Fontana General Plan.
Groundborne Vibration
Vibration levels equal to or below 0.4 in./sec. PPV at residential structures would prevent structural
damage for most residential building and vibration levels equal to or less than 1.0 in./sec. PPV would
prevent damage to more substantial construction, such as high-rise, commercial, and industrial
buildings. Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, vibration levels above 0.4 in./sec. PPV at
residential structures and/or vibration levels above 1.0 in./sec. PPV at commercial and industrial
buildings would be significant. For human annoyance, the vibration level threshold at which
transient, or temporary, vibration sources are considered distinctly perceptible is 0.24 in./sec. PPV.
b. Methodology
Construction Noise
Construction noise was estimated using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM)
(FHWA 2006). RCNM predicts construction noise levels for a variety of construction operations
based on empirical data and the application of acoustical propagation formulas. Using RCNM,
construction noise levels were estimated at noise sensitive receivers near the project site. RCNM
provides reference noise levels for standard construction equipment, with an attenuation rate of
6 dBA per doubling of distance for stationary equipment.
Construction activity would result in temporary noise in the project site vicinity, exposing
surrounding nearby receivers to increased noise levels. Construction noise would typically be higher
during the heavier periods of initial construction (i.e., site preparation and grading) and would be
lower during the later construction phases (i.e., building construction and paving). Typical heavy
construction equipment during project grading could include dozers, loaders, graders, and dump
trucks. It is assumed that diesel engines would power all construction equipment. Construction
equipment would not all operate at the same time or location. In addition, construction equipment
would not be in constant use during the 8-hour operating day.
Project construction would occur nearest to single-family residences to the east (Arboretum Specific
Plan) and south (Citrus Heights North Specific Plan) of the project site. Over the course of a typical
construction day, construction equipment would be located as close as 300 feet and 400 feet to
properties east and south, respectively, but would typically be located at an average distance
farther away due to the nature of construction and the size of the project. Therefore, it is assumed
that over the course of a typical construction day the construction equipment would operate at an
average distance 350 feet from the single-family residences to the east and 450 feet from single
family residences to the south of the project site.
Construction noise is typically loudest during activities that involve excavation and move soil, such
as site preparation and grading. A potential high-intensity construction scenario includes a grader,
loader, dozer, and dump truck working during grading to excavate and move soil. At a distance of
350 feet and 450 feet, a grader, a front-end loader, a dozer, and a dump truck would generate a
noise level of 64 dBA Leq and 62 dBA Leq, respectively (RCNM calculations are included in
Appendix H).
Environmental Impact Analysis Noise
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.11-11
Operational Noise
On-site noise source would include general conversations, landscape maintenance, waste hauling,
loading dock, parking lot, and the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment.
General conversations would not represent a substantial noise source due to the noise levels
associated with conversations and as the pool areas (i.e., areas where larger gatherings might occur)
are located internally to the project site and are far away from off-site sensitive receivers.
Landscape maintenance and waste hauling typically occur during the less noise sensitive daytime
hours and would be active for short periods of time.
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Units
Noise-generating mechanical equipment on building rooftops include HVAC units. The equipment
was assumed to be placed on the approximate center of the rooftop; noise levels for the equipment
are described below. This analysis conservatively assumes the equipment would operate
continuously for a full hour (100 percent for 60 minutes) during the daytime and nighttime. For a
conservative assessment, it has been assumed that the equipment would not include any type of
screening. Noise propagation was estimated in SoundPLAN using algorithms from ISO
Standard 9613-2, “Attenuation of Sound during Propagation Outdoors, Part 2: General Method of
Calculation.”
Based upon one ton of HVAC per 600 sf of building space and the square footage of each proposed
building shown on the conceptual site plan, 10-ton Trane T/YHC120E HVAC units of 87 dB were
selected for analysis. Appendix H includes manufacturer’s specifications and additional assumptions.
Traffic Noise
Noise affecting the project site is primarily from traffic on I-15, Duncan Canyon Road, and Citrus
Avenue. Future noise levels affecting the compatibility of the project site were estimated in
SoundPLAN using algorithms and reference traffic noise reference levels from the FHWA’s Traffic
Noise Model (TNM). The off-site traffic noise increases were modeled with the FHWA RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model.
The traffic vehicle classification mix for I-15 was based on Caltrans Truck Counts (Caltrans 2016). I-15
was modeled with a vehicle classification mix of 94.4 percent automobiles, 2.5 percent medium
trucks, and 3.1 percent heavy trucks and a posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour (mph).
Future traffic volumes on local roadways were obtained from the Ventana Specific Plan Amendment
Traffic Study (Urban Crossroads 2021; Appendix I). Refer to Appendix H for details regarding traffic
volumes used for modeling purposes. The posted speed limits on Duncan Canyon Road, Citrus
Avenue, Casa Grande, Summit Avenue, Sierra Avenue and Lytle Creek Drive are 45 mph, 40 to 45
mph, 35 mph, 45 to 50 mph, 55 mph, and 35 mph, respectively. Traffic counts conducted during
noise monitoring consisted of primarily active construction traffic vehicles and are not considered
representative of typical vehicle classification mix for Specific Plan area roadways. Therefore, the
vehicle classification mix for modeling assumes a typical breakdown of 96 percent automobiles, 2.5
percent medium trucks, and 1.5 percent heavy trucks for local roadways.
Traffic distribution through the day was modeled assuming 75 percent of total daily vehicle traffic
during daytime hours, 15 percent of daily vehicle traffic during evening hours, and 10 percent of
daily vehicle traffic during nighttime hours. For determining noise-land use compatibility, exterior
traffic noise levels at the residential exterior common use areas (pool areas) and residential building
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.11-12
façades were calculated. Receivers were placed on the ground floor at 5 feet above ground level;
receivers at 2nd and 3rd stories were placed 15 and 25 feet above ground level.
Groundborne Vibration
The project does not include any substantial vibration sources associated with operation. Thus,
construction activities have the greatest potential to generate groundborne vibration affecting
nearby receivers, especially during grading and excavation of the project site. The greatest vibratory
source during construction within the project vicinity would be a vibratory roller. Neither blasting
nor pile driving would be required for construction of the project. Construction vibration estimates
are based on vibration levels reported by Caltrans and the FTA (Caltrans 2020, FTA 2018).
Table 4.11-4 shows typical vibration levels for various pieces of construction equipment used in the
assessment of construction vibration (FTA 2018).
Table 4.11-4 Vibration Levels Measured during Construction Activities
Equipment PPV at 25 ft. (in/sec)
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Source: FTA 2018
Vibration limits used in this analysis to determine a potential impact to local land uses from
construction activities, such as blasting, pile-driving, vibratory compaction, demolition, drilling, or
excavation, are based on information contained in Caltrans’ Transportation and Construction
Vibration Guidance Manual and the Federal Transit Administration and the FTA Transit Noise and
Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (Caltrans 2020; FTA 2018). Maximum recommended vibration
limits by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) are
identified in Table 4.11-5.
Table 4.11-5 AASHTO Maximum Vibration Levels for Preventing Damage
Type of Situation Limiting Velocity (in/sec)
Historic sites or other critical locations 0.1
Residential buildings, plastered walls 0.2–0.3
Residential buildings in good repair with gypsum board walls 0.4–0.5
Engineered structures, without plaster 1.0–1.5
Source: Caltrans 2020
Based on AASHTO recommendations, limiting vibration levels to below 0.2 in/sec PPV at residential
structures would prevent structural damage regardless of building construction type. These limits
are applicable regardless of the frequency of the source. However, as shown in Table 4.11-6 and
Table 4.11-7 potential human annoyance associated with vibration is usually different if it is
generated by a steady state or a transient vibration source.
Environmental Impact Analysis Noise
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.11-13
Table 4.11-6 Human Response to Steady State Vibration
PPV (in/sec) Human Response
3.6 (at 2 Hz)–0.4 (at 20 Hz) Very disturbing
0.7 (at 2 Hz)–0.17 (at 20 Hz) Disturbing
0.10 Strongly perceptible
0.035 Distinctly perceptible
0.012 Slightly perceptible
Source: Caltrans 2020
Table 4.11-7 Human Response to Transient Vibration
PPV (in/sec) Human Response
2.0 Severe
0.9 Strongly perceptible
0.24 Distinctly perceptible
0.035 Barely perceptible
Source: Caltrans 2020
As shown in Table 4.11-7, the vibration level threshold at which transient vibration sources (such as
construction equipment) are considered distinctly perceptible is 0.24 in/sec PPV. This analysis uses
the distinctly perceptible threshold for purposes of assessing vibration impacts.
Although groundborne vibration is sometimes noticeable in outdoor environments, it is almost
never annoying to people who are outdoors; therefore, the vibration level threshold is assessed at
occupied structures (FTA 2018). Therefore, all vibration impacts are assessed at the structure of an
affected property.
c. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: Would the proposed project generate a substantial temporary 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?
Impact N-1 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE HOURS SPECIFIED BY
THE CITY’S NOISE ORDINANCE AND WOULD NOT EXCEED THE FTA NOISE LIMITS. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION-
RELATED NOISE IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
A grader, a front-end loader, a dozer, and a dump truck would generate a noise level of 64 dBA Leq
at a distance of 350 feet from the source and 62 dBA Leq at a distance of 450 feet from the source.
The project would not be constructed all at once but built out in six phases. Actual buildout would
be subject to market and economic conditions, jurisdictional processing of approvals, and
infrastructure timing, and may vary from the construction phasing currently anticipated. As the
project Planning Areas are developed, residential uses in Planning Areas 1-A, 1-B, 3, and 4 may be
exposed to other Planning Area construction noise. Table 4.11-8 shows the combined hourly and
maximum construction noise levels attributable to construction of each Planning Area modeled,
noise sensitive receivers analyzed, and resulting exterior and interior noise levels.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.11-14
Table 4.11-8 Construction Noise Levels at Noise Sensitive Receivers
Receiver Land Use Distance to
Receiver, Feet
Approximate Noise Level, dBA
Exterior Spaces Interior Spaces1
Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
Arboretum Specific Plan Residential 350 642 652 39 40
Citrus Heights North
Specific Plan Residential 450 622 632 37 38
Planning Area 1-a Residential 250 70 71 45 41
Planning Area 1-b Residential 185 73 74 48 49
Planning Area 3 Residential 200 72 73 47 48
Planning Area 4 Residential 150 75 76 50 51
1Assuming an exterior to interior noise reduction of 25 dBA due to typical building standards and windows closed.
Leq: one-hour equivalent noise level; Lmax: instantaneous maximum noise level; dBA: A-weighted decibel
Refer to Appendix H for RCNM results.
As shown in Table 4.11-8, Planning Area construction exterior hourly noise levels would range from
62 dBA Leq to 75 dBA Leq at the nearest noise sensitive receivers, with maximum noise levels ranging
from 63 dBA Lmax to 76 dBA Lmax (refer to Appendix H for construction noise modeling results).
Planning Area construction interior hourly noise levels would range from 37 dBA Leq to 50 dBA Leq at
the nearest noise sensitive receivers, with maximum noise levels ranging from 38 dBA Lmax to 51 dBA
Lmax. The FTA’s daytime construction noise limit is 80 dBA Leq for residential uses; therefore, project
construction noise levels would not exceed construction noise thresholds. In addition, construction
activities would be restricted to daytime hours per the Fontana Municipal Code, Section 18-63(7) of
7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays,
avoiding noise sensitive nighttime hours where interior noise levels could be considered an impact.
Therefore, construction noise impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation measures are not required.
Threshold 1: Would the proposed project generate a substantial 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?
Impact N-2 OPERATION OF THE PROJECT WOULD GENERATE ON-SITE NOISE FROM MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT (I.E., HVAC UNITS) THAT MAY PERIODICALLY BE AUDIBLE TO EXISTING NOISE-SENSITIVE RECEIVERS
IN THE VICINITY AND ON THE PROJECT SITE. HOWEVER, OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCES WOULD NOT EXCEED THE
NOISE STANDARDS IDENTIFIED IN THE CITY’S NOISE ORDINANCE AND IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT.
The project would introduce sources of operational noise to the site, including that of mechanical
equipment (i.e., HVAC units). Assumptions for these sources are discussed in Section 4.11.3,
Methodology. Noise levels at the nearest properties from each noise source and their combined
noise levels are shown in Table 4.11-9 and ground-floor noise contours are shown in Figure 4.11-2.
Environmental Impact Analysis Noise
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.11-15
Table 4.11-9 Operational Noise Levels at Off-Site Land Uses
Receiver
Group Description Modeled Noise Level (dBA) Exceed Standard?1
OFF 1 Receivers east of project site across Citrus
Avenue and south of Duncan Canyon Road
46 No
OFF 2 Receivers east of project site across Citrus
Avenue and Planning Area 1b
47 No
OFF 3 Receivers east of project site across Citrus
Avenue and north of Duncan Canyon Road
47 No
OFF 4 Receivers south of Planning Area 2 46 No
OFF 5 Receivers south of Planning Area 4 44 No
1 Based on Fontana Municipal Code Section 30-469 the applicable threshold for all hours of the day is 65 dBA Leq at residential
properties.
See Appendix H for SoundPLAN results.
As shown in Table 4.11-9, operational HVAC noise on the project site would generate noise levels up
to 47 dBA Leq at nearby residential-zoned properties. The operational noise from project HVAC
mechanical equipment would not exceed the City’s operational noise standards of 65 dBA Leq and
impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Threshold 1: Would the proposed project generate a substantial 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?
Impact N-3 OPERATION OF THE PROJECT WOULD GENERATE NEW VEHICLE TRIPS THAT WOULD INCREASE
NOISE LEVELS ON NEARBY ROADWAYS. HOWEVER, PROJECT TRAFFIC WOULD NOT INCREASE THE AMBIENT
NOISE ENVIRONMENT OF NOISE-SENSITIVE LAND USES IN EXCESS OF APPLICABLE NOISE STANDARDS. NONETHELESS, WHERE BUILDING FAÇADE NOISE LEVELS WOULD EXCEED 65 DBA CNEL (I.E., RESIDENTIAL
UNITS ADJACENT TO I-15 AND DUNCAN CANYON ROAD), INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS FOR THE PROJECT WOULD
NOT COMPLY WITH THE CITY’S INTERIOR NOISE STANDARD OF 45 DBA CNEL FOR RESIDENTIAL USES.
IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION.
Off-Site Traffic Noise
The project would generate new vehicle trips that would increase noise levels on nearby roadways.
As discussed in the project Traffic Study (Appendix I), the project is anticipated to generate a net
total of 17,352 daily vehicle trips with 1,786 AM peak hour trips and 1,531 PM peak hour trips
(Urban Crossroads 2022). The Traffic Study area includes roadway segments of Duncan Canyon
Road, Citrus Avenue, Casa Grande, Summit Avenue, Sierra Avenue, and Lytle Creek Road (Urban
Crossroads 2021). Roadway segment volumes with and without project-generated traffic are shown
in Table 4.11-10.
The project would make alterations to roadway alignments of Lytle Creek Road, however,
substantial changes to the vehicle classifications mix on local roadways is not expected. Therefore,
the primary factor affecting off-site noise levels would be increased traffic volumes. Noise levels
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.11-16
Figure 4.11-2 HVAC Contours
Environmental Impact Analysis Noise
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.11-17
Table 4.11-10 Offsite Traffic Noise Levels (dBA CNEL at 100 Feet)
Roadway Segment
Existing
Noise
Level
(dBA)
Existing
+ Phase
1 Noise
Level
(dBA)
Noise
Level
Change
(dBA)
2023
(dBA)
2023+
Project
Noise
Level
(dBA)
Noise
Level
Change
(dBA)
2030
(dBA)
2030 +
Project
(dBA)
Noise
Level
Change
(dBA)
2040
(dBA)
2040 +
Project
(dBA)
Noise
Level
Change
(dBA)
Duncan
Canyon
Road
Roadrunner
Road to Coyote
Canyon Road
59 59 <1 59 59 <1 60 60 <1 60 60 <1
Coyote Canyon Road to I-15 NB Ramp
60 62 2 61 62 1 62 62 <1 63 63 <1
I-15 NB Ramp
to Lytle Creek
Road
60 62 2 63 64 1 64 65 1 64 65 1
Lytle Creek Road to Citrus Avenue
60 62 2 63 63 <1 64 64 <1 64 65 1
Citrus Avenue
to the east
55 55 <1 56 57 1 57 58 1 58 59 1
Citrus Avenue From the north to Lytle Creek Road
– – – 50 53 3 52 53 1 52 54 2
Lytle Creek
Road to
Duncan Canyon
Road
– – – 50 54 4 52 54 2 52 54 2
Duncan Canyon
Road to Casa
Grande
59 60 1 61 62 1 62 63 1 62 63 1
Casa Grande to
Summit Avenue
59 60 1 61 61 <1 62 62 <1 62 62 <1
Summit Avenue
to Sierra Lakes
Parkway
62 63 <1 64 64 <1 64 65 1 65 65 <1
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.11-18
Roadway Segment
Existing
Noise
Level
(dBA)
Existing
+ Phase
1 Noise
Level
(dBA)
Noise
Level
Change
(dBA)
2023
(dBA)
2023+
Project
Noise
Level
(dBA)
Noise
Level
Change
(dBA)
2030
(dBA)
2030 +
Project
(dBA)
Noise
Level
Change
(dBA)
2040
(dBA)
2040 +
Project
(dBA)
Noise
Level
Change
(dBA)
Casa Grande Citrus Avenue
to
Sierra Avenue
54 55 1 59 59 <1 60 61 1 61 61 <1
Summit
Avenue
Beech Avenue
to
Lytle Creek
Road
63 63 <1 63 63 <1 64 64 <1 64 65 1
Lytle Creek
Road to
Citrus Avenue
64 64 <1 64 64 <1 65 65 <1 65 66 1
Citrus Avenue
to Sierra
Avenue
62 63 <1 63 63 <1 63 63 <1 63 64 1
Sierra Avenue Riverside Avenue to Casa Grande
65 65 <1 66 66 <1 66 66 <1 67 67 <1
Summit Avenue
to Sierra Lakes
Parkway
66 66 <1 66 66 <1 67 67 <1 67 67 <1
Lytle Creek Road Citrus Avenue to Duncan Canyon Road
– 56 – – 56 – – 56 – – 56 –
Duncan Canyon
Road to
Summit Avenue
– – – – 39 – – 57 – – 57 –
A dash indicates that traffic data for the segment does not exist.
See Appendix H for traffic noise modeling results.
Environmental Impact Analysis Noise
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.11-19
with and without project generated traffic were developed based on algorithms and reference
levels from FHWA TNM. Noise levels with and without project-generated traffic are shown in
Table 4.11-10.
As discussed in Section 4.11.1, Overview of Sound Measurement, a doubling of the energy of a noise
source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dBA. It is widely
accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA, increase or decrease.
Project-generated traffic noise level increases would range between less than 1 dBA CNEL to 4 dBA
CNEL. Two project area roadway segments of Citrus Avenue, from the north to Lytle Creek Road and
Lytle Creek Road to Duncan Canyon Road, would experience the largest traffic noise level increases,
3 dBA CNEL and 4 dBA CNEL, respectively, when comparing 2023 to 2023 with and without project
traffic scenarios. It should be noted that there are no existing noise sensitive receivers along these
roadway segments.
For purposes of this analysis, a significant impact would occur if project-related traffic increases the
ambient noise environment of noise-sensitive land uses by 3 dBA or more if the locations are
subject to noise levels in excess of conditionally compatible levels, or by 5 dBA or more if the
locations are not subject to noise levels in excess of the conditionally compatible levels identified in
the Fontana General Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
On-Site Traffic Noise/Land Use Compatibility
The Fontana General Plan Noise and Safety chapter includes the criteria for evaluating whether a
given land use is compatible with the existing noise environment. The project proposes a mix of
uses, including noise sensitive residential uses. For noise sensitive residential uses, noise levels up to
65 dBA CNEL are considered compatible with the exterior noise criteria for land use compatibility
provided in the General Plan Noise and Safety chapter.
Following the methodology discussed in Section 4.11.3, traffic noise levels were modeled at a series
of receivers at and residential building façades and exterior use areas were calculated in
SoundPLAN. Modeled noise levels are summarized in Table 4.11-11 and ground-floor noise contours
are shown in Figure 4.11-3
Table 4.11-11 Traffic Noise Levels
Receiver Building
Modeled Noise Level (dBA CNEL)
Compatibility 1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor
Exterior Use Areas
Planning Area 1B Pool 55 – – Compatible
Planning Area 3 Pool 53 – – Compatible
Planning Area 4 Pool 62 – – Compatible
Planning Area 2 – Commercial 77 – – Compatible
Planning Area 4 – Commercial 71 – – Compatible
Planning Areas 5a – Commercial 70 – – Compatible
Planning Areas 5b – Commercial 70 – – Compatible
Planning Areas 6a & 6b - Commercial 74 – – Compatible
Building Facades
Planning
Area 1a
R 1 South 70 71 71 Conditionally Compatible
R 1 West 65 68 69 Compatible
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.11-20
Receiver Building
Modeled Noise Level (dBA CNEL)
Compatibility 1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor
R 2 West 61 65 66 Compatible
R 3 South 71 72 72 Conditionally Compatible
R 3 East 60 62 63 Compatible
R 6 South 57 59 60 Compatible
R 6 East 57 59 61 Compatible
Planning
Area 1b
R 1 West 67 69 70 Compatible
R 2 North 60 63 64 Compatible
R 2 West 62 66 67 Compatible
R 3 North 55 59 61 Compatible
R 4 North 62 65 66 Compatible
R 4 South 62 65 66 Compatible
R 4 West 66 68 69 Compatible
R 5 West 66 68 68 Compatible
R 6 North 55 58 59 Compatible
R 6 South 53 56 57 Compatible
R 6 West 55 58 59 Compatible
R 7 East 57 60 62 Compatible
R 7 West 56 60 61 Compatible
R 7 North 63 66 67 Compatible
Planning
Area 3
R 1 North 62 63 63 Compatible
R 1 West 59 60 61 Compatible
R 3 North 72 73 73 Conditionally Compatible
R 3 West 64 65 66 Compatible
R 6 East 62 63 63 Compatible
R 8 East 64 65 66 Compatible
R 8 North 72 72 72 Conditionally Compatible
Planning
Area 4
R 1 South 69 73 73 Conditionally Compatible
R 2 South 71 74 74 Conditionally Compatible
R 2 West 72 74 75 Conditionally Compatible
R 4 Northwest 67 72 73 Conditionally Compatible
R 4 Southwest 68 72 72 Conditionally Compatible
R 5 West 66 66 66 Compatible
R 6 West 69 72 72 Conditionally Compatible
R 8 East 64 64 64 Compatible
R 9 Northwest 68 70 72 Conditionally Compatible
R 10 East 63 63 63 Compatible
Bolded values are conditionally compatible. A dash indicates that the floor does not exist.
See Appendix H for SoundPLAN results.
Environmental Impact Analysis Noise
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.11-21
For multi-family residential uses, the exterior noise level standard is typically applied at common
outdoor activity areas. Planning Areas 1b, 3, and 4 include a common outdoor activity area at the
pool areas. As shown in Table 4.11-11, the pool areas would be exposed to traffic noise levels below
65 dBA CNEL. These noise levels would not conflict with the City’s compatibility standards.
The commercial component of the Specific Plan would generally be exposed to traffic noise levels
between 64 and 77 dBA CNEL, in reference to Table 4.11-11. The commercial uses of Planning
Area 2, Planning Area 4, Planning Area 5a, Planning Area 5b, and Planning Area 6 would be exposed
to traffic noise levels up to 77 dBA CNEL at facades adjacent to I-15. The commercial uses of
Planning Area 4 would be exposed to traffic noise levels up to 71 dBA CNEL at the nearest façade
adjacent to Duncan Canyon Road. The proposed commercial uses would not generally be
considered noise sensitive. These noise levels would not conflict with the City’s compatibility
standards and the commercial component of the project would be compatible with the ambient
noise environment.
Planning Area 1a residential buildings would be exposed to traffic noise levels between 57 dBA and
72 dBA CNEL at first through third floor facades. The south facades of Buildings 1 and 3 would be
exposed to Duncan Canyon Road traffic noise levels of 70 dBA to 72 dBA CNEL at the first through
third floors. The west façade of Buildings 1 and 2 would be exposed to Lytle Creek Road traffic noise
levels of 66 dBA to 68 dBA CNEL at the second and third floors.
Planning Area 1b residential buildings would be exposed to traffic noise levels between 53 dBA and
70 dBA CNEL at first through third floor facades. The west facades of Buildings 1, 2, 4, 5, and north
façade of Building 7 would be exposed to Lytle Creek Road traffic noise levels of 66 dBA to 70 dBA
CNEL at the first through third floors.
Planning Area 3 residential buildings would be exposed to traffic noise levels between 62 dBA and
73 dBA CNEL at first through third floor facades. The north facades of Buildings 3 and 8 would be
exposed to Duncan Canyon Road traffic noise levels of 72 dBA to 73 dBA CNEL at the first through
third floors. The west façade of Building 3 would also be exposed to Lytle Creek Road traffic noise
level 66 dBA CNEL at the third-floor façade. The east façade of Building 8 would also be exposed to
Citrus Avenue traffic noise level of 66 dBA at the third-floor façade.
Planning Area 4 residential buildings would be exposed to traffic noise levels between 63 dBA and
75 dBA CNEL at the first through third floor facades. The west, northwest, and southwest facades of
Buildings 2, 4, 6, and 9 would be exposed to I-15 traffic noise levels of 67 dBA to 75 dBA CNEL at the
first through third floor facades. The south facades of Buildings 1 and 2 would also be exposed to
I-15 traffic noise levels of 69 dBA to 74 dBA CNEL at the first through third floor facades.
Due to estimated exterior noise levels at the project’s building facades, interior noise levels may
exceed 45 dBA CNEL. Therefore, additional analysis to determine whether interior noise levels
would not exceed 45 dBA CNEL are discussed below.
The FHWA’s guidelines indicate that modern building construction generally provides an exterior-to-
interior noise level reduction of 20 to 35 dBA with closed windows (FHWA 2011). Based on a noise
exposure level of up to 75 dBA CNEL and a noise attenuation of 20 dBA, the interior noise levels
would be up to 55 dBA CNEL. Therefore, where building façade noise levels would exceed 65 dBA
CNEL (i.e., residential units adjacent to I-15 and Duncan Canyon Road), interior noise levels for the
project would not comply with the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL for residential uses.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.11-22
Figure 4.11-3 Traffic Noise Contours
Environmental Impact Analysis Noise
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.11-23
Mitigation Measure
N-3 Exterior-to-Interior Noise Analysis
For residential units where exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL, the project applicant shall
coordinate with the project architects and other contractors to ensure compliance with the 45 dBA
CNEL interior noise level standard. This shall be achieved through additional exterior-to-interior
noise analysis and incorporation of noise attenuation features once specific building plan
information is available. The information in the analysis shall include wall heights and lengths, room
volumes, window and door tables typical for a building plan, as well as information on other
openings in the building shell. With this specific building plan information, the analysis shall
determine the predicted interior noise levels at the planned on-site buildings. If predicted noise
levels are found to be in excess of the applicable limit, the report shall identify architectural
materials or techniques that could be included to reduce noise levels to the applicable limit. The
project applicant shall comply with mitigation measures included in the interior noise report to
reduce interior noise levels where applicable noise limits are exceeded.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.
Threshold 2: Would the proposed project expose persons to or generate excessive ground-borne
vibration or ground-borne noise levels?
Impact N-4 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION WOULD GENERATE GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION ON AND
ADJACENT TO THE SITE. HOWEVER, VIBRATION LEVELS AT SENSITIVE RECEIVERS WOULD NOT EXCEED APPLICABLE
THRESHOLDS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment
and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected that ground-
borne vibration from project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized
intrusion. The proposed project’s construction activities most likely to cause vibration impacts are:
Heavy Construction Equipment. Although heavy mobile construction equipment has the
potential of causing at least some perceptible vibration while operating close to buildings, the
vibration is usually short-term and is not of sufficient magnitude to cause building damage.
Trucks. Trucks hauling building materials to construction sites can be sources of vibration
intrusion if the haul routes pass through residential neighborhoods on streets with bumps or
potholes. Repairing the bumps and potholes generally eliminates the problem.
Construction activities known to generate excessive groundborne vibration, such as pile driving,
would not be conducted by the project. The greatest anticipated source of vibration during general
project construction activities would be from a dozer, which may be used within 50 feet of the
nearest on-site vibration sensitive use. A dozer creates approximately 0.089 in./sec. PPV at a
distance of 25 feet (Caltrans 2020). This would equal a vibration level of 0.0315 in./sec. PPV at
50 feet. This vibration level is lower than the human annoyance threshold of 0.24 in./sec. PPV and
the structural damage threshold of 0.4 in./sec. PPV. Therefore, temporary impacts associated with
construction would be less than significant.
The project does not include any substantial vibration sources associated with operation. Therefore,
operational vibration impacts would be less than significant.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.11-24
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
4.11.4 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative construction impacts would consist of combined noise and vibration impacts from the
construction under the proposed project and other off-site development. As determined under
Impact N-1 and Impact N-4, construction noise and vibration associated with the project would be
less than significant. Furthermore, all development in the city would be required to comply with the
construction hours permitted by the Section 18-63(b)(7) of the Fontana Municipal Code.
Construction noise and vibration would not disturb receivers during sensitive nighttime hours of
sleep. In addition, construction noise attenuates greatly with distance, and is considered a localized
impact. Unless construction of cumulative projects occurs near each other (i.e., less than a couple
hundred feet) and simultaneously, noise and vibration from individual construction projects have a
low chance of combining to create significant cumulative impacts. Therefore, the proposed project
would not contribute to temporary cumulative construction noise and vibration impacts.
Cumulative operational noise impacts would consist of combined operational noise of the proposed
project in conjunction with planned projects in the vicinity. As discussed under Impact N-2,
operation of the proposed project would not generate on-site noise that exceeds ambient noise in
the existing urban area. On-site operational noise generated by the project would not exceed the
City’s noise standards and impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, as discussed under
Impact N-3, project traffic would not increase the ambient noise environment of noise-sensitive
land uses in excess of applicable noise standards. While on-site development (particularly
residential units adjacent to I-15 and Duncan Canyon Road) may be subject to interior noise levels in
excess of the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA for residential uses, such noise impacts would
be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1. Therefore, the proposed
project would not contribute considerably to cumulative noise increases in the project vicinity
above ambient noise levels.
Environmental Impact Analysis Population and Housing
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.12-1
4.12 Population and Housing
This section evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed project on population and housing. It
considers the potential growth and employment opportunities that could occur within the project
area as a result of the proposed project. Population, housing and employment data for this section
was obtained from public agencies such as the U.S. Census Bureau (Census) and the California
Department of Finance (DOF), and from the 2020-2045 Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)
growth forecasts.
4.12.1 Setting
a. Population
The City of Fontana is within San Bernadino County, and the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) metropolitan planning area. Fontana has a current population of 213,944,
representing approximately 9.7 percent of the San Bernardino County population of 2,197,000 (DOF
2021). As shown in Table 4.12-1, the City experienced its highest rate of average annual growth (i.e.,
1.7 percent) between 2000 and 2010, with a lower rate of average annual growth from 2010
through 2020.
Table 4.12-1 City of Fontana Historical Population Growth
Description 2000 2010 2020
Population 165,065 196,069 211,519
Difference from Previous Decade – 31,004 15,450
Percent Average Annual Growth Rate from Previous Decade – 1.7% 0.8%
Source: Fontana, n.d; DOF 2021
According to SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, growth forecasts project an increase of approximately
72,800 persons (31.3 percent) in the City’s population over the next 23 years, for an estimated 2045
population of 286,700 residents (SCAG 2020). This forecasted growth represents approximately
3,165 new residents per year over the next 23 years, and an annual growth rate of 1.3 percent.
According to the 2019 five-year American Community Survey, most residents identify as Hispanic or
Latino, while 39 percent of residents identify as White. Age characteristics are similar throughout
the region with the 25 to 44 age group being the largest in each nearby jurisdiction. The population
of children under the age of five fell between 6.5 and 7.5 percent for all jurisdictions in the area,
including the County. The City of Fontana has the greatest percentage of children ages five to 14
(16.5 percent) compared to nearby jurisdictions. The population between the ages of 45 to 65 was
comparable in all nearby jurisdictions, with Fontana having 10.8 percent of residents in that age
group (U.S. Census 2019a).
Housing
According to the DOF, there are 55,909 housing units in the City. Of the 55,909 units, 46,013 (82
percent) are detached or attached single-family units, 8,348 (15 percent) are multi-family units, and
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.12-2
1,531 (three percent) are mobile homes. For the County as a whole, multi-family housing comprised
19 percent of housing units (DOF 2021).
Table 4.12-2 provides the number of housing units in the City in 2000, 2010, and 2020. Based on the
numbers shown in Table 4.12-2 , the pace of housing development between 2010 and 2020 was
approximately 311 units per year on average. However, the City experienced its highest rate of
average annual growth (i.e., 1.9 percent) between 2000 and 2010, which is consistent with the City’s
population growth during the same decade, as shown in Table 4.12-1.
Table 4.12-2 City of Fontana Historical Housing Growth
2000 2010 2020
Housing Units 42,601 51,857 55,093
Difference from Previous Decade – 9,256 3,236
Percent Total Increase from Previous Decade – 21.7 6.2
Percent Average Annual Growth Rate during Previous Decade – 1.9 0.6
Source: Fontana n.d.; DOF 2021
Housing production in California has remained slow over the last decade in contrast to population
growth and employment levels, resulting in an uneven housing market and not enough affordable
units for all income levels. A lack of housing has contributed to an increase in cost burden for
renters and homeowners across the State.
Employment
According to SCAG’s Local Profile for the City in 2017, the education sector was the largest job
sector, accounting for approximately 28 percent of total jobs in the City, following by retail
(approximately 15 percent), and transportation (approximately 12 percent). Total employment was
recorded as 55,448 jobs in 2017 (SCAG 2019). Approximately 90 percent of Fontana’s residents
commute to other local jurisdictions (e.g., Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Los Angeles) for work
whereas 10 percent of residents work in the City. Fontana residents also face long commutes, with
35 percent of the City’s employed residents commuting 25 miles or more to work (U.S. Census
2018). More than 86 percent of jobs inside the City are held by residents of other jurisdictions (SCAG
2019).
4.12.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is responsible for housing policy at the
federal level.
Environmental Impact Analysis Population and Housing
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.12-3
b. State Regulations
The California Department of Housing and Community Development
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is responsible for
determining the regional housing needs for all jurisdictions in California and ensuring the availability
of affordable housing for all income groups.
Housing Element Law: California Government Code Section 65584(a)(1)
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584(a)(1), the California Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) is responsible for determining the regional housing needs
assessment (segmented by income levels) for each region’s planning body known as a “council of
governments” (COG), SCAG being the COG serving the Southern California area. HCD prepares an
initial housing needs assessment and then coordinates with each COG to arrive at the final regional
housing needs assessment. To date, there have been five previous housing element update “cycles.”
California is now in its sixth “housing-element update cycle.”
Housing Crisis Act of 2019 – (SB 330)
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) seeks to accelerate housing production in the next half
decade through 2025 by eliminating some of the most common entitlement impediments to the
creation of new housing. These may include delays in the local permitting process and cities
enacting new requirements after an application is complete and undergoing local review—both of
which can exacerbate the cost and uncertainty that sponsors of housing projects face. In addition to
speeding up the timeline to obtain building permits, the bill prohibits local governments from
reducing the number of homes that can be built through down-planning or down-zoning or the
introduction of new discretionary design guidelines. The bill is in effect as of January 1, 2020 and
expires on January 1, 2025.
Fair Employment and Housing Act
The Fair Employment and Housing Act of 1959 (Government Code Section 12900 et seq.) prohibits
housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, sexual orientation, marital status, national
origin, ancestry, familial status, disability, or source of income.
The Unruh Civil Rights Act
The Unruh Civil Rights Act of 1959 (Civ. Code Section 51) prohibits discrimination in “all business
establishments of every kind whatsoever.” The provision has been interpreted to include businesses
and persons engaged in the sale or rental of housing accommodations.
c. Local Regulations
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana General Plan was prepared pursuant to State law to guide future development and to
identify the community’s environmental, social, and economic goals and functions as a blueprint
that defines how the city will evolve through 2030. The General Plan sets forth goals, objectives, and
programs to provide a guideline for day-to-day land use policies and to meet the existing and future
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.12-4
needs and desires of the community, while at the same time integrating a range of State-mandated
elements including Land Use, Transportation, Noise, Safety, Housing, and Open Space/Conservation.
The General Plan Housing Element is prepared pursuant to State law and provides planning
guidance in meeting the housing needs identified in SCAG’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA). The Housing Element identifies the City’s housing conditions and needs and establishes the
goals, objectives, and policies that are the foundation of the City’s housing and growth strategy (City
of Fontana 2021). The City has released the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 2021-2029 which was
adopted in January 2022 and included a RHNA of 17,518 total housing units at varying income
levels.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
Zoning regulations provide for the types and densities of residential and other uses permitted in
each of the city’s zones. The Zoning Code for the City of Fontana establishes the maximum allowable
development in a zone. Zoning also includes height limitations and other development standards
which together regulate setbacks, building heights, floor area ratios (FAR), open space and parking
for each parcel within the city, as applicable.
4.12.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds
The following thresholds of significance were developed based on Appendix G of the CEQA
Guidelines. Accordingly, the General Plan Update would have a significant impact with respect to
population and housing if it would:
Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or
other infrastructure).
Impacts related to population and housing were analyzed in the Initial Study (Appendix A-2). As
determined in the Initial Study, the project would not displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. There are
currently no residential uses present on the project site and the project area is currently
undeveloped. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not displace any housing,
and the project would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Therefore, impacts related to displacement are not further evaluated in this section.
Environmental Impact Analysis Population and Housing
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.12-5
b. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Impact PH-1 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY INCREASE THE CITY’S POPULATION. HOWEVER, THIS POPULATION GROWTH WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH AND FALL WITHIN THE CITY’S HOUSING ELEMENT AND SCAG POPULATION FORECASTS. THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD
NOT INDUCE POPULATION GROWTH BEYOND THAT ALREADY PLANNED. IMPACTS RELATED TO INDUCEMENT OF
SUBSTANTIAL POPULATION GROWTH WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The 2007 EIR found that future development under the existing Specific Plan would lead to the
construction of new housing units on the site, an increase in the City’s resident population, and the
generation of jobs for the local community. The existing Specific Plan would help meet the City’s
future housing needs and provide a different housing type than the single-family units generally
found in north Fontana. Development of housing under the existing Specific Plan would not induce
substantial development in the area as adjacent areas were already planned for the development.
Further, employment generated by the project would serve existing residents, or those in the
surrounding area. The 2007 EIR determined the existing Specific Plan would not adversely impact
the City’s population and housing stock.
Similar to the existing Specific Plan, the proposed project would include employment generating
uses (commercial, light industrial, etc.). The project would result in a small decrease in employment
generating square-footage, from 574,500 square feet under the existing Specific Plan to 476,500
square feet under the proposed project, a decrease of 98,000 square feet. Employment associated
with commercial development (mainly retail) would likely be filled by residents in the Specific Plan
area or neighboring local jurisdictions and would not result in substantial population growth.
The project would increase housing units beyond levels anticipated in the existing Specific Plan. The
proposed project would increase the number of dwelling units from 842 units under the existing
Specific Plan to 1,671 units. This increases the number of housing units by 829, or nearly a doubling
of dwelling units when compared to the existing Specific Plan. The 1,671 units would account for
less than 10 percent of the latest RHNA of 17,519 housing units and are, therefore, within
anticipated growth planned under the General Plan Housing Element by 2030.
According to the DOF, the City of Fontana has a current population of 213,944 (DOF 2020). As
discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, the proposed project would accommodate a service population
consisting of 6,081 residents and 473 employees, for a total of 7,274 persons. By comparison, the
existing Specific Plan would accommodate a service population of 5,383 persons. As such, the
project would result in a net increase of 1,891 persons. Nonetheless, the following analysis the
service population associated with full buildout of the Specific Plan Amendment (i.e., 7,274 persons)
to regional growth forecasts for a conservative analysis of project impacts.
The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS growth forecasts project an increase of approximately 72,800 persons in
the City’s population over the next 23 years, for an estimated 2045 population of 286,700 residents
(SCAG 2020). Based on this forecast population, the City’s population would be approximately
239,266 in 2030 (the buildout year of the proposed project), which is an increase of 25,322 persons
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.12-6
atop the current population of 213,944 (DOF 2021).1 Table 4.12-3 compares the projected growth
associated with full buildout of the proposed project to forecasts under the SCAG’s 2020-2045
RTP/SCS.
Table 4.12-3 Comparison of Project to Growth Projections
Proposed Project 2030 Forecast Growth
Percentage of Growth
from Proposed Project
Housing Units 1,671 17,519 9.5
Service Population 7,2741 25,322 28.7
1 The service population associated with the proposed project was calculated using a rate of 4.07 persons per dwelling unit and 1,009
square feet per employee. These density factors are consistent with the Traffic Study (Appendix I) completed for the project.
Source: City of Fontana 2021; DOF 2021; SCAG 2020
As shown in Table 4.12-3, the addition of 7,274 persons (conservatively assuming project employees
are also residents) would consist of approximately 29 percent of the City’s projected growth by
2030. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate population growth in exceedance of
existing SCAG population forecasts.
The project would also be consistent with State and local requirements for housing and
development. The project would not create any new roads or infrastructure not already anticipated
in the existing Specific Plan. Therefore, the project population would not induce substantial
unplanned growth, either directly or indirectly, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
4.12.4 Cumulative Impacts
Planned and pending projects in Fontana and surrounding areas are listed in Table 3-1 in Section 3,
Environmental Setting, and include residential, commercial, and industrial land uses.
According to the DOF, the City of Fontana has a current population of 213,944 with an average
household size of 4.07 (DOF 2021). Based on regional growth forecasts for the year 2030, the
proposed project, when combined with the projects listed in Table 3-1, could increase the
population in the city by approximately 25,000 persons. The proposed project would account for an
estimated 29 percent of the population increase due to its total service population of 7,274 persons.
The needed infrastructure to support the project’s growth is already planned in the existing Specific
Plan (roads, utilities, etc.). In addition, each project’s incremental contribution to growth is
accompanied by payment of proportionate property taxes and, development fees toward meeting
the needs of additional growth, in accordance with City requirements. Therefore, potential
environmental impacts related to substantial unplanned population growth, including the proposed
project, would be less than significant.
1 Assuming an increase of 72,800 persons between the years 2022 and 2045 results in an average growth of 3,165 persons per year for
the next 23 years. To obtain a population estimate for the year 2030 (i.e., eight years into the future and the buildout year of the proposed project), an average of 3,165 persons per years is multiplied by eight, which results in an estimated increase of 25,322 persons by the year 2030 for the City of Fontana.
Environmental Impact Analysis Public Services and Recreation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.13-1
4.13 Public Services and Recreation
Public facilities and services are functions which serve residents on a community-wide basis. These
functions include fire and police protection, school facilities, public parks and recreational facilities,
and libraries. Development proposed under the project would require these services and/or use
these facilities. This analysis is supported by readily available information about services providers
(i.e., in the Fontana General Plan), and information provided by service providers.
4.13.1 Setting
a. Fire Protection Services
The Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD) provides emergency, preventive, and administrative
services across 52.4 square miles within the city limits and the sphere of influence (SOI) through a
contract with the San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD). The SBCFD serves the
southwestern section of San Bernardino County. There are seven fire stations, an administrative
office, and a fire prevention office serving the City (City of Fontana 2018). Total department staffing
at the seven fire stations includes 33 full time fire suppression employees consisting of eight fire
captains, eight fire engineers, nine firefighter medics, three firefighter paramedics, and five
firefighters. The nearest fire station to the project site is Station 79 located approximately 0.1 mile
west of the project site, at 4075 Coyote Canyon Road, Fontana. Station 79 operates one medic
engine, houses a four-person engine company, and is staffed with one captain, one engineer, and
one firefighter medic (City of Fontana 2021, City of Fontana 2018).
The FFPD’s administrative offices and the fire prevention offices are located at City Hall, 8353 Sierra
Avenue. The FFPD is staffed with 119 full time personnel, including 108 safety employees, and 11
non-safety personnel. The FFPD performs inspections, plan checks, and issues permits in order to
protect the public and emergency responders from safety hazards due to fire. The City also has
automatic and mutual aid agreements with nearby agencies including the Rancho Cucamonga Fire
Protection District (City of Fontana 2018).
The FFPD’s 2013 Strategic Plan identified nine action items for improving fire operations and for
achieving their goals and objectives. These included reorganizing some of their existing resources
and construction or remodel of existing facilities. Projects planned through 2022 include
construction of a co-located City/County Office of Emergency Services (OES), centrally located
training facility, new headquarters, relocating station 77, and constructing a new station in the
western SOI (Fire Station 80).
b. Police Protection and Law Enforcement Services
According to the Fontana General Plan, the Fontana Police Department (FPD) has 197 sworn officers
and operates out of one centrally located police station located at 8353 Sierra Avenue. In total, the
FPD has 292 full time equivalent (FTE) positions budgeted, and 18 part-time positions. The Fontana
Police Department headquarters is located at 17005 Upland Avenue and also operates Southridge
Contact Station at 11500 Live Oak Avenue, and a contact station within the Palm Court Shopping
Center, at 17122 Slover Avenue.
The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department also operates a station in the City of Fontana
located at 17780 Arrow Boulevard. This station is a combination of the West End patrol station and
the Fontana stations, and houses 27 deputy positions, five detectives, seven sergeants, one
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.13-2
lieutenant and one captain. It serves a 300-square mile patrol area across Fontana, Bloomington,
Rialto, and Lytle Creek, and interfaces with Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside Counties to include
unincorporated Upland, Montclair, Ontario and Chino, San Antonio Heights and the Mt. Baldy
wilderness (City of Fontana 2018).
c. School Services
According to the Fontana General Plan, two public school districts serve most of the City of Fontana:
Fontana Unified School District (FUSD) and the Etiwanda School District (pre-K to 8). In addition to
these two school districts, small areas of Fontana are covered by the Colton Joint Unified School
District (southeast Fontana); the Chaffey Joint Union High School District (northern Fontana), and
the Rialto School District (northeast).
The project site is located within the service boundaries of FUSD, which serves most of the city and
had an enrollment of 36,160 students in the 2019-20 academic year (Ed Data 2021). Enrollment has
been trending consistently downward. Peak enrollment was 42,050 students during the 2004-2005
academic year (City of Fontana 2018).
d. Parks and Recreation
Public facilities in Fontana include parks, sports centers, community centers, cultural centers, a
nature center, public services facilities (including city hall, the community services department
building, and the public works center); one veterans’ resource center; the auditorium and the
library. The City’s Community Services Department has responsibility for parks, recreation, and
programming.
Park goals in the Fontana General Plan included providing parks accessible to all segments of the
population and in newly developed areas; joint use agreements with school districts; and funding of
parks and trails through the capital improvement program.
The California Protected Lands Database, which includes all park and recreation sites in the city that
have no more than 50 percent impervious area, lists 1,196 acres of land for park and recreation use,
72 percent of which is composed of the Martin Tudor Jurupa Hills Regional Park’s 861 acres. In
addition, the City counts 25 percent of the school lands available through joint use agreements with
Fontana Unified School District and the Colton Joint Unified School District as usable recreation
areas, resulting in an additional 163 acres. Added to the total in the protected lands database,
Fontana has an estimated 1,359 acres of park and recreation land, as seen in Table 4.13-1 (City of
Fontana 2018).
Environmental Impact Analysis Public Services and Recreation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.13-3
Table 4.13-1 Protected Open Space in Fontana
Parks Acres
Almeria Park 8.389
Bill Martin Park 11.399
Cambria Park 2.176
Catawba Park 11.892
Chaparral Park 8.61
Coyote Canyon Park 15.023
Fernandez Park 3.207
Fiesta Park 1.285
Fontana Park 34.034
Fontana holding 1 14.384
Heritage Circle Park 3.008
Heritage Neighborhood Center 16.905
Hunters Ridge Park 4.715
Jack Bulik Park 23.531
Jurupa Hills OS 9.652
Koehler Park / The Landings 9.998
Martin Tudor Jurupa Hills/Mary Vagle Center/Regional Park 861.224
McDermott Sports Complex & McDermott Park West 22.461
Miller Park 5.604
North Heritage Park 1.343
North Tamarind Park 5.049
Northgate Park 1.363
Oak Park 3.382
Patricia Marrujo Park 5.049
Patricia Murray Park 1.804
Ralph M. Lewis Sports Complex 19.548
Rosena Park 13.578
San Sevaine Park 15.66
Santa Fe Park 0.999
Seville Park 3.795
Shadow Park 5.903
Southridge Park 24.807
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.13-4
Parks Acres
Sycamore Hills Park 3.081
Veteran’s Park 23.464
Total 1,196.3
Total without Regional Park 335.1
Source: City of Fontana 2018b
e. Library Services
The San Bernardino County Library System provides library services to the City of Fontana through
the Fontana Branch Library at 16860 Valencia Avenue (downtown area) and the Kaiser Branch
Library at 11155 Almond Avenue (within Kaiser High School). The County Library System serves
18 cities and nine unincorporated areas in the County and is funded by a dedicated share of
property taxes.
4.13.2 Regulatory Setting
a. State Regulations
2018 California Strategic Fire Plan
The Strategic Fire Plan for California (also known as the California Fire Plan) is a cooperative effort
between the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) (CAL FIRE 2018). The California Fire Plan reflects a focus on
fire prevention and suppression activities and natural resource management to maintain the State’s
forests as a resilient carbon sink to meet California’s climate change goals and to serve as important
habitat for adaptation and mitigation. Major components center on the following goals:
Improve the availability and use of consistent, shared information on hazard and risk
assessment.
Promote the role of local planning processes, including general plans, new development, and
existing developments, and recognize individual landowner/homeowner responsibilities.
Foster a shared vision among communities and the multiple fire protection jurisdictions,
including county-based plans and community-based plans such as Community Wildfire
Protection Plans.
Increase awareness and actions to improve fire resistance of man-made assets at risk and fire
resilience of wildland environments through natural resource management.
Integrate implementation of fire and vegetative fuels management practices consistent with the
priorities of landowners or managers.
Determine and seek the needed level of resources for fire prevention, natural resource
management, fire suppression, and related services.
Implement needed assessments and actions for post-fire protection and recovery.
Environmental Impact Analysis Public Services and Recreation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.13-5
California Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9, California Code of Regulations)
The California Fire Code incorporates the Uniform Fire Code with necessary California amendments.
This Code prescribes regulations consistent with nationally recognized good practices for the
safeguarding, to a reasonable degree, of life and property from the hazards of fire explosion. It also
addresses dangerous conditions arising from the storage, handling, and use of hazardous materials
and devices; conditions hazardous to life or property in the use or occupancy of buildings or
premises; and provisions to assist emergency response personnel.
California Building Code
The 2016 California Building Code (CBC) became effective January 1, 2017, including Part 9 of
Title 24, the California Fire Code. Section 701A.3.2 of the CBC requires that new buildings located in
any Fire Hazard Severity Zone within State Responsibility Areas, any Local Agency Very-High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone, or any Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area designated by the enforcing agency
for which an application for a building permit is submitted, comply with all sections of the Chapter.
California Health and Safety Code (Sections 13000 et seq.)
This Code establishes State fire regulations, including regulations for building standards (also set
forth in the CBC), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as
extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building and childcare facility standards, and fire
suppression training.
California Government Code Section 65995 (California Government Code, Title 7, Chapter 4.9)
California Government Code Section 65995 authorizes school districts to collect impact fees from
developers of new residential and commercial/industrial building space. Section 65995 was
established under the School Facilities Act of 1986 and refined and amended by the Leroy F. Greene
School Facilities Act of 1998 (SB 50) to provide further guidance and restrictions on fee limits and fee
types. The maximum fees authorized under SB 50 apply to zone changes, general plan amendments,
zoning permits and subdivisions. The payment of school impact fees by developers are deemed to
provide full and complete mitigation of school facilities impacts, notwithstanding any contrary
provisions in CEQA or other State or local laws. The FUSD determines fees annually in accordance
with California Government Code Section 65995. The most recent developer fees for FUSD are
shown in Table 4.13-2.
Table 4.13-2 FUSD Fees by Construction Type
Construction Type Fee per Square Foot
Level 1 – Residential Room Additions 500 Square feet or larger $4.08
Level 1 – New Residential $4.08
Commercial/Industrial $0.66
Senior Housing $0.66
Source: FUSD 2020b
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.13-6
The Quimby Act (Sec. 55477 of the California Government Code)
The Quimby Act allows the City to require dedication of land or impose fees for park and recreation
purposes in new subdivisions. The amount of land dedicated, or fees paid, is based on residential
density and cannot exceed the amount necessary to provide 3 acres per 1,000 persons residing
within the subdivision, except under certain conditions where the standard can go up to five acres
per 1,000. In addition, a 2015 amendment permits Quimby Act fees to be used for new or improved
facilities at an existing park if the residents of the new subdivision can reasonably be expected to
use the existing park and other conditions are met.
b. Local Regulations
City of Fontana Development Impact Fees
Fontana requires the payment of development impact fees (DIFs) to offset the impacts of new
developments on public services and facilities, including:
Fire Facilities
Police Facilities
Library Facilities
These development impact fees were created in accordance with City of Fontana Resolution No.
2019-154. City funds and associated DIFs are shown in Table 4.13-3.
Table 4.13-3 Fontana Development Impact Fees
Fee Type
Single Family Residential per Unit
Multi-Family Residential per Unit 0-2 Bedroom
Multi-Family Residential per Unit 3+ Bedroom Commercial per sf Industrial per sf
Fire Facilities $369.00 $350.00 $369.00 $0.101 0.029
Police $472.00 $448.00 $472.00 $0.129 0.038
Library $99.00 $94.00 $99.00 $0.027 0.008
Source: City of Fontana. (2019). Development Fees, City of Fontana. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/2271/Development-Impact-Fees?bidId= (accessed September 2021).
City of Fontana General Plan
The City’s General Plan contains goals and policies that relate to public services, and parks and
recreation in its Public and Community Services chapter and Conservation, Open Space, Parks and
Trails chapter. Goals and policies that would apply to the project include the following:
Public and Community Services
Goal 1: Fontana's crime rate continues to be below state and county rates.
Policy: Continue the Police Department’s successful community policing programs.
Policy: Provide appropriate security for new amenities, such as trails and parks.
Policy: Support Police Department needs for staff and technology to keep up with
population growth and contemporary policing methods.
Environmental Impact Analysis Public Services and Recreation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.13-7
Policy: Promote and enhance use of anti-crime design strategies and programs.
Goal 2: Fontana's Fire Department meets or exceeds state and national benchmarks for protection
and responsiveness.
Policy: Continue the City’s successful partnership with the San Bernardino County Fire
Department.
Goal 3: Fontana has modern, well-maintained public facilities that meet the needs of residents of all
ages, businesses, and government.
Policy: Support development of a City facilities master plan and use an asset-management
system for all City property.
Policy: Support initiatives to reduce energy costs in public facilities.
Policy: Develop an “Aging in Fontana” plan to prepare to serve an increasing number of
senior citizens.
Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails
Goal 5: All Fontana residents live within walking or biking distance of a public park, and there are
sufficient public parks to serve all areas of the city.
Policy: Establish park access by walking and biking as a criterion for locating parks and for
design of active transportation networks.
Policy: Continue to use a minimum standard of 5 acres of public parkland per 1,000 persons.
Policy: Pursue park development where parkland is insufficient.
4.13.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would result in
potentially significant impacts related to public services if it would result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable services ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection
Police protection
Schools
Parks
Other public facilities
b. Standard Conditions
The following standard conditions related to public services, and identified in the 2007 EIR, remain
applicable to the proposed project:
Standard Condition 4.13.1: Future developments shall implement Building Security
Specifications and multi-family developments shall be consistent with the principles of Crime
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.13-8
Prevention through Environmental Design, as required by the Fontana Police Department. To
ensure compliance, all developments shall be subject to building and site plan review and
approval by the Fontana Police Department.
Standard Condition 4.13.2: Future developments would be required to pay development fees
for police services. Payment of developer impact fees would assist in funding the needed public
facility expansion and service improvements needed to serve the proposed developments on
the site.
Standard Condition 4.13.3: Future developments shall be subject to building and site plan
review by the San Bernardino County Fire District, for compliance with fire safety and
emergency access standards and to identify additional development features which could
reduce demand for fire services, prevent the creation of fire hazards, and facilitate emergency
response to the project site.
Standard Condition 4.13.4: Future developments would be required to pay development fees
for fire services. Payment of developer impact fees would assist in funding the needed public
facility expansion and service improvements needed to serve the proposed developments on
the site.
Standard Condition 4.13.5: Future developments would be required to pay school impact fees to
the Fontana Unified School District, which would help fund the needed school facility expansion
and service improvements to serve the proposed project.
Standard Condition 4.13.6: As required under the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 21, Article IV),
the proposed development shall pay Quimby fees for the development of parks and
recreational facilities in North Fontana. The collected fees will be used for the development of
neighborhood and community parks in the area, to serve the proposed project.
Standard Condition 4.13.7: Future developments would be required to pay development fees
for library services. Payment of developer impact fees would assist in funding the needed public
facility expansion and service improvements needed to serve the project.
c. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or
physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives?
Impact PS-1 SBCFD HAS THE CAPACITY AND FACILITIES TO SERVE THE PROJECT, AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN THE NEED FOR EXPANDED FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES. ADDITIONALLY,
BUILDING AND SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE SBCFD AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES WOULD OFFSET PROJECT
DEMAND FOR NEW FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES. THEREFORE, THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE A LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
The 2007 EIR found that future development under the existing Specific Plan would create a direct
demand for fire protection services. While development of the site with residential and commercial
uses would have removed brush fire hazards, the increase in the on-site population and the
introduction of new structures to the site would be accompanied by an increase in demand for fire
protection services. In 2007, the project site was surrounded by relatively vacant land outside of the
majority of development in Fontana. Therefore, the project could have created longer response
Environmental Impact Analysis Public Services and Recreation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.13-9
times throughout the city. To address this, an additional fire station (81) was anticipated to be
located with the Specific Plan area, to accommodate new growth.
The 2007 EIR found that with building and site plan review by the San Bernardino County Fire
District and payment of development fees for fire services the project would not create an adverse
impact on fire protection services.
As discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, and Section 4.12, Population and Housing, the project would
incrementally increase the service population of the SBCFD by adding an additional 829 dwelling
units and 1,891 persons to the 842 dwelling units and 5,383 persons previously anticipated under
the existing Specific Plan.
The project would be located within the existing service area SBCFD. Today, fire protection services
are provided by the SBCFD which operates seven fire stations within the city. There are
approximately 122 firefighters/staff which serve Fontana. The closest fire station to the project site
is Station 79 at 4075 Coyote Canyon Road, approximately 0.1 miles west of the project site. Fire
Station 79 was constructed in 2007 to accommodate the changing use of the area as it transitions
from rural to residential and commercial use (City of Fontana 2018). Station 79 operates one medic
engine, houses a four-person engine company, and is staffed with one captain, one engineer and
one firefighter medic (City of Fontana 2021, 2018). Fire Station 79 is approximately 3 minutes travel
time from the project site (Herbert Spitzer 2021). The average response time to fires within Fontana
is four minutes, 51 seconds.1
Appropriate fire protection measures would be included in the new development, consistent with
the CBC and California Fire Code. Final project design would be subject to plan check by SBCFD to
verify compliance with applicable fire prevention and protection requirements. Compliance with
pertinent building standards would reduce the demand for fire protection services from the project.
Thus, no significant fire hazards are expected to be created on the site.
The project would be required to pay public applicable safety improvement fees to the City’s public
safety improvement fund prior to issuance of a building permit. Fees paid by the project would be
used solely for the construction or reimbursement for construction of public safety improvements
identified in the City’s five-year capital improvement program. Therefore, the project’s contribution
to demand for new fire protection services would be offset by payment of required public safety
improvement fees. As seen in Table 4.13-3, the current fee for fire services is $350 per multi-family
unit. At the current rate, project buildout of 1,671 dwelling units would contribute $584,850 to fire
services.2 Payment of developer impact fees would assist in funding the needed public facility
expansion and service improvements needed to serve the proposed developments on the site. The
project would have a less than significant impact on physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire
protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
1 Communication from Lauri Lockwood of the SBCFD (November 2, 2021) 2 Fees would be based on the rates in place at the time of project development.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.13-10
Threshold 2: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new
or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
Impact PS-2 THE PROJECT WOULD INCREASE THE SERVICE POPULATION OF POLICE PROTECTION
SERVICES. HOWEVER, PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND ADHERENCE TO CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN WOULD OFFSET THE INCREMENTAL DEMAND FOR NEW POLICE
PROTECTION FACILITIES. THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
The 2007 EIR found that existing Specific Plan would increase the on-site population, introduce new
structures, and add vehicle trips in the area; and thus, generate a new demand for law enforcement
and police protection services. Further, employees of the commercial uses would also create a
demand for police services, However, the 2007 EIR found that with the implementation of building
security specifications and payment of development fees for police services the project would not
have significant adverse impacts on police services.
As previously discussed under Impact PS-1, the proposed project would increase the number of
residential units via an increase in density. Law enforcement services for the project area is provided
by the Fontana Police Department (FPD). The nearest station is located approximately 4.4 miles
south from the project site, at 17005 Upland Avenue, Fontana. The potential increase in population
and commercial uses in the project area would result in an increase in the demand for police
protection services, including officers, equipment, and facilities. Consequently, the project would
contribute incrementally to demand for new or expanded police protection facilities.
The FPD has 197 sworn officers, 292 FTE positions budgeted, and 18 part-time positions. The City
standard for police protection prescribes a ratio of 1.4 sworn police officers per 1,000 residents.
Based on the City’s current population of 213,944, the current service ratio is 0.92 FTE per 1,000
residents (DOF 2021). Under the existing Specific Plan, the service population would be 5,383
persons, as discussed in Table 4.2-8 in Section 4.2, Air Quality. By comparison, the service
population under the proposed project would be 7,274 persons, or an increase of 1,891 persons
when compared to the existing Specific Plan. Under the existing Specific Plan, the service ratio of
FTE per 1,000 residents would be .90. Assuming the project would add 1,891 persons, the new total
of 7,272 persons would result in a service ratio of 0.89 FTE per 1,000 residents. Therefore, the
proposed project would represent an approximate change of .01 FTE per 1,000 residents. In order to
meet the standard of 1.4 FTE per 1000 residents the City would need 310 sworn officers, or an
additional 113 officers atop the existing 197 officers to meet the City’s goal for police services.
The Fontana General Plan EIR discusses that, in 2014, the service ratio was 0.94 FTE per 1,000
residences. The General Plan EIR concluded that the officer-to-population ratio is just one criterion
used to determine the number of officers necessary to meet City public safety needs. Furthermore,
the General Plan EIR states that the updated General Plan addresses the incremental need through
adoption of a policy for a long-term strategic planning process for Police services to occur every five
years.
The need for police protection at the proposed commercial areas is difficult to quantify and would
be dependent on complex variables, such as presence of crime elements, attraction of development
to criminals, security measures, perceived public safety, service demands in other areas of the City,
and other factors. Commercial development would be required to implement building security
Environmental Impact Analysis Public Services and Recreation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.13-11
specifications and multi-family developments would be designed consistent with the principles of
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design, as required by the FPD. To ensure compliance, all
developments would be subject to building and site plan review and approval by the FPD.
Furthermore, the project would be required to pay public safety improvement fees to the City’s
public safety improvement fund prior to issuance of a building permits. Fees paid by the project
would be used solely for the construction or reimbursement for construction of public safety
improvements. Therefore, the project’s contribution to demand for new police protection services
would be offset by payment of required public safety improvement fees. As seen in Table 4.13-3 the
current fee for police services is $448.00 per multi-family until. With project buildout, 1,671
dwelling units would contribute $748,608 to police services. Payment of developer impact fees
would assist in funding the needed public facility expansion and service improvements needed to
serve the proposed developments on the site. Furthermore, with adherence to applicable policies,
payment of development fees and design review by the FPD, the proposed project would have a less
than significant impact on police protection facilities.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Threshold 3: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically
altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance
objectives?
Impact PS-3 THE PROJECT WOULD INCREASE THE NEED FOR SCHOOL SERVICES. HOWEVER, PROJECT
CONTRIBUTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT OFFSET THE INCREMENTAL DEMAND FOR NEW SCHOOL FACILITIES. THEREFORE, THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
The 2007 EIR found that FUSD’s facilities were operating beyond capacity and the rapid
development in North Fontana had further strained school facilities. However, with payment of
development fees the Specific Plan would not have an adverse impact on schools.
The project site is in the FUSD area and would be served by Hemlock Elementary School (K-Grade 5),
Fontana Middle School (Grades 6-8), and Fontana High School (Grades 9-12) (FUSD n.d.). The project
would accommodate 6,801 residents, some of which may be school-age children. School-age
children living in the project’s residential units would incrementally increase student enrollment at
FUSD schools, which could result in or contribute to the need for new or physically altered schools.
Estimates of the future student population on the site are based on the generation rates of the
FUSD, as seen in Table 4.13-4.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.13-12
Table 4.13-4 Student Generation Factors and Resulting Student Population in Specific Plan Area
School Level
Multi-Family
Attached
Students Population
under Existing
Specific Plan
Increase in Students
Generated by
Proposed Project
Projected Student
Population under
Project Buildout
Elementary 0.34 286 282 568
Middle School 0.16 135 133 268
High School 0.15 126 124 250
Total 547 539 1,086
Source: Fontana Unified School District (FUSD). 2020. Developer Fee Justification Study.
https://www.fusd.net/cms/lib/CA50000190/Centricity/Domain/4/DFJ.pdf (accessed October 2021).
As shown in Table 4.13-4., the existing Specific Plan would potentially generate 547 new students.
By comparison, student population under the proposed project build out could generate
approximately 568 elementary school students, 267 middle school students, and 251 high school
students for a total of 1,086 students. These students would require school services and facilities at
existing schools in the area.
As determined in the 2007 EIR, the FUSD is currently over capacity. The FUSD has indicated that
existing facilities are operating beyond capacity and the rapid development in North Fontana is
further straining school facilities. Thus, students generated by the proposed project are expected
add to existing overcrowded conditions at area schools. The FUSD current capacity is listed in
Table 4.13-5.
Table 4.13-5 Current Capacity vs. Enrollment
School Level Facilities Capacity Enrollment per CALPADS* Shortage
Elementary 13,966 16,683 2,717
Middle School 6,636 7,612 976
High School 11,655 11,816 161
Total 32,257 36,111 3,854
Source: Fontana Unified School District (FUSD). 2020. Developer Fee Justification Study. https://www.fusd.net/cms/lib/CA50000190/Centricity/Domain/4/DFJ.pdf (accessed October 2021).
*California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System
Future commercial development on the site is not expected to lead directly to a demand for school
services. While employees at the proposed commercial uses on the site may request intra-district,
transfers based on employment location, this is only allowed based on the availability of space and
is expected to be minimal. Therefore, school service demand from commercial uses would not
adversely impact local schools and would not be significant.
Enrollment has been trending consistently downward. Peak enrollment was 42,050 students during
the 2004-2005 academic year whereas the 2019-2020 academic year had an enrollment of 36,160
students (City of Fontana 2018). Nonetheless, considering that the FUSD is currently functioning at
overcapacity, the addition of the project to the area may result in the need for new or modified
school facilities to accommodate 1,086 new students. However, the FUSD assesses a school impact
fee, based on the floor area of new dwelling units and non-residential developments that would be
Environmental Impact Analysis Public Services and Recreation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.13-13
used to fund school services and facilities. As seen in Table 4.13-2, the FUSD fee is currently $4.08
per square feet for new residential development and $0.66 per square feet for commercial
development. School impacts fees paid by future commercial developments on the project site
would assist in the provision of school services to residents of the site. Pursuant to Section 65995
(3)(h) of the Government Code (Senate Bill 50, circa 1998), the payment of statutory fees “...is
deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or
both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any
change in governmental organization or reorganization.” Due to provisions of State law, the City is
strictly limited in the mitigation measures it may impose on developers of residential projects to
address potential school overcrowding issues. State law assumes the developer’s payment of school
impact fees to the local school district, in an amount established by the school district, would
address school capacity impacts.
Therefore, although the project would increase enrollment at FUSD schools, payment of the school
impact developer fees would be considered full mitigation for the project's impacts under CEQA and
impacts to schools may be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Threshold 4: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered
parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives?
Threshold 5: Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
Threshold 6: Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Impact PS-4 THE PROJECT WOULD INCREASE THE USE OF PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES. HOWEVER,
THE CITY MAINTAINS A HIGH PARKLAND TO POPULATION RATIO, AND THE PROJECT WOULD CONTRIBUTE
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO OFFSET IMPACTS TO PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES. THEREFORE, PROJECT
IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The 2007 EIR found that the existing Specific Plan would create a direct demand on parks and
recreational facilities in the area. However, the 2007 EIR determined that payment of pay park fees
to the City for the development of parks in nearby areas would offset impacts to parks. In 2007, the
Fontana General Plan set a parkland standard of two acres of community parkland per thousand
residents, and three acres of neighborhood parkland per thousand residents.
The proposed project would result in 829 additional dwellings units atop the 842 units under the
existing Specific Plan, resulting in 1,671 dwelling units under project buildout. Similar to the existing
Specific Plan, the proposed project would increase the demand for recreation and park facilities.
According to the Fontana General Plan EIR, the performance objective or standard for parks and
recreation is five acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents (two acres of community parks for
every 1,000 residents and three acres of neighborhood parks for every 1,000 residents). As seen in
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.13-14
Table 4.13-1, the City of Fontana has approximately 1,196 acres of parkland, including regional
parkland, and approximately 335 acres excluding regional parkland. In addition, the City counts 25
percent of the school lands available through joint use agreements with FUSD and the Colton Joint
Unified School District as usable recreation areas, resulting in an additional 163 acres. Added to the
total in the protected lands database, Fontana has approximately 1,359 acres of park and recreation
land.
As shown in Table 4.2-8 in Section 4.2, Air Quality, the existing Specific Plan would accommodate a
service population of 5,383 persons. Assuming that the population would be new to Fontana, the
ratio of parks to 1,000 residents would be approximately 6.2 acres of park land. The project would
incrementally increase the service population by adding an additional 829 dwelling units and 1,891
persons, in addition to the 842 dwelling units and 5,383 persons anticipated under the existing
Specific Plan. Assuming the proposed project would accommodate a service population of 7,274
persons, the ratio of parks to 1,000 residents would be approximately 6.1 acres of park land which is
consistent with the City’s performance objectives. In other words, the increases in residential
density would change the park land service ratio by approximately .1 acres per 1,000 residents.
Furthermore, the project would include the construction of various recreational facilities, including
three recreation centers and swimming pools, which would help meet recreation needs of on-site
residents and employees.
In accordance with the City’s Municipal Code, the developer has the option to dedicate parkland on
site, pay a fee, or a combination of both to satisfy the park and recreation demand that would be
generated by the project. As required under the Fontana Municipal Code (Chapter 21, Article IV),
development will be required to pay Quimby fees for the development of neighborhood and
community parks in North Fontana. Furthermore, the need for recreation facilities will be somewhat
offset by the provision of on-site facilities such as pools, play areas and sport courts. Therefore, with
payment of Quimby fees for the development of parks and recreational facilities in North Fontana,
the project would not have a less than significant impact on parks in Fontana.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Threshold 7: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered public facilities, or the need for new or
physically altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives?
Impact PS-5 THE PROJECT WOULD INCREASE THE USE OF LIBRARY FACILITIES, AND THE PROJECT WOULD
CONTRIBUTE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO OFFSET IMPACTS TO LIBRARY FACILITIES. THEREFORE, PROJECT
IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The 2007 EIR found that the existing Specific Plan would create a direct demand on library facilities
in the area. However, it was found that payment of development impact fees to help fund library
services and facilities in the city would offset impacts.
The Fontana Public Library is located approximately 4.43 miles south of the project site. The project
would increase the number of dwelling units by 829, compared to 842 under the existing Specific
Plan, resulting in up to 1,671 dwelling units at project buildout. Therefore, the project would
Environmental Impact Analysis Public Services and Recreation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.13-15
incrementally increase the service population of the Fontana Public Library, above that anticipated
in the Specific Plan.
According to Fontana Municipal Code Section 5-9, the project’s contribution to population increase
would be offset by payment of proportionate DIFs, which include a public library facilities fee. As
seen in Table 4.13-3, the City currently charges $94.00 per multi-family unit and $0.027 per square
foot of new commercial development to pay for library services and facilities (fees are subject to
change).
With the addition of the proposed 1,671 dwelling units and the development of 476,500 square feet
of commercial use, the proposed project would contribute $157,074 for residential development
and $12,865.5 for commercial development. These fees are used to fund library services and
facilities needed to serve the site and the city. Payment of these fees would mitigate impacts
associated with the demand for library services that would be generated by future residents of the
project. Therefore, project impacts to public library facilities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
4.13.4 Cumulative Impacts
Planned and pending projects in Fontana and surrounding areas are listed in Table 3-1 in Section 3,
Environmental Setting, and include residential, commercial, and industrial land uses.
As discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, and Section 4.12, Population and Housing, the project would
accommodate a service population of 7,274. The addition of new residents would generate a
proportional increase in demand for additional fire protection and emergency medical services,
police protection, school services, use of parks and recreation facilities, and use of libraries and
other public services. As discussed above, implementation of the project would not create a
cumulatively considerable need for new or expanded public services that could not be offset by the
payment of development fees.
New development in Fontana, including the projects listed in Table 3-1 in Section 3, Environmental
Setting, may also contribute to an increase in service population and use of public services, and
cumulatively, there may be a need for new or improved facilities to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times, or other applicable goals. According to the California DOF, the City of
Fontana has a current population of 213,944 with an average household size of 4.07 (DOF 2021).
The proposed project, when combined with the projects listed in Table 3-1, could increase the
population in the city by approximately 25,000 persons. The proposed project would account for
approximately 29 percent of new residents. However, each project’s incremental contribution to
demand for new services would be offset by payment of proportionate property taxes,
development fees, and/or DIF in accordance with Fontana Municipal Code. Additionally, new
development projects would be reviewed by the SBCFD staff prior to development permit approval
to ensure adequate fire safety and security measures are provided for each site-specific
development.
Therefore, potential environmental impacts related to the construction of new or expanded public
facilities would be assessed on a project-specific level when such development of public services
and facilities are considered. Therefore, cumulative impacts to public services and facilities would be
less than significant.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.13-16
This page intentionally left blank.
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.14-1
4.14 Transportation
This section analyzes the project’s potential impacts to transportation. The analysis is based on the
Traffic Study prepared for the project by Urban Crossroads and includes a vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) assessment (Urban Crossroads 2022; see Appendix I).
The purpose of the Traffic Study is to evaluate the potential deficiencies related to traffic, identify
circulation system deficiencies that may result from the development of the proposed project, and
to recommend improvements to resolve identified deficiencies in order to achieve acceptable
operational conditions at study area intersections and ensure consistency with the City’s General
Plan. The Traffic Study has been prepared in accordance with the City of Fontana’s Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service Assessment, and
through consultation with City of Fontana staff during the scoping process. The project traffic study
scoping agreement is provided in the Traffic Study and has been approved by the City of Fontana.
4.14.1 Setting
a. Existing Roadway System
Access to the project site will be provided to Citrus Avenue and Duncan Canyon Road via Lytle Creek
Road. Regional access to the project site is available from Interstate 15 (I-15) via Duncan Canyon
Road and Beech Avenue interchanges. The following descriptions are provided for each roadway
that would serve the project site:
I-15 (Ontario Freeway)
I-15 is a major northeast-southwest freeway with four lanes in each direction and provides regional
access to the project area. This freeway extends south to the San Diego area and north to Barstow
and the Las Vegas area. Located just northwest of the project site, I-15 has interchanges at Baseline
Road, Summit Avenue, Sierra Avenue, Glen Helen Parkway, and the State Route 210 (SR-210).
Duncan Canyon Road
Duncan Canyon Road is an east-west oriented roadway located on the project’s southern boundary.
project to construct Duncan Canyon Road at its ultimate half-width (north side) as a Major Highway
(134-foot right-of-way) from the western project boundary to Citrus Avenue consistent with the
City’s standards.
Citrus Avenue
Citrus Avenue is a north-south oriented roadway located on the project’s eastern boundary. Project
to construct Citrus Avenue at its ultimate half-width as a Primary Highway (104-foot right-of-way)
from the northern project boundary to Duncan Canyon Road consistent with the City’s standards.
Lytle Creek Road
Lytle Creek Road is a north-south oriented roadway that bisects the project between Duncan
Canyon Road to Citrus Avenue. Project to construct Lytle Creek Road at its ultimate full-width as a
Local Street (68-foot right-of-way) between Duncan Canyon Road to Citrus Avenue consistent with
the City’s standards.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.14-2
b. Existing Alternative Transportation Facilities
The City’s bike facilities are shown on Figure 4.14-1. There are existing Class II bike facilities along
Duncan Canyon Road, west of Coyote Canyon, Citrus Avenue, Beech Avenue, and Summit Avenue,
and Sierra Lakes Parkway east of Citrus Avenue. There are proposed Class II Duncan Canyon Road,
east of Coyote Canyon Road, and Sierra Lakes Parkway, west of Citrus Avenue.
The project area is currently served by Omnitrans Transit Agency with bus services along Citrus
Avenue, Summit Avenue, Sierra Lakes Avenue, and Sierra Avenue. Routes 312 and 22 serve the City
of Fontana, north of SR-210, but there are currently no transit routes that would serve the project
site, as shown in Figure 4.14-2. Transit service is reviewed and updated by Omnitrans periodically to
address ridership, budget, and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these
periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate. As
the project site is undeveloped, the site does not have pedestrian facilities.
4.14.2 Regulatory Setting
a. State Regulations
California Senate Bill 743
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was signed into law on September 27, 2013, and directed the Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) to develop revisions to the CEQA Guidelines to establish new criteria
for determining the significance of transportation impacts. SB 743 was enacted, in part, as further
implementation of California’s Climate Action Plan to meet California Global Warming Solutions Act
(Assembly Bill 32) greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets. SB 743 seeks to reduce criteria
air pollutants and GHG emissions in the transportation sector by reducing VMT. SB 743 changed the
approach to transportation impact analysis by establishing measures such as VMT, VMT per capita,
or automobile trip generation rates as the primary measures of transportation impacts and
eliminates the traditionally used measures of auto delay, LOS, and other measures of traffic
congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts.
In December 2018, OPR adopted and promulgated its changes to the CEQA Guidelines (14 California
Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15000 et seq.) in response to SB 743. Section 15064.3 of the
CEQA Guidelines contains the operative language for implementing the goals of SB 743 when
determining the significance of a project’s transportation impacts. There are four key aspects of
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 that apply in the case of the proposed project:
“[A] project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental
impact” (Section 15064.3[a]).
For a land use project like the proposed project, “Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable
threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact… projects that decrease vehicle miles
traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less
than significant transportation impact” (Section 15064.3[b][1]).
“A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a
project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per
capita, per household or in any other measure” (Section 15064.3[b][(4]).
The terms and conditions of Section 15064.3 apply prospectively and a lead agency “may elect
to be governed by the provisions of [15064.3] immediately. Beginning on July 1, 2020, the
provisions of [15064.3] shall apply statewide” (Section 15064.3[c]).
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.14-3
Figure 4.14-1 Bicycle Facilities in Fontana
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.14-4
Figure 4.14-2 Existing Transit Routes
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.14-5
California Assembly Bill 32, Senate Bill 32, and Senate Bill 375
The “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006” (AB 32) outlines California’s major legislative
initiative for reducing GHG emissions. AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions
to 1990 levels by 2020, a reduction of approximately 15 percent below emissions expected under a
“business as usual” scenario. On September 8, 2016, the governor signed Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) into
law, extending the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 by requiring the state to further
reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32
remain unchanged).
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), signed in August 2008,
enhances the state’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020
and 2035. SB 375 aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and
affordable housing allocations. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are required to adopt a
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that allocates land uses in the MPO’s Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP). Qualified projects consistent with an approved SCS or Alternative Planning Strategy
(categorized as “transit priority projects”) can receive incentives to streamline CEQA processing.
On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005
levels by 2020 and 2035. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) was assigned
targets of an eight percent reduction in per capita GHG emissions from passenger vehicles by 2020
and a 19 percent reduction in per capita GHG emissions from passenger vehicles by 2035. In the
SCAG region, SB 375 also provides the option for the coordinated development of subregional plans
by the subregional councils of governments and the county transportation commissions to meet
SB 375 requirements. On September 3, 2020, the SCAG’s Regional Council formally adopted the
2020-2045 RTP/SCS titled Connect SoCal, which meets the requirements of SB 375.
b. Local Regulations
Measure “I” Funds
In 2004, the voters of San Bernardino County approved the 30-year extension of Measure “I”, a one-
half of one percent sales tax on retail transactions, through the year 2040, for transportation
projects including, but not limited to, infrastructure improvements, commuter rail, public transit,
and other identified improvements. The Measure “I” extension requires that a regional traffic
impact fee be created to ensure development is paying its fair share. A regional Nexus study was
prepared by San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA)and concluded that each
jurisdiction should include a regional fee component in their local programs in order to meet the
Measure “I” requirement. The regional component assigns specific facilities and cost sharing
formulas to each jurisdiction and was most recently updated in May 2018. Revenues collected
through these programs are used in tandem with Measure “I” funds to deliver projects identified in
the Nexus Study. While Measure “I” is a self-executing sales tax administered by SBCTA, it bears
discussion here because the funds raised through Measure “I” have funded in the past and will
continue to fund new transportation facilities in San Bernardino County, including within the City of
Fontana.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.14-6
City of Fontana General Plan
The Community Mobility and Circulation chapter of the General Plan is focused on connecting
neighborhoods and city destinations by expanding transportation choice in Fontana. The following
policies are relevant to the project:
Goal 1: The City of Fontana has a comprehensive and balanced transportation system with safety
and multimodal accessibility the top priority of citywide transportation planning, as well as
accommodating freight movement.
Policy: Provide roadways that serve the needs of Fontana residents and commerce, and that
facilitate safe and convenient access to transit, bicycle facilities, and walkways.
Policy: Make safety and multimodal accessibility the top priority of citywide transportation
planning.
Policy: Apply the six “E’s” of the Safe Routes to School program to transportation planning
and implementation—Encouragement, Education, Engineering, Enforcement,
Evaluation, and Equity.
Policy: Make land use decisions that support walking, bicycling, and public transit use, in
alignment with the 2014-2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable
Communities Strategy.
Goal 2: Fontana’s street network is safe and accessible to all users, especially the most vulnerable
such as children, youth, older adults and people with disabilities.
Policy: When constructing or modifying roadways, design the roadway space for use by all
users when feasible, including motor vehicles, buses, bicyclists, mobility devices,
and pedestrians, as appropriate for the context of the area.
Policy: Support designated truck routes that avoid negative impacts on residential and
commercial areas while accommodating the efficient movement of trucks on
designated truck routes and arterial streets.
Goal 3: Local transit within the City of Fontana is a viable choice for residents, easily accessible and
serving destinations throughout the city.
Policy: Maximize the accessibility, safety, convenience, and appeal of transit service and
transit stops.
Policy: Promote concentrated development patterns in coordination with transit planning
to maximize service efficiency and ridership.
Goal 4: Fontana’s neighborhood streets maintain a residential character and support a range of
transportation options.
Policy: Balance neighborhood traffic circulation needs with the goal of creating walkable
and bike friendly neighborhoods.
Policy: Develop and implement Best Practice Street Design standards for new residential
street development projects.
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.14-7
Goal 5: Fontana’s commercial and mixed-use areas include a multifunctional street network that
ensures a safe, comfortable, and efficient movement of people, goods, and services to
support a high quality of life and economic vitality.
Policy: Provide a transportation network that is compatible with the needs of commerce
and those who live, work and shop in mixed-use areas.
Policy: Encourage mixed use and commercial developments that support walking, bicycling,
and public transit use while balancing the needs of motorized traffic to serve such
developments.
Goal 6: The city has attractive and convenient parking facilities for both motorized and
non-motorized vehicles that fit the context.
Policy: Provide the right amount of motor vehicle and bicycle parking in commercial and
employment centers to support vibrant economic activity.
Policy: Encourage approaches that reduce the overall number of new parking spaces that
must be provided on-site for new development.
Goal 7: The city of Fontana participates in shaping regional transportation policies to reduce traffic
congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.
Policy: Lead and participate in initiatives to manage regional traffic.
Policy: Coordinate with regional agencies and Caltrans to participate in regional efforts to
maintain transportation infrastructure in Fontana.
Policy: Participate in the efforts of the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) to coordinate transportation planning and services that support greenhouse
gas reductions.
Policy: Participate in the efforts by Caltrans to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow
on area freeways.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
City of Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 17, Motor Vehicles and Traffic contains ordinances for
traffic administration, City traffic engineer, operation of motor vehicles, stopping, standing and
parking, permit parking zones, parking of oversized or non-motorized vehicles, Loading and
unloading zones, pedestrians, bicycles, truck routes, funding of air pollution reduction programs,
and temporary closure of streets.
City of Fontana Development Impact Fee Program
The City of Fontana adopted the latest update to its Development Impact Fee (DIF) program in
September 2019. Fees from new residential, commercial and industrial development are collected
to fund Measure “I” compliant regional facilities as well as local facilities. Under the City’s DIF
program, the City may grant developers a credit against specific components of fees when those
developers construct certain facilities and landscaped medians identified in the list of improvements
funded by the DIF program.
After the City’s DIF fees are collected, they are placed in a separate restricted use account pursuant
to the requirements of Government Code sections 66000 et seq. The timing to use the DIF fees is
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.14-8
established through periodic capital improvement programs, which are overseen by the City’s
Engineering Department. Periodic traffic counts, review of traffic accidents, and a review of traffic
trends throughout the city are also periodically performed by City staff and consultants. The City
uses this data to determine the timing of the improvements listed in its facilities list. The City also
uses this data to ensure that the improvements listed on the facilities list are constructed before the
LOS falls below the LOS performance standards adopted by the City. In this way, the improvements
are constructed before the LOS falls below the City’s LOS performance thresholds. The City’s DIF
program establishes a timeline to fund, design, and build the improvements.
4.14.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds
Appendix G of CEQA Guidelines states transportation and traffic impacts of the project would be
significant if the project would:
Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities;
Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b);
Impacts to transportation were analyzed in the Initial Study (see Appendix A-2). The Initial Study
concluded that the project would comply with City of Fontana roads standards and would not
include any design features that would increase circulation hazards. The development would not
result in roadway uses that would be incompatible with the existing land uses surrounding the
project site, which consist of residential and commercial uses. In addition, project construction and
operational activities would not result in any street closures that could impede emergency access or
evacuation. Ultimately, the development of the newly aligned Lytle Creek Road would improve
connectivity and emergency access for the area. In addition, roadway capacity and operation,
including level of service (LOS), is no longer a consideration for determination of significance, and
mitigation, under CEQA. Therefore, these impacts are not further evaluated in this section.
b. Methodology
As detailed in the Specific Plan Amendment and Section 2, Project Description, of the SEIR, the
project would include the following roadway improvements as design features, which would be
constructed in conjunction with development of the site:
Construction of Duncan Canyon Road at its ultimate half-width (north side) as a Major Highway
(134-foot right-of-way) from the western project boundary to Citrus Avenue consistent with the
City’s standards; and at its ultimate half-width (south side) as a Major Highway (134-foot right-
of-way) from the western project boundary to Citrus Avenue consistent with the City’s
standards.
Construction of Citrus Avenue at its ultimate half-width as a Primary Highway (104-foot right-of-
way) from the northern Project boundary to Duncan Canyon Road consistent with the City’s
standards; and at its ultimate half-width as a Primary Highway (104-foot right-of-way) from the
southern project boundary to Duncan Canyon Road consistent with the City’s standards.
Construction of Lytle Creek Road at its ultimate full-width as a Local Street (68-foot right-of-
way) between Duncan Canyon Road to Citrus Avenue consistent with the City’s standards; and
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.14-9
at its ultimate full-width as a Secondary (92-foot right-of-way) between Duncan Canyon Road to
Citrus Avenue consistent with the City’s standards.
Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, these site and side adjacent improvements are
considered as part of the project.
VMT Screening Criteria
The City Guidelines describe specific “screening thresholds” that can be used to identify when a
proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact without
conducting a more detailed project level VMT analysis.
Consistent with City Guidelines, a land use project needs only to satisfy one of four screening
thresholds to result in a less than significant impact, absent substantial evidence to the contrary.
The project was evaluated against VMT screening criteria with the following results:
Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening. Projects located within a TPA (i.e., within 0.5 mile of an
existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor may be
presumed to have a less than significant impact, with specific exceptions. However, the project
site is not located within 0.5 mile of an existing major transit stop, or along a high-quality transit
corridor.
Low VMT Area Screening. Projects within a low VMT generating area—e.g., 15 percent below
baseline County of San Bernardino VMT per service population—may be presumed to have a
less than significant impact. The project location based on assessor parcel number is input into
the Screening Tool to determine the VMT generated within the respective transportation
analysis area and compared to the jurisdictional average. The results indicate the project site in
not located within a low VMT area.
Low Project Type Screening. Local serving retail with buildings less than 50,000 square feet or
other local serving essential services (e.g., day care centers, public schools, medical/dental
office buildings, etc.) are presumed to have a less than significant impact. However, the project
is not considered local serving under the guidelines.
Project Net Daily Trips less than 500 ADT. Projects that generate fewer than 500 ADT (stated in
actual vehicles) are deemed to not cause a substantial increase in the total citywide or regional
VMT and are therefore presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT. However, the
project’s net daily trips would exceed 500 ADT.
Based on this analysis included in the Traffic Study, the project would not meet any of the screening
criteria and a project level VMT analysis is required.
c. Standard Conditions
The following standard conditions related to transportation, and identified in the 2007 EIR,
remain applicable to the proposed project: Standard Condition 4.4.1: The project shall pay
development impact fees as set by the City to fund roadway maintenance and improvement
projects in the area.
Standard Condition 4.4.2: Future developments would be subject to plan check review to ensure
that the necessary access, parking, and roadway improvements are provided as part of
individual developments, in accordance with the City’s traffic safety design criteria.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.14-10
Standard Condition 4.4.3: Future developments on the site shall be accompanied by the
construction of internal and perimeter roadways, in accordance with the City’s Circulation
Master Plan and City roadway standards, including the City’s standard intersection configuration
for southbound traffic at the Lytle Creek Road/Duncan Canyon Road intersection.
d. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Impact TRA-1 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH A PROGRAM, PLAN, ORDINANCE OR
POLICY ADDRESSING THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM, INCLUDING TRANSIT, ROADWAY, BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN
FACILITIES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The project would generate short-term traffic during construction, and long-term traffic during the
operational life of the project. The 2007 EIR found that implementation of the Specific Plan required
a modification to the Fontana Circulation Master Plan (within the Circulation Element of the
Fontana General Plan). The existing Specific Plan required reclassification of the segment of Duncan
Canyon Road from Lytle Creek Road to Citrus Avenue as a Major Highway. However, the 2007 EIR
found that the proposed amendment to the Circulation Master Plan would not create a significant
adverse impact on the City’s circulation system and would be consistent with the goals and policies
of the Fontana General Plan. The proposed project would similarly construct Duncan Canyon Road
as a Major Highway within project limits.
The proposed pedestrian and roadway facilities improvements could require the temporary closure
or detours of travel lanes near the project site. The project may result in temporary traffic impacts
to surrounding roads during construction. A traffic control plan will be prepared and submitted for
City review and address temporary closures, detours, and notification of key agencies (emergency
providers, etc.) if necessary. In addition, the proposed haul route for construction equipment and
materials delivery is subject to review and approval by the City. With these requirements and City
oversight, impacts related to construction would be less than significant.
The project would include sidewalk and paseos that would serve as the two main categories of
pedestrian access serving the project area. The sidewalks would serve as a backbone to the site’s
pedestrian traffic while the paseos would establish a network of experiential pedestrian corridors
inspired by Tuscan villages. The addition of sidewalk within and around the currently undeveloped
project area would promote future walkability and pedestrian activities in the neighborhood.
Although the proposed residential and commercial land uses on the site could generate a demand
for bus transit, the project would be developed approximately 0.75 mile from the nearest bus stop
on Citrus Avenue, which would allow for access to public transportation for project residents.
Therefore, the project would encourage the use of alternative means of transportation consistent
with Goal 3 and Goal 5 of the Community Mobility and Circulation chapter of the City’s General
Plan.
There are also existing Class II bike facilities along Duncan Canyon Road, west of Coyote Canyon,
Citrus Avenue, Beech Avenue, and Summit Avenue, and Sierra Lakes Parkway east of Citrus Avenue
that would serve the project site. Furthermore, there are proposed Class II bike facilities along
Duncan Canyon Road, east of Coyote Canyon Road, and Sierra Lakes Parkway, west of Citrus that
would provide future opportunities for other means of transportation. Although the project would
involve site and side adjacent roadway improvements as part of the project, such modifications
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.14-11
would remain subject to the review and approval by the City’s Planning Department per the Specific
Plan Amendment. Therefore, with this requirement and City oversight, the project would not
involve off-site changes to the roadway system with the potential to impact existing or planned
bicycle facilities.
In addition, on-site traffic signing and roadway striping would be implemented consistent with the
provisions of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and in conjunction with
detailed construction plans for the project site. Sight distance at each project access point would be
reviewed by the City with respect to standard Caltrans and City of Fontana sight distance standards
at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans.
Given these considerations, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts related to
programs, plans, ordinances, or policies governing the City’s public transit, bikeways, and pedestrian
facilities.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Threshold 2: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Impact TRA-2 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT EXCEED THE CITY’S ADOPTED IMPACT THRESHOLD OF 15
PERCENT BELOW THE BASELINE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO VMT PER SERVICE POPULATION IN BOTH THE BASELINE PLUS PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE SCENARIOS. AS SUCH, THE PROJECT’S VMT IMPACT IS LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT.
As discussed above, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) was adopted in December
2018 by the California Natural Resources Agency. These revisions to the CEQA Guidelines criteria for
determining the significance of transportation impacts shift the focus from driver delay to reduction
of vehicular GHG emissions through creation of multimodal networks, and creation of a mix of land
uses that can facilitate fewer and shorter vehicle trips. VMT is a measure of the total number of
miles driven for various purposes and is sometimes expressed as an average per trip or per person.
Construction traffic would be temporary and would not permanently affect VMT characteristics in
this part of Fontana or elsewhere.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) was adopted in December 2018 by the California
Natural Resources Agency, therefore, the 2007 EIR, was not required to analyze VMT.
VMT Analysis
The project-level VMT analysis utilized the most current version of the San Bernardino
Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) baseline and cumulative models and the City’s adopted
VMT calculation methodology of VMT per service population.
Consistent with the City Guidelines, the project would result in a significant project generated VMT
impact if either of the following conditions are satisfied:
The baseline project generated VMT per service population exceeds 15 percent below the
baseline County of San Bernardino VMT per service population, or;
The cumulative project generated VMT per service population exceeds 15 percent below the
baseline County of San Bernardino VMT per service population.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.14-12
As discussed in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas, and Section 4.12, Population and Housing, the
project’s service population is 7,274 persons. Consistent with City Guidelines, project generated
VMT includes all vehicle trips that are traced to the project zone or zones. This includes internal-to-
internal, internal-to-external, and external-to-internal trips. Project-generated VMT is extracted
from the SBTAM model using the origin-destination trip matrix and that matrix is then multiplied by
the final assignment (i.e., distance) skims. Project VMT was then normalized by dividing by the
project’s service population (i.e., population plus employment). This calculation changes the raw
VMT value into an efficiency metric for ease of comparison. As calculated in the Traffic Study and
shown in Table 4.14-1, the project’s baseline VMT per service population is 27.03 whereas the
project’s cumulative VMT per service population is 23.50.
Table 4.14-1 Project VMT Per Service Population
Baseline Cumulative
Service Population 7,274 7,274
Total VMT 196,612 170,966
Total VMT per Service Population 27.03 23.50
Table 4.14-2 compares the project’s baseline VMT per service population and cumulative VMT per
service population, as calculated in the Traffic Study, to the City’s adopted impact threshold. As
shown, the project would not exceed the City’s adopted threshold of 15 percent below County of
San Bernardino baseline VMT per service population (i.e., 27.8) in both baseline and cumulative
scenarios.
Table 4.14-2 Project VMT Per Service Population Comparison
Baseline Cumulative
County of San Bernardino VMT per Service Population1 32.70 32.70
City-Adopted Threshold2 27.80 27.80
Project VMT Per Service Population 27.03 23.50
Significant? No No
1 San Bernardino County Transit Authority (SBCTA) provides published VMT values for its member agencies and for County of San
Bernardino the VMT per service population is 32.7.
2 For both baseline and cumulative scenarios and consistent with the City Guidelines, the project would result in a significant project
generated VMT impact if the project generated VMT per service population exceeds 15 percent below the baseline County of San Bernardino VMT per service population.
Source: Urban Crossroads 2022; Appendix I.
Furthermore, consistent with City Guidelines, the Traffic Study includes an additional assessment to
evaluate the project’s effect on VMT since the project proposed to amend the City’s General Plan
land use. Per City Guidelines, the analysis is performed using the boundary method, which includes
all vehicle trips with one or both trip-ends within a specific geographic area of interest (i.e., the City
of Fontana). Once the areawide VMT value is calculated, it is then normalized by dividing by the
City’s service population. As calculated in the Traffic Study, there is a net decrease of 0.30 VMT per
service population within the City for baseline conditions and a net decrease of 0.22 VMT per
service population within the City for cumulative conditions, which would indicate that the
proposed project does not have a negative effect on VMT under baseline and cumulative conditions.
The project’s VMT impact is therefore considered less than significant.
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report Transportation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.14-13
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
4.14.4 Cumulative Impacts
Planned and pending projects in Fontana and surrounding areas are listed in Table 3-1 in Section 3,
Environmental Setting, and include residential, commercial, and industrial land uses.
As discussed under Impact TRA-1, the proposed project would not conflict with any programs or
polices governing the City’s circulation system and, therefore, would not cumulatively contribute to
a significant impact. All other planned and pending projects in Fontana will be assessed under CEQA
and with City oversight for consistency with existing plans and programs. Furthermore, as discussed
under Impact TRA-2, the proposed project would not result in a significant VMT impact under
baseline and cumulative conditions. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.14-14
This page intentionally left blank
Environmental Impact Analysis Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.15-1
4.15 Utilities and Service Systems
This section analyzes the effects of the proposed project on utilities and service systems. It
considers potential impacts with respect to water supply and infrastructure, wastewater
conveyance and treatment facilities, stormwater and drainage facilities, solid waste disposal, and
electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities. The analysis is based on data and
information in the following reports: the Air Quality and Greenhouse Study (Rincon Consultants, Inc.
2021; Appendix B), and the Water Supply Assessment for the Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific
Plan (WSA) (Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2020; Appendix G).
4.15.1 Setting
The following section describes the existing setting with respect to wastewater treatment providers,
water suppliers, stormwater drainage facilities, solid waste facilities, electricity and natural gas
providers, and telecommunications facilities serving the project site.
a. Water Supply
The West Valley Water District (WVWD) provides water service to an approximately 31 square mile
service area. WVWD is in the southwest region of San Bernardino County, California, and serves the
Cities of Rialto, Fontana, Colton, and Jurupa Valley, and unincorporated areas of San Bernardino
County. Figure 4.15-1 shows WVWD’s service area. Potable water is delivered to the project site
vicinity via an existing 16-inch water mains within the Duncan Canyon Road and Citrus Avenue right
of ways. The project site is located entirely within the WVWD’s northern section. The project area
consists of 105 acres in the northern portion of the City of Fontana, California, north of Lytle Creek
Road and east of Interstate-15 (I-15). The project site lies within pressure zone 7 of the northern
section of WVWD’s water service area, a public water system as defined in the California Water
Code Section 10912 (Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2020). WVWD utilizes three primary sources for
drinking water supply: local surface water from the east side of the San Gabriel Mountains, including
North Fork Lytle Creek, Middle Fork Lytle Creek, and South Fork Lytle Creek; groundwater; and
imported water from the State Water Project (SWP). Groundwater is the primary source of supply.
WVWD extracts groundwater from five regional groundwater basins: Bunker Hill, Lytle Creek, Rialto-
Colton, Riverside North, and Chino Basins. All five basins have been adjudicated and are managed.
Details on adjudication and management are provided in the WVWD 2015 Regional Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP). WVWD, in a joint venture with the City of Rialto and Valley District,
constructed 25,000 feet of 48-inch transmission line known as the Baseline Feeder. Through an
agreement with Valley District, WVWD can receive up to 5,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of supply
through this transmission line. WVWD has received water through the Baseline Feeder since 1998.
WVWD draws approximately 46 percent of its water supply from its three wells. WVWD’s normal
operating practice is to pump its wells 16 hours a day during off peak hours to take advantage of
Southern California Edison’s time of use rate. If, for some reason, wells are not in service
(maintenance or repair), WVWD has the ability and the right to pump its wells up to 24 hours per
day. WVWD has approximately 32 million gallons per day (MGD) production capability from all its
wells in operation 24 hours per day (Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2020). Figure 4.15-2 shows
groundwater basins in the vicinity of the project.
WVWD purchases SWP water from the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (Valley
District) through the Lytle Turnout off the San Gabriel Pipeline Feeder. SWP water is treated at
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.15-2
Figure 4.15-1 West Valley Water District Service Area
Environmental Impact Analysis Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.15-3
Figure 4.15-2 Groundwater Basins
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.15-4
WVWD’s Oliver P. Roemer Water Filtration Facility (WFF) and used for potable supply, or can be
used to supply non-potable customers, or for groundwater recharge in the Lytle Creek Basin. In
2006, the WFF was expanded to increase production capacity to 14.4 MGD and will be expanded to
have a capacity of 21.6 MGD. WVWD has utilized SWP water through the Lytle Turnout since 1999
(Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2020).
While not presently part of its supply portfolio, WVWD is pursuing opportunities to supply recycled
water. WVWD’s plans for recycled water are still preliminary, and the expected beneficial use has
not been quantified. To the extent feasible, if and when recycled water is available to WVWD, this
water will be offered to WVWD customers. Table 4.15-1 summarizes WVWD’s current and projected
water supplies.
Table 4.15-1 WVWD Water Supplies – Current and Projected
Water Supplies (AFY) 20151 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Groundwater
San Bernardino Basin Area Groundwater
(Bunker Hill/Lytle)
2,159 9,500 14,000 17,000 19,500 19,500
Riverside North 2,065 2,500 3,500 4,000 4,500 4,500
Rialto-Colton 2,505 4,500 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
Chino 0 0 900 900 900 900
Purchased or Imported Water
SWP Water 2,244 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000
Baseline Feeder 4,367 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Surface Water
Lytle Creek 2,271 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500
Supply Total 17,131 34,000 41,900 45,400 48,400 48,400
1Actual supplies in 2015.
AFY = acre-feet per year; WVWD = West Valley Water District
Source: Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2020 (adapted from Table 6-4; Appendix G)
Water Demand
The WVWD 2015 Regional UWMP projects future water demand through 2040 based on a water
capacity rate study prepared in 2020. During normal and wet years, Valley District uses SWP for
groundwater recharge. Therefore, this water is available for production during dry years. Through
its use of groundwater storage, Valley District does not anticipate a reduction in the availability of
SWP water during single or multiple dry years. Due to the size of the groundwater basins utilized by
WVWD, a single dry year will not affect well production. The annual amount produced in historical
normal, single dry, or multiple dry water years from a basin does not give an accurate
representation of potential basin production. Factors such as lower system demand, cost of
pumping, inoperable wells, pumping duration, replenishment costs, water quality, cost of supply
and the ability to treat water all affect annual basin production numbers. WVWD has utilized up to
5,500 AFY during normal times from Lytle Creek surface flows and projects a minimum of 2,130 AFY
during extended drought conditions. WVWD and its predecessors have utilized Lytle Creek surface
flows for water supply for more than 130 years.
Environmental Impact Analysis Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.15-5
WVWD estimates future water supply availability under single- and multiple-dry year scenarios.
Given the adjudication of the groundwater basins upon which it depends, WVWD assumes
100 percent of its supplies would remain available during both single and multiple-dry year
scenarios. There has been a historical trend associated with drier years and an increase in water use
among agencies. Conservation efforts have proven to be effective in decreasing water use in dry
years, such as the historical drought of 2013-2015. In the 2015 Regional UWMP, WVWD estimated
that demands could increase by 10 percent during a single dry year. During a multiple dry year
period, it is expected that conservation messaging and restrictions would lead to consumption
dropping back down to normal year levels in the second dry year and falling an additional
10 percent in the third dry year. Table 4.15-2 summarizes WVWD’s multiple-dry year supply and
demand through 2040. Under all scenarios for all years, demand remains below anticipated supply.
Table 4.15-2 Supply and Demand in Multiple Dry Years
Year-Type 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
First Dry Year
First Dry Year Supply 33,030 38,530 42,030 45,030 45,030
First Dry Year Demand 22,879 24,481 26,183 28,041 30,043
Excess Supply 10,151 14,049 15,847 16,989 14,987
Second Dry Year
Second Dry Year Supply 33,030 38,530 42,030 45,030 45,030
Second Dry Year Demand 20,799 22,256 23,802 25,492 27,312
Excess Supply 12,231 16,274 18,228 19,538 17,718
Third Dry Year
Third Dry Year Supply 33,030 38,530 42,030 45,030 45,030
Third Dry Year Demand 18,719 20,030 21,422 22,943 24,580
Excess Supply 14,311 18,500 20,608 22,087 20,450
Units in acre feet per year (AFY)
Source: Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2020 (adapted from Table 8-3; Appendix G)
b. Wastewater
Sewer service for the project area is provided by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). IEUA,
under the Chino Basin Regional Sewage Service Contract, provides sewage utility services to the City
of Fontana and six other cities nearby, via a collection system consisting of over 312 miles of
collection pipelines, three active lift stations. Wastewater collected within the IEUA service area is
treated at five wastewater treatment plants owned by IEUA, which are in Chino Hills, Fontana,
Montclair, Ontario, Upland, and Cucamonga County Water District. Wastewater from the project
site is diverted to the San Bernardino lift station and then the regional wastewater treatment
plant 4 (RP-4) located in Rancho Cucamonga.
An existing 15-inch sewer main along Citrus Avenue conveys flows from the project site vicinity
toward RP-4, located approximately 6.5 miles southwest. RP-4 was originally constructed in 1997
and completed an expansion to expand its treatment capacity to 14 MGD. The facility treats influent
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.15-6
to tertiary standards, meeting all Title 22 requirements for recycled water. Currently, treatment
plant effluent is discharged to RP-1 for thickening, anaerobic digestion, and dewatering (IEUA 2021).
c. Stormwater Drainage Facilities
Currently, stormwater on the project site flows from higher elevations in the northeast corner of the
project site (approximately 1,800 feet above mean sea level [AMSL]) to lower elevations in the
southern and western portions of the project site (ranging from approximately 1,689 to 1,741 feet
AMSL). New storm drain lines will be installed on Citrus Avenue north of Duncan Canyon and on
Duncan Canyon between the Plan Area’s western edge and Citrus Avenue. This will intercept a main
line that follows the Lytle Creek Road alignment north of Duncan Canyon Road. The area south of
Duncan Canyon will drain to a main line in Lytle Creek Road that connects to an existing storm drain
south of the Plan Area. Lateral lines will be extended to each Planning Area as needed. Stormwater
conveyance facilities in Fontana are maintained by the Fontana Department of Public Works.
d. Solid Waste Facilities
Waste and recycling services to the project site will be provided by Burrtec Waste Industries. No
landfills are in Fontana; instead, municipal solid waste is disposed of at the West Valley Materials
Recovery Facility Transfer Station in Fontana (approximately six miles southwest of the project site).
The nearest landfill is Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill in Rialto, located approximately two miles
southeast of the project site, which is owned and operated by the County of San Bernardino Solid
Waste Management Division. Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill accepts wood, tires, mixed municipal,
inert, industrial, green materials, dead animals, contaminated soil, construction and demolition, and
agricultural waste (California Department of Resources and Recycling and Recovery [CalRecycle]
2019a). Additional landfills in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County that may receive
waste generated in Fontana include the Pennsylvania Street Inert Landfill in San Bernardino
(approximately eight miles southeast of the project site) and the Agua Mansa Landfill in Rialto
(approximately ten miles southeast of the project site). Pennsylvania Street Inert Landfill is owned
and operated by Robertson Ready Mix and Agua Mansa Landfill is owned and operated by Yeager E.
L. Construction Company. Both the Pennsylvania Street Inert and Agua Mansa Landfills accept inert
and construction and demolition waste (CalRecycle 2019b, 2019c).
e. Electricity and Natural Gas Providers
Natural gas-fired power plants provided approximately 35 percent of the total electricity in
California generated in 2020 (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2019). In 2020, California
produced 70 percent of the electricity it used and imported the rest from outside the state. In 2019,
California used 263,329 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity, with 201,784 GWh produced in-state
(EIA 2020). San Bernardino County as a whole consumed approximately 527.2 million therms of
natural gas in 2020 in both residential and non-residential uses (CEC 2021). San Bernardino County
also consumed approximately 15,968.5 GWh of electricity in 2020 from residential and non-
residential uses (CEC 2021).
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to Fontana, including the project site. SCE
maintains substations and distribution lines in the region, including the Rancho Vista substation,
approximately six miles southwest of the project site in Rancho Cucamonga and the Calectric
substation, approximately nine miles southeast of the project site in San Bernardino. Additionally, as
discussed in Section 2, Project Description, a SCE transmission line corridor is adjacent to the
southeastern project boundary.
Environmental Impact Analysis Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.15-7
Southern California Gas (SCG) provides natural gas service to approximately six million residential
and business customers across 20,000 square miles of southern California, including Fontana (SCG
2021a). The project site is located in SCG’s Northern Zone. An existing natural gas transmission line
and high-pressure distribution line owned and operated by SCG is located approximately 430 feet
southeast and 600 feet east, respectively of the project site (SCG 2021b).
For additional information on electricity and natural gas service and consumption, refer to
Section 4.5, Energy.
f. Telecommunications
Numerous private local, wireless, and cellular phone service providers serve the Fontana area. As
discussed in Section 2, Project Description, AT&T telecommunications lines are collocated along
existing SCE electrical transmission lines within the project site along Duncan Canyon Road.
4.15.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Federal Clean Water Act of 1977
The federal Water Pollution Control Act was passed in 1972 and was amended in 1977 as the Clean
Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1251 1376). The CWA was reauthorized in 1981, 1987, and 2000. It
establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United
States and has given the United States Environmental Protection Agency the authority to implement
pollution control programs. The CWA requires states to set standards to protect, maintain, and
restore water quality through the regulation of point source and certain non-point source
discharges to surface waters. Many pollutants are regulated under the CWA, including various toxic
pollutants, total suspended solids, biological oxygen demand and pH (acidity/alkalinity measure
scale). Those discharges are regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
permit process, described below. The CWA generally applies to surface Waters of the United States,
managed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
a. State Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act is the overarching water quality control law for
California. It is implemented by the SWRCB and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards
(RWQCB). The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) establishes statewide policy for water
quality control and provides oversight of the regional boards’ operations. The Porter-Cologne Act
and the CWA overlap in many ways, as the entities established by the Porter-Cologne Act enforce
and implement many federal laws and policies.
Water Conservation Act of 2009
Senate Bill (SB) X7-7, which became effective on February 3, 2010, is the water conservation
component to the Delta legislative package (SB 1, Delta Governance/Delta Plan). It seeks to
implement water use reduction goals established in 2008 to achieve a 20 percent statewide
reduction in urban per capita water use by December 31, 2020. The bill requires each urban retail
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.15-8
water supplier to develop urban water use targets to help meet the 20 percent goal by 2020 and
meet an interim 10 percent goal by 2015.
Senate Bill 610
SB 610 was signed into law in 2001. This law requires cities and counties to develop water supply
assessments (WSAs) when considering approval of applicable development projects in order to
determine whether projected water supplies can meet the project’s anticipated water demand.
Triggers requiring the preparation of a WSA include residential developments of more than
500 dwelling units, shopping centers or business establishments employing more than
1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space, commercial office buildings
employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space, and
projects that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of
water required by a 500 dwelling unit project.
Senate Bill 221
Whereas SB 610 requires a written assessment of water supply availability, SB 221 requires lead
agencies to obtain written verification of sufficient water supply prior to approval of certain
specified subdivision projects. For this purpose, water suppliers may rely on an UWMP (if a
proposed project is accounted for within the UWMP), a WSA or other acceptable information that
constitutes “substantial evidence.” “Sufficient water supply” is defined in SB 221 as the total water
supplies available during normal, single-dry and multiple-dry water years within the 20-year (or
greater) projection period that are available to meet the projected demand associated with a
proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. WSAs are required for residential
projects of more than 500 units and hotels of more than 500 rooms.
2019 California Green Building Standards Code
In January 2010, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the statewide mandatory
CalGreen that requires the installation of water-efficient indoor infrastructure for all new projects
beginning after January 1, 2011. CalGreen was incorporated as Part 11 into Title 24 of the California
Code of Regulations. CalGreen was most recently revised in 2015, with the revisions taking effect for
projects approved after December 31, 2015. These revisions include the adoption of former
emergency measures for outdoor irrigation and indoor plumbing fixtures applied in 2015 in
response to the Governor’s Executive Order B-29-15 in response to extreme drought conditions.
CalGreen applies to the planning, design, operation, construction, use and occupancy of every newly
constructed building or structure. All new development must satisfy the indoor water use
infrastructure standards necessary to meet CalGreen.
CalGreen requires residential and nonresidential water efficiency and conservation measures for
new buildings and structures that will reduce the overall potable water use inside the building by
20 percent. The 20 percent water savings can be achieved in one of the following ways:
(1) installation of plumbing fixtures and fittings that meet the 20 percent reduced flow rate specified
in CalGreen, or (2) by demonstrating a 20 percent reduction in water use from the building “water
use baseline.”
Urban Water Management Plan Act
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act applies to municipal water suppliers that
serve more than 3,000 customers or provide more than 3,000 AFY of water. The Act requires these
Environmental Impact Analysis Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.15-9
water suppliers to update their UWMP every five years to identify short-term and long-term water
demand management measures to meet growing water demands during normal, dry and multiple-
dry years. The UWMP should include a description of existing and planned water sources,
alternative sources, conservation efforts, reliability and vulnerability assessments, and a water
shortage contingency analysis.
Phase II Stormwater Discharge Permit (Order Number 2013-0001-DWQ)
On February 5, 2013, the SWRCB adopted the Waste Discharge Requirements for Stormwater
Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit (Order
Number 2013-0001-DWQ) (Phase II MS4 Permit). The Phase II MS4 Permit regulates stormwater
discharges from small MS4 systems throughout California.
The Phase II MS4 Permit effectively prohibits non-stormwater discharges to the MS4. Furthermore,
the permit requires all regulated projects—which are defined as projects creating and/or replacing
5,000 sf or more of impervious area—to incorporate low impact development (LID) measures,
including stormwater retention and treatment features. Stormwater retention and treatment
features must be designed to capture runoff from the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event;
80 percent of the annual runoff; or flow from either 0.2 inch per hour rainfall intensity or twice the
85th percentile hourly rainfall intensity as determined by local rainfall records.
Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989
The California Integrated Waste Management Act (CIWMA) of 1989 created the (former) California
Integrated Waste Management Board, now CalRecycle. Responsible for oversight of waste
management in California, CalRecycle assists cities, counties, businesses, and organizations with
meeting state waste reduction, reuse, and recycling goals. Assembly Bill (AB) 939 requires that local
jurisdictions meet waste diversion goals and establish a framework for program implementation,
solid waste planning, and solid waste facility and landfill compliance. The CIWMA was primarily
intended to encourage minimization of the volume of solid waste disposed of through
“transformation” (including incineration, pyrolysis, distillation, and bioconversion) and land disposal
through the establishment of solid waste diversion goals for all cities and counties.
Assembly Bill 341 (Chesbro, 2011)
AB 341 builds from the goals and requirements of AB 939. It declared a State policy goal of
75 percent diversion of solid waste by the year 2020 and directed CalRecycle to develop and adopt
regulations for mandatory commercial recycling.
CalGreen Construction Waste Management Requirements
CalGreen includes a number of requirements related to solid waste diversion. Importantly, new non-
residential construction is required to achieve at least 65 percent construction and demolition waste
diversion and provide recycling areas for paper, cardboard, glass, plastics, metal, and organic waste.
b. Local Regulations
2015 San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan
The 2015 Regional UWMP was prepared in accordance with the California Urban Water
Management Planning Act and to implement the Water Conservation Act of 2009. The Plan
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.15-10
encourages active planning for future demand and available supplies of water resources, and
reports on water conservation strategies to meet the demands.
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana General Plan, specifically the Sustainability and Resilience chapter and the
Infrastructure and Green Systems chapter, recognizes the importance of achieving a reliable water
supply and integrated waste management. The General Plan includes the following goals and
policies that apply to the project:
Sustainability and Resilience
Goal 7: Conservation of water resources with best practices such as drought-tolerant plant species,
recycled water, greywater systems, has become a way of life in Fontana.
Policy: Continue to promote and implement best practices to conserve water.
Infrastructure and Green Systems
Goal 1: Fontana collaborates with public and private agencies for an integrated and sustainable
water resource management program.
Policy: Support initiatives to provide a long-term supply of the right water for the right use
through working with regional providers and the One Water One Watershed Plan.
Goal 2: Fontana promotes use of non-potable water for uses where drinking water is not needed.
Policy: Encourage use of processed water from the IEUA systems using recycled water for all
non-drinking water purposes.
Policy: Promote laundry-to-landscape greywater systems for single-family housing units.
Goal 3: The city continues to have an effective water conservation program.
Policy: Support landscaping in public and private spaces with drought resistant plants.
Policy: Continue successful city water conservation programs and partnerships.
Goal 4: The City of Fontana consistently seeks reasonable rates from the city’s drinking water
providers.
Policy: Support City negotiations to keep drinking water rates reasonable for residents and
other users.
Goal 6: The City of Fontana consistently seeks reasonable rates from the city’s drinking water
providers.
Policy: Continue to implement the Water Quality Management Plan for stormwater
management that incorporates low-impact and green infrastructure standards.
Policy: Promote natural drainage approaches (green infrastructure) and other alternative
non-structural and structural best practices to manage and treat stormwater.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
Chapter 24.11 of the City of Fontana Municipal Code establishes diversion requirements for
construction and demolition activities and requires applicants to submit a Waste Reduction and
Environmental Impact Analysis Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.15-11
Recycling Plan for review and approval in order to reduce the amount of construction waste is
disposed of in landfills.
4.15.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds
For the purposes of this EIR and in accordance with the environmental checklist contained in
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a utilities and service systems impact is considered significant if
the project would:
Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects;
Not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and multiple-dry years;
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments;
Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals; or
Not comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste.
b. Methodology
Project water demand and wastewater generation were estimated using demand factors contained
in the 2015 Regional UWMP and the analysis provided by the WSA prepared by Water Systems
Consulting, Inc. These factors are used by WVWD for initial planning purposes to estimate maximum
daily demand and, therefore, provide a conservative estimate of annual water demand and
wastewater generation. Stormwater infrastructure impacts were analyzed based on the project-
specific drainage plans. Solid waste generation associated with the project was estimated based on
anticipated demolition debris, soil export, and operational waste generation as reported in the
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). CalEEMod calculates annual waste generation
based on land use-based waste disposal rates reported by CalRecycle (California Air Pollution
Control Officers Association [CAPCOA] 2017). Electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications
infrastructure impacts were evaluated based on the project’s utilities site plan. Other publicly
available resources consulted as part of this analysis include the General Plan and the 2015 San
Bernardino Valley Regional UWMP.
c. Standard Conditions
The following standard conditions related to utilities and service systems, and identified in the 2007
EIR, remain applicable to the proposed project:
Standard Condition 4.14.1: The developer shall coordinate with the West Valley Water District
on water line extensions to serve individual parcels and building pads on the site. All water
facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the District’s rules and regulations and
Standards for Domestic Water Facilities.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.15-12
Standard Condition 4.14.2: Future developments shall implement water conservation measures
into the project design of the individual developments on the site to reduce water demand, in
accordance with the Water Conservation Plan of the West Valley Water District.
d. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
Impact U-1 THE PROJECT WOULD INVOLVE THE RELOCATION OF ELECTRICAL AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW OR EXPANDED WATER, WASTEWATER
TREATMENT, AND STORMWATER DRAINAGE FACILITIES ON THE PROJECT SITE. HOWEVER, SUCH RELOCATION
AND CONSTRUCTION WOULD NOT CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS
THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Water
The 2007 EIR determined that development under the project would not result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water facilities as WVWD would have sufficient supplies to serve
the project.
According to Section 2, Project Description, the project site vicinity is served by WVWD. Duncan
Canyon Road, and Citrus Avenue south of Duncan Canyon Road, have existing water infrastructure.
Planned water infrastructure on Citrus Avenue is anticipated to be completed as part of the nearby
Monterado development. A new water main line is expected to follow the alignment of Lytle Creek
Road. The main line would create a loop connection with the planned infrastructure on Citrus
Avenue to the north and would connect to an existing line along I-15, south of Duncan Canyon Road.
Laterals would be provided to each Planning Area as needed.
The proposed water main, laterals, fire water lines, and hydrants would be installed during project
construction and within the disturbance area of the project; therefore, the construction of these
infrastructure improvements would not substantially increase the project’s disturbance area,
associated emissions, or otherwise cause significant environmental effects beyond those identified
throughout this document. As described in Impact U-2, below, the project would be served by
existing and planned WVWD supplies, which are not anticipated to require major WVWD treatment
or distribution facility improvements. Therefore, impacts with respect to new or expanded water
facilities would be less than significant.
Wastewater Treatment
The 2007 EIR determined that development under the project would not result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities as IEUA would have sufficient capacity to
treat project wastewater.
Sewer service for the project area would continue to be provided by the IIEUA. A sewer main line is
expected to follow the Lytle Creek Road alignment and gravity flow to the southwest, connecting to
an existing sewer line south of the project area. Points of Connection (POC) would be provided to
each Planning Area as needed. The proposed sewer main would serve the future buildings via
approximately 11 sanitary sewer lateral connections. As with water facilities, sewer line extensions
Environmental Impact Analysis Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.15-13
necessary to serve the proposed future buildings would be installed in conjunction with the project
within the proposed Lytle Creek Road right-of-way, which would already be disturbed in order to
construct the roadway through the project site. As such, construction of these wastewater
treatment facilities would not result in potentially significant environment impacts beyond those
identified throughout this document.
The project would result in an increase in wastewater generation relative to existing site conditions.
Wastewater generated at the project site would be treated at IEUA’s RP-4 plant. According to
Section 23-316 of the Fontana Municipal Code, residential land uses are assumed to generate
270 gallons per day (gpd) per unit and per the Fontana Forward General Plan Update EIR,
commercial land uses are assumed to generate 10.76 gallons per acre per day of wastewater
(Fontana 2018). The project would involve construction of up to 1,671 dwelling units and 476,500 sf,
or 10.9 acres, of commercial uses. Therefore, the project would be expected to generate
approximately 451,287 gpd of wastewater, or approximately 0.5 MGD. Table 4.15-3 summarizes the
available capacity at the R-4 plant and the percentage used by anticipated project wastewater
generation.
Table 4.15-3 Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity
Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 4 (RP-4)
Average Inflow 10 MGD1
Capacity 14 MGD2
Available Capacity 4 MGD
Project Wastewater Generation3 0.5 MGD
Percent of Available Capacity Used by Project 12.5%
MGD = million gallons per day
1Based on current volume treated from all sources, as reported by the IEUA (IEUA 2021).
2Based on new plant capacity following recently completed plant upgrades (IEUA 2021).
3Based on wastewater generation rates contained in Section 23-316 of the Fontana Municipal Code and the Final Fontana Forward General Plan Update EIR (City of Fontana 2018).
Sources: IEUA 2021, City of Fontana 2018
As shown in Table 4.15-3, wastewater treatment facilities serving the project have sufficient
capacity to process additional wastewater generated by the project. The project would be
responsible for constructing on-site wastewater treatment conveyance systems and paying standard
sewer connection fees. Consequently, impacts with respect to wastewater treatment facilities
would be less than significant.
Stormwater Drainage
The 2007 EIR determined that construction of the proposed on-site storm drain facilities would
provide adequate storm drainage for the area and would not cause significant environmental
effects.
New storm drain lines would be installed on Citrus Avenue north of Duncan Canyon Road and on
Duncan Canyon Road between the project area’s western edge and Citrus Avenue. The new lines
would intercept a main line that follows the Lytle Creek Road alignment north of Duncan Canyon
Road. The area south of Duncan Canyon Road would drain to a main line in Lytle Creek Road that
connects to an existing storm drain south of the project area. In addition, lateral lines would be
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.15-14
extended to each Planning Area as needed. Under the proposed drainage condition, a series of
biofiltration/catchment basins would collect drainage from throughout the project site. Water
collected in the biofiltration/catchment basins would flow through a network of smaller storm
drains to one of the proposed detention basins. The basins would detain flow to the storm drain
mainline within the Lytle Creek Road alignment.
As with water and wastewater facilities, proposed storm drain infrastructure would be constructed
within the disturbance area of the project and would not result in substantial additional
environmental impacts. Given that the project would capture and retain on-site runoff from the
100-year storm event, off-site improvements to the storm drain network would not be necessary. As
such, impacts related to new or expanded stormwater facilities would be less than significant.
For additional discussion of the project’s drainage and stormwater impacts, refer to Section 4.9,
Hydrology and Water Quality.
Electric Power and Natural Gas
The 2007 EIR determined that construction of the proposed on-site storm drain facilities would
provide adequate storm drainage for the area and would not cause significant environmental
effects. Dry utility services (i.e., electrical, and gas) would be extended north and south along Lytle
Creek Road from existing facilities on Duncan Canyon Road. Electrical services would be provided by
SCE, and gas service would be provided by SoCal Gas.
As discussed in Section 4.5, Energy, the project would increase electricity and natural gas demand
on the project site. However, such increased demand would account for a minimal fraction of SCE’s
and SCG’s total demand in the region. The nominal increase in energy demand is not anticipated to
require additional electricity substations or natural gas storage/transmission facilities beyond those
currently serving the Fontana area. Impacts with respect to new or expanded electric power or
natural gas facilities would be less than significant.
For additional discussion of the project’s electricity and natural gas demand, refer to Section 4.5,
Energy.
Telecommunications
The 2007 EIR determined that the project would not result in the relocation or construction of new
or expanded telecommunication facilities as AT&T and Adelphia Communications would both have
sufficient existing facilities to serve the project.
AT&T telecommunications lines are collocated with SCE transmission lines and would be extended
north and south along Lytle Creek Road from existing facilities on Duncan Canyon Road. Substantial
additional ground disturbance, grading, or use of heavy equipment beyond that necessary for the
proposed roadway improvements would not be anticipated. No additional telecommunications
improvements are proposed as part of the project. Consequently, impacts would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Environmental Impact Analysis Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.15-15
Threshold 2: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
Impact U-2 THE PROJECT WOULD DEMAND APPROXIMATELY 358 AFY OF WATER, WHICH WOULD
REPRESENT LESS THAN FIVE PERCENT OF WVWD’S PROJECTED EXCESS WATER SUPPLY FOR ALL NORMAL,
SINGLE-DRY, AND MULTIPLE-DRY YEAR SCENARIOS THROUGH 2040. BASED ON WVWD’S WATER SUPPLY AND
DEMAND PROJECTIONS, PROJECTED WATER SUPPLIES ARE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE ANTICIPATED WATER
DEMAND OF THE PROJECT AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT DURING NORMAL, DRY, AND
MULTIPLE DRY YEARS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The project would generate both construction-related and operational water demand. Discussions
of both sources of water demand follow.
Construction Demand
The 2007 EIR determined that the WVWD would have sufficient water supplies to serve the
estimated water demand created by the project.
Water would be required for temporary construction activities on the project site, including dust
suppression, grading and grubbing, compaction, construction equipment wheel washing, and
concrete mixing and casting. Water consumption by construction workers and cleaning of portable
toilets on the project site may also account for a small portion of overall construction water
demand.
Watering for dust suppression would demand the most water during construction. Pursuant to the
requirements of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 as described in Section 4.2,
Air Quality, all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the project site would be
watered approximately three times per day to reduce fugitive dust generation from construction
activities. Water demand for dust suppression is highly dependent on a number of site-specific
variables, including soil properties, antecedent moisture conditions, and other climatic factors. In
other arid and semi-arid portions of southern California, water demand for construction dust
control has been estimated at roughly 3,300 to 4,000 gallons per acre per day (County of San Diego
2013; Murphy 2015). The site preparation and grading phases would last approximately 40 and
95 days, respectively, and would disturb up to five acres per day. Conservatively assuming an
application rate of 4,000 gallons per acre per day, dust control during the site preparation and
grading phases would require approximately 2.7 million gallons of water, or approximately 10 AF in
total. This temporary demand would amount to less than three percent of the project’s annual
operational water demand.
Construction water demand would be temporary and, therefore, would not result in a long-term
strain on water supplies. Given the temporary and minimal nature of construction water demand as
compared to operational water consumption, as well as the fact that WVWD would be able to
restrict or require conservation measures for water intensive construction activities, impacts related
to construction water consumption would be less than significant.
Operational Demand
The 2007 EIR determined that the WVWD would have sufficient water supplies to serve the
estimated water demand created by the project.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.15-16
The project would introduce a new commercial and residential development containing up to
476,500 sf of commercial uses, 1,671 dwelling units in three separate residential villages, a focal
point piazza (public square), and the construction of the realigned Lytle Creek Road, on an
approximately 102-acre site. According to Table 4-3 of the Water Supply Assessment prepared for
the project, the total estimated water demand for the project is 358 AFY (Water Systems Consulting,
Inc. 2020).
Project water use would consist of indoor and outdoor water use. Indoor water use would include
that associated with building plumbing and industrial processes occurring in proposed facilities. The
project would comply with all requirements of the California Green Building Code, as adopted by
Fontana in Chapter 5 of the Municipal Code, pertaining to maximum flow rates for plumbing
fixtures, such as toilets, showerheads, and faucets in non-residential buildings.
Outdoor water use would consist of landscape irrigation. However, as discussed in Section 2, Project
Description, the plants and planting methods used to landscape the site would be selected based on
compatibility with the soil and climate conditions to maximize efficient water use. The project’s
landscape plan features drought-tolerant plants in compliance with Fontana Municipal Code Section
28.98, including low water use trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Landscaping would be maintained
via a low flow irrigation system and would accommodate hydrozones accordingly, separating high,
medium, and low water-use plants.
As discussed in Section 4.15.1, Setting, WVWD estimates water supply availability for normal,
single-dry, and multiple-dry year scenarios from 2020 through 2040 based on the San Bernardino
Valley 2015 Regional UWMP. For all years and all scenarios, anticipated supply exceeds anticipated
demand. Table 4.15-4 summarizes supply, demand, and the project’s anticipated share of excess
supply for the normal year scenario. Table 4.15-5 summarizes supply, demand, and the project’s
anticipated share of excess supply for the single-dry year scenario.1 Anticipated project demand
would not exceed WVWD’s supply during normal and single-dry year scenarios.
Table 4.15-4 Project Share of WVWD Normal Year Supply and Demand
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Supply 34,000 41,900 45,400 48,400 48,400
Demand 20,799 22,256 23,802 25,492 27,312
Excess Supply1 13,201 19,644 21,598 22,908 21,088
Units in acre-feet per year (AFY).
1 Equal to total supply minus total demand, including project demand.
Source: Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2020
Table 4.15-5 Project Share of WVWD Single-Dry Year Supply and Demand
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Supply 33,030 38,530 42,030 45,030 45,030
Demand 22,879 24,481 26,183 28,041 30,043
Excess Supply1 10,151 14,049 15,847 16,989 14,987
Units in acre-feet per year (AFY).
1 Equal to total supply minus total demand, including project demand.
Source: Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2020
1 As discussed in Section 4.15.1, Setting, WVWD does not anticipate any distinction between supply and demand between normal and single-dry year scenarios.
Environmental Impact Analysis Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.15-17
Additionally, the 2015 Regional UWMP estimates future water supply availability for multiple-dry
year scenarios. As discussed in Section 4.15.1, Setting, WVWD anticipates no distinction between
normal and single-dry year scenarios, and anticipates demand reductions in the second through
fourth multiple-dry years as increasingly stringent conservation measures are implemented.
Table 4.15-2 summarizes supply, demand, and the project’s percentage of excess supply during the
second and third multiple-dry years. Anticipated project demand would account for less than five
percent of excess supply during all single- and multiple-dry year scenarios.
The water supply availability analysis incorporates a number of conservative assumptions. Firstly,
the analysis above considers all project-generated demand to be new demand and does not account
for existing water use on the project. Secondly, the analysis conservatively assumes that project-
generated water demand would not be reduced in single- or multiple-dry year scenarios as a result
of conservation measures. Finally, the analysis compares the project’s anticipated water demand to
excess WVWD supply in future years. The project site was identified as undeveloped non-residential
land in the WVWD Development Status map included in the 2015 Regional UWMP, and at least a
portion of the project’s anticipated water demand would be captured in the demand projections
included in the 2015 Regional UWMP. Nevertheless, despite these conservative assumptions
outlined above, the project would not exceed WVWD’s projected supply during all normal, single-
dry, and multiple-dry year scenarios through 2040. Therefore, based on the water demand
projections, projected local water supplies are sufficient to serve the project during normal, single-
dry, and multiple-dry years. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Threshold 3: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Impact U-3 PROJECT-GENERATED WASTEWATER WOULD BE TREATED AT IEUA’S REGIONAL WASTEWATER
PLANT THAT’S LOCATED IN RANCH CUCAMONGA (RP-4) PLANT. THE PLANT WOULD HAVE ADEQUATE
CAPACITY TO SERVE THE PROJECT’S PROJECTED WASTEWATER GENERATION IN ADDITION TO ITS EXISTING
WASTEWATER TREATMENT COMMITMENTS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The 2007 EIR determined that there is sufficient capacity at the RP-4 plant to accommodate the
projected sewage generated by the project.
As discussed under Impact U-1, project-generated wastewater would be adequately served by
available capacity at the RP-4 plant. Wastewater generated by the project would account for less
than 13 percent of the remaining available capacity at the plant, which was recently expanded to
accommodate a maximum capacity of 14 MGD. As such, the project would not result in a
determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it does not have adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Impacts
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.15-18
Threshold 4: Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
Threshold 5: Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Impact U-4 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT GENERATE SOLID WASTE IN EXCESS OF STATE OR LOCAL
STANDARDS, OR IN EXCESS OF THE CAPACITY OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE MID-VALLEY LANDFILL. THE PROJECT WOULD NOT IMPAIR THE ATTAINMENT OF SOLID WASTE REDUCTION GOALS AND WOULD
COMPLY WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO SOLID WASTE. IMPACTS
WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
As described in Section 4.15.1, Setting, Waste Management of the Inland Empire and Burrtec
provide solid waste collection services for Fontana. Solid waste generated in Fontana may be
disposed of at various landfills throughout San Bernardino County based largely on proximity.
However, waste is generally disposed of at the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill, which accepts wood,
tires, mixed municipal, inert, industrial, green materials, dead animals, contaminated soil,
construction and demolition, and agricultural waste (CalRecycle 2019a).
Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill is located approximately two miles southeast of the project site at 2390
Alder Avenue, Rialto. According to the CalRecycle Solid Waste Information System (SWIS), Mid-
Valley Sanitary Landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of 101,300,000 cubic yards (cy) and a
remaining capacity of approximately 61,219,377 cy as of June 2019. The landfill has an anticipated
closure date of April 2045 (CalRecycle 2019a). The landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of
7,500 tons per day and receives an average of 3,100 tons per day (County of San Bernardino 2018).
Therefore, the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill has a remaining capacity of approximately 4,400 tons per
day.
Construction
The 2007 EIR determined that there is sufficient capacity at the Mid-Valley Sanitary landfill to
accommodate the projected solid waste generated by the project.
The project site currently consists vacant, undeveloped land. Project grading would result in
approximately 150,000 cy of fill material. Based on the CalEEMod run prepared for the project,
grading would be expected to occur over approximately 130 days, resulting in the average export of
approximately 1,154 cy (or 1,616 tons) of soil per day. As such, daily export of soil during the grading
period would not exceed the 7,500 tons per day permitted throughput of the Mid-Valley Sanitary
Landfill.
As discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, soils on the project site may be
contaminated due to the site’s historic agricultural use. Therefore, soils exported from the project
site may require disposal at other area landfills that accept contaminated soil, such as Badlands
Sanitary Landfill or Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill. The anticipated daily export of soil during the
grading phase would account for approximately 33.7 percent of the 4,800-ton daily permitted
throughput at Badlands Sanitary Landfill and approximately 32.3 percent of the 5,000-ton daily
permitted throughput at Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill (CalRecycle 2019d, 2019e). Furthermore,
exported soil could be transported to other area landfills that accept soil and construction debris in
San Bernardino County to further reduce impacts at any single solid waste disposal facility.
Environmental Impact Analysis Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.15-19
Therefore, disposal of soils from grading of the project site would not exceed the capacity of local
solid waste disposal facilities.
The handling of all debris and waste generated during construction of the project would be subject
to 2016 CALGreen requirements and the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989
(AB 939) requirements for salvaging, recycling, and reuse of materials from construction activity on
the project site. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 24 of the Fontana Municipal Code, the project
would be required to keep the construction site and surrounding area clear of construction-related
trash and debris and place all construction waste in appropriate containers or an authorized
disposal area. Therefore, impacts related to solid waste generated during construction would be less
than significant.
Operation
The 2007 EIR determined that there is sufficient capacity at the Mid-Valley Sanitary landfill to
accommodate the projected solid waste generated by the project.
According to CalEEMod outputs, the project would generate approximately 3,206 tons of solid
waste annually, or approximately 8.8 tons per day. Based on this information, the project’s
anticipated solid waste generation would account for approximately 0.1 percent of Mid-Valley
Sanitary Landfill’s daily permitted throughput of 7,500 tons per day. Given this small proportion of
permitted throughput and the existing surplus capacity at Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill, the solid
waste generated by operation of the project would be adequately accommodated by existing
landfills.
For operational waste, AB 939 requires all cities and counties to divert a minimum of 50 percent of
all solid waste from landfills. Additionally, the project would comply with the Solid Waste Collection
and Disposal Ordinance, codified in Chapter 24.11 of the Municipal Code, which regulates waste
storage, collection, transfer, and disposal. The project would be required to comply with federal,
State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, because the project
would be served by landfills with sufficient capacity and would comply with applicable regulations
related to solid waste, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
4.15.4 Cumulative Impacts
Water
The geographic scope for cumulative water supply impacts is the WVWD service area, which
includes the Cities of Rialto, Fontana, Colton, and Jurupa Valley, and unincorporated areas of San
Bernardino County. This geographic scope is appropriate because, as the local water purveyor,
WVWD is responsible for supplying potable water to all residential, commercial, industrial, and fire
protection uses within its service area, including the project site. As detailed in Section 3,
Environmental Setting, development that is considered part of the cumulative analysis includes
construction of 23 projects in Fontana and three projects in Rialto that would be served by WVWD.
Land uses include single-family detached residences, multi-family apartments,
condominiums/townhouses, commercial retail, restaurants, industrial warehouses, carwashes, and
a church.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.15-20
Cumulative development in the WVWD service area would continue to increase demands on water
supplies. By 2040, WVWD anticipates a total normal year demand of 48,400 AFY, an increase of
14,400 AFY from the anticipated 2020 demands (Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2020). This
anticipated increase in demand is based on planned and pending future development included in
the 2015 Regional UWMP, including development of currently undeveloped properties in Fontana
and Rialto. A substantial portion of the cumulative projects included in this analysis, as well as the
project site, therefore, at least a portion of the cumulative water demand associated with these
projects would be accounted for in WVWD’s demand projections in the 2015 Regional UWMP.
As demonstrated in Impact U-2, above, the project would account for less than five percent of
WVWD’s excess water supply during all normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry year scenarios through
2040. This excess supply represents the supply available to WVWD after fulfilling future demand
associated with buildout of planned, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the
WVWD service area, including the 26 cumulative projects detailed in Section 3, Environmental
Setting. Furthermore, future projects would be required to obtain service commitments from
WVWD prior to construction, and those meeting the definition of a project pursuant to SB 610
would be required to prepare project specific WSAs. As such, cumulative impacts related to water
would be less than significant.
Wastewater
The geographic scope for cumulative wastewater facilities impacts is the service area for the RP-4
plant, which includes portions of Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga, and San Bernardino County (IEUA
2021). This geographic scope is appropriate because the RP-4 plant would receive wastewater flows
from the project and, consequently, the project would not contribute to capacity constraints at any
other wastewater treatment facilities. Impacts would be cumulatively significant if cumulative
development in the service area would exceed the capacity of the RP-4 plant.
As described in Impact U-1, the RP-4 currently treats approximately 10 MGD of wastewater and was
recently expanded to treat up to 14 MGD, resulting in an excess capacity of approximately
four MGD.
Planned, pending, and reasonably foreseeable development would continue to increase demands
on the existing wastewater treatment and conveyance facilities in the RP-4 plant service area.
However, the proposed project would account for less than 13 percent of the remaining capacity at
the RP-4. This percentage excludes the 26 planned and pending projects listed in Table 3-1 of
Section 3, Environmental Setting. Furthermore, future projects would be required to obtain
commitments from WVWD to provide wastewater treatment services prior to construction, which
would be dependent on remaining treatment capacity at the RP-4 plant. Given that the project
would use a relatively small portion of the remaining capacity at the RP-4 plant and the facility’s
recent expansion to accommodate up to 14 MGD of wastewater, cumulative impacts associated
with wastewater services would be less than significant.
Stormwater
Cumulative impacts to stormwater/drainage facilities are discussed in Section 4.7, Hydrology and
Water Quality. Individual projects would be subject to the stormwater capture and treatment
requirements of the applicable MS4 Permit, reducing potential impacts to stormwater drainage
facilities. Therefore, cumulative impacts to stormwater/drainage facilities would be less than
significant.
Environmental Impact Analysis Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.15-21
Solid Waste
The geographic scope for cumulative solid waste impacts encompasses all areas in the region that
contribute solid waste to the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill. This geographic scope is appropriate
because, as discussed in Section 4.15.1, Setting, the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill would receive
project-generated solid waste and, consequently, the project would not substantially contribute to
capacity constraints at other solid waste disposal facilities.
Planned, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the Mid-Valley Sanitary
Landfill wasteshed would result in increased solid waste generation. As discussed in detail under
Impact U-4, the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill is anticipated to reach its maximum permitted capacity
in April 2045 (CalRecycle 2019a) and has a maximum permitted daily throughput of 7,500 tons per
day. This equates to an annual maximum throughput of approximately 2,737,500 tons per year.
Once operational, the project would account for less than 0.1 percent of this annual throughput. In
addition, compliance with applicable solid waste regulations and, for projects in Fontana, General
Plan policies that would maintain or improve upon solid waste diversion rates. Other cities in the
region are also subject to solid waste diversion requirements and implementation of waste
diversion programs and policies in order to meet State-mandated solid waste diversion rates. For
example, AB 939 requires cities to divert 50 percent of solid waste from landfills. Given the nominal
fraction of annual throughput accounted for by the project and local, regional, and statewide efforts
to improve solid waste diversion rates, cumulative impacts to solid waste facilities would be less
than significant.
Electric Power and Natural Gas Facilities
Cumulative impacts with respect to electric power and natural gas facilities are discussed in
Section 4.5, Energy. Cumulative development projects would be subject to applicable local, regional,
State, and federal policies regarding energy efficiency, in turn reducing the need for new or
expanded electrical and natural gas facilities. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than
significant.
Telecommunication
The geographic scope for cumulative telecommunications impacts is the City of Fontana. This
geographic scope is appropriate because local providers are responsible for providing adequate
telecommunication infrastructure to all land uses within Fontana, including the project site.
As discussed above under Impact U-1, the project would involve undergrounding of
telecommunications lines, which are collocated with SCE electricity lines along Duncan Canyon
Road. Such infrastructure improvements would occur within the disturbance area of the project and
would not result in significant environmental impacts. Cumulative development would increase
demand for telecommunications infrastructure in Fontana. Furthermore, consistent with Article III,
Utility Undergrounding Requirements, of the Fontana Municipal Code which encourages the
undergrounding of all utilities, when possible, telecommunications infrastructure may continue to
be relocated underground throughout Fontana in conjunction with other planned, pending, and
reasonably foreseeable future development projects. However, cumulative projects would each be
required to provide adequate telecommunications infrastructure upgrades on a project-by-project
basis and would be subject to the appropriate level of project-specific environmental review. As
with the project, such upgrades would typically be expected to occur within the development
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.15-22
footprints of other cumulative projects. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to
telecommunications infrastructure would be less than significant.
Environmental Impact Analysis Wildfire
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.16-1
4.16 Wildfire
This section identifies existing wildfire hazard conditions of the project site and surrounding areas;
considers applicable federal, State, regional and local goals, and policies; identifies and analyzes
environmental impacts that may result from the implementation of the proposed project; and
recommends measures to minimize or avoid potential adverse impacts as a result of project
implementation.
4.16.1 Setting
a. Wildfire Fundamentals
A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire in an area of extensive combustible fuel, including vegetation and
structures. Wildfires differ from other fires in that they take place outdoors in areas of grassland,
woodlands, brushland, scrubland, peatland, and other wooded areas that act as a source of fuel, or
combustible material. Buildings may become involved if a wildfire spreads to adjacent communities.
The primary factors that increase an area’s susceptibility to wildfire include slope and topography,
vegetation type and condition, and weather and atmospheric conditions.
In California, State and local agencies share responsibility for wildfire prevention and suppression
and federal agencies take part as well. Federal agencies are responsible for federal lands in Federal
Responsibility Areas (FRA). The State of California has determined that some non-federal lands in
unincorporated areas with watershed value are of statewide interest and have classified those lands
as State Responsibility Areas (SRA). California Department of Forestry and Fire Protections (CAL
FIRE) manages SRAs. All incorporated areas and unincorporated lands not in FRAs or SRAs are
classified as Local Responsibility Areas (LRA).
While nearly all of California is subject to some degree of wildfire hazard, there are specific features
that make certain areas more hazardous. CAL FIRE is required by law to map areas of significant fire
hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors (Public Resources Code 4201-
4204, California Government Code 51175-89). As described above, the primary factors that increase
an area’s susceptibility to fire hazards include slope, vegetation type and condition, and
atmospheric conditions. CAL FIRE maps fire hazards based on zones, referred to as Fire Hazard
Severity Zones (FHSZ). There are three levels of severity: 1) Moderate FHSZs; 2) High FHSZs; and 3)
Very High FHSZs (VHFHSZ). Each of the zones influence how people construct buildings and protect
property to reduce risk associated with wildland fires. Under State regulations, areas within
VHFHSZs must comply with specific building and vegetation management requirements intended to
reduce property damage and loss of life in those areas.
b. On- and Off-Site Fire Hazard and Risk Assessment
The project site is located on nearly level terrain that was previously used for farming and currently
consists of primarily of vacant/undeveloped land. As discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources,
the projects site supports two vegetation communities: non-native grassland and eucalyptus row.
Early successional/ruderal and non-native weedy plant species compose a majority of the project
site as a result of routine weed abatement activities.
There is a history of severe wildfire in the area. The most recent large fire was the 2003 Grand Prix
Fire, located in the San Bernardino Mountains, which burned over 59,000 acres including much of
the project vicinity. The project site is currently located approximately one mile south from the
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.16-2
nearest area affected by the fire. The area has since re-vegetated and is typical of herbaceous plant
communities, with a high percentage of the plants containing an abundance of dead material. This is
because of the local Mediterranean climate where warm wet winters promote abundant new
growth, and are frequently followed by long, hot, and very dry summer seasons. Occasionally, multi-
year droughts cause significant parts of these plants to die back.
The major wildland fire threat is from the north and south of the project. This threat comes from
the adjacent undeveloped land and its associated fuels, history of significant fires north of the
project site, and the potential for severe weather conditions and Santa Ana winds. As shown in
Figure 4.16-1, the project area is not within a VHFHSZ within an LRA or SRA. However, the project
site is surrounded to the north, east and west by lands that are within a VHFHSZ. Specifically, areas
west of, and adjacent to Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3 (as identified under the proposed project) are
within a VHFHSZ under an LRA. Areas north of, and adjacent to Planning Areas 2, 4, and 5 (as
identified under the proposed project) are within a VHFHSZ or Moderate FHSZ under an SRA (CAL
FIRE 2021). Refer to Figure 2-4 in Section 2, Project Description, for a map showing the configuration
and location of Planning Areas 1 through 6 within the Specific Plan area.
c. Fire Protection Services
The Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD) provides emergency, preventive, and administrative
services across 52.4 square miles within the city limits and the sphere of influence (SOI) through a
contract with the San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD). The SBCFD serves the
southwestern section of San Bernardino County. There are seven fire stations, an administrative
office, and a fire prevention office serving the City (City of Fontana 2018). Total department staffing
at the seven fire stations includes 33 full time fire suppression employees consisting of eight fire
captains, eight fire engineers, nine firefighter medics, three firefighter paramedics, and five
firefighters. The nearest fire station to the project site is Station 79 located approximately 0.1 mile
west of the project site, at 4075 Coyote Canyon Road, Fontana. Station 79 operates one medic
engine, houses a four-person engine company, and is staffed with one captain, one engineer, and
one firefighter medic (City of Fontana 2021, City of Fontana 2018). Fire Station 79 is approximately
three minutes travel time from the project site (Herbert Spitzer 2021). The average response time to
fires within Fontana is four minutes, 51 seconds.1
The FFPD’s administrative offices and the fire prevention offices are located at City Hall, 8353 Sierra
Avenue. The FFPD is staffed with 119 full time personnel, including 108 safety employees, and 11
non-safety personnel. The FFPD performs inspections, plan checks, and issues permits in order to
protect the public and emergency responders from safety hazards due to fire. The FFPD The City
also has automatic and mutual aid agreements with nearby agencies including the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District (City of Fontana 2018).
The FFPD’s 2013 Strategic Plan identified nine action items for improving fire operations and for
achieving their goals and objectives. These included reorganizing some of their existing resources
and construction or remodel of existing facilities. Projects planned through 2022 include
construction of a co-located City/County Office of Emergency Services (OES), centrally located
training facility, new headquarters, relocating station 77, and constructing a new station in the
western SOI (Fire Station 80).
1 Communication from Lauri Lockwood of the SBCFD (November 2, 2021)
Environmental Impact Analysis Wildfire
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.16-3
Figure 4.16-1 Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.16-4
4.16.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Federal Emergency Management Act
Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) continuing mission is to lead the effort to
prepare the nation for all hazards and effectively manage federal response and recovery efforts
following any national incident. FEMA also initiates proactive mitigation activities, trains first
responders, and manages the National Flood Insurance Program and the U.S. Fire Administration.
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
This Act (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] §5121) was signed into law to amend the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. §5121-5207). This legislation reinforces the importance of pre-
disaster infrastructure mitigation planning to reduce disaster losses nationwide and is aimed
primarily at the control and streamlining of the administration of federal disaster relief and
programs to promote mitigation activities. Some of the major provisions of this Act include funding
pre-disaster mitigation activities; developing experimental multi-hazard maps to better understand
risk; establishing state and local government infrastructure mitigation planning requirements;
defining how states can assume more responsibility in managing the hazard mitigation grant
program; and adjusting ways in which management costs for projects are funded. The mitigation
planning provisions outlined in Section 322 of this Act establish performance-based standards for
mitigation plans and require states to have a public assistance program (Advance Infrastructure
Mitigation [AIM]) to develop county government plans. The consequence for counties that fail to
develop an infrastructure mitigation plan is the chance of a reduced federal share of damage
assistance from 75 percent to 25 percent if the damaged facility has been damaged on more than
one occasion in the preceding 10-year period by the same type of event.
Federal Fire Safety Act
The 1992 Federal Fire Safety Act (FFSA) is different from other laws affecting fire safety because the
law applies to federal operations, and there is no requirement for local action unless a private
building owner leases space to the federal government. The FFSA requires federal agencies to
provide sprinkler protection in any building, whether owned or leased by the federal government
that houses at least 25 federal employees during the course of their employment.
National Fire Plan
The National Fire Plan was developed under Executive Order 11246 in August 2000, following a
historic wildland fire season. The intent is to establish plans for active response to severe wildland
fires and their impacts to communities, while ensuring sufficient firefighting capacity. The plan
addresses firefighting, rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction, community assistance, and
accountability. The program promotes close coordination among local, state, tribal, and federal
firefighting resources by conducting training, purchasing equipment, and providing prevention
activities on a cost-share basis. To help protect people and their property from potential
catastrophic wildfire, the National Fire Plan directs funding to be provided for projects designed to
reduce the fire risks to communities (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA], United States
Department of the Interior [DOI] 2000). High-risk communities identified within the wildland-urban
Environmental Impact Analysis Wildfire
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.16-5
interface, the area where homes and wildlands intermix, were published in the Federal Register in
2001. At the request of Congress, the Federal Register notice only listed those communities
neighboring federal lands (USDA, DOI 2002). The California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (CAL FIRE) incorporates concepts from this plan into State fire planning efforts.
b. State Regulations
California Fire and Building Codes (2019)
The California Fire Code is Chapter 9 of California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24. It establishes
the minimum requirements consistent with nationally recognized good practices to safeguard public
health, safety, and general welfare from the hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in
new and existing buildings, structure, and premises, and to provide safety and assistance to
firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. It is the primary means for
authorizing and enforcing procedures and mechanisms to ensure the safe handling and storage of
any substance that may pose a threat to public health and safety.
The California Fire Code regulates the use, handling, and storage requirements for hazardous
materials at fixed facilities. The California Fire Code and the California Building Code use a hazard
classification system to determine what protective measures are required to ensure fire safety and
protect lives. These measures may include construction standards, separations from property lines
and specialized equipment. To ensure that these safety measures are met, the California Fire Code
employs a permit system based on hazard classification. The provisions of this Code apply to the
construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and
occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or structure or any
appurtenances connected or attached to such building structures throughout California.
More specifically, the Fire Code is included in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Title 24,
Part 9, Chapter 7 addresses fire-resistances- rated construction; California Building Code (Part 2),
Chapter 7A addresses materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure; Chapter 8
addresses fire related interior finishes; Chapter 9 addresses fire protection systems; and Chapter 10
addresses fire-related means of egress, including fire apparatus access road width requirements.
Fire Code Section 4906 also contains existing regulations for vegetation and fuel management to
maintain clearances around structures. These requirements establish minimum standards to protect
buildings in Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) within State Responsibility Areas (SRA) and wildland-
urban interface fire areas. This code includes provisions for ignition-resistant construction standards
for new buildings.
2018 California Strategic Fire Plan
The Strategic Fire Plan for California (also known as the California Fire Plan) is the State’s road map
for reducing the risk of wildfire. The most recent version of the plan was finalized in 2018 and
directs each CAL FIRE Unit to prepare a locally specific fire management plan (CAL FIRE 2018). In
compliance with the California Fire Plan, individual CAL FIRE units are required to develop fire
management plans for their areas of responsibility. These documents assess the fire situation within
each of the 21 CAL FIRE units and six contract counties. The plans include stakeholder contributions
and priorities and identify strategic areas for pre-fire planning and fuel treatment as defined by the
people who live and work with the local fire risk. The plans are required to be updated annually.
With California’s extensive wildland-urban interface situation, the list of high-risk communities
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.16-6
extends beyond just those adjacent to federal lands, discussed above. The California State Forester
(i.e., CAL FIRE Director) has the responsibility for managing the list of those high-risk communities.
California Disaster Mitigation Act
The California Office of Emergency Services prepares the State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Plan (SHMP). The SHMP identifies hazard risks and includes a vulnerability analysis and a hazard
mitigation strategy. The SHMP is federally required under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 for the
State to receive federal funding. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires a State mitigation plan
as a condition of disaster assistance.
California Emergency Response Plan
California has developed an emergency response plan to coordinate emergency services provided
by federal, State, and local governments and private agencies. Responding to hazardous-materials
incidents is one part of this plan. The plan is administered by the California Governor’s Office of
Emergency Services, which coordinates the responses of other agencies. When the City of Fontana
experiences an emergency, an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) may be opened. In the event an
EOC is opened, emergency response team members coordinate efforts and work with local fire and
police agencies, emergency medical providers, the California Highway Patrol, CAL FIRE, California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and California Department of Transportation.
California Building Code
Wildland-Urban Interface Building Standards
On September 20, 2007, the California Building Standards Commission approved the Office of the
State Fire Marshal’s emergency regulations amending the California Code of Regulations, Title 24,
Part 2, known as the 2007 California Building Code. These codes include provisions for ignition-
resistant construction standards in the wildland-urban interface area, which is a geographical area
identified by the State as a FHSZ.
California Public Resources Code
The California Public Resources Code (PRC) includes fire safety regulations that restrict the use of
equipment that may produce a spark, flame, or fire; require the use of spark arrestors on
construction equipment that use an internal combustion engine; specify requirements for the safe
use of gasoline-powered tools in fire hazard areas; and specify fire suppression equipment that
must be provided on-site for various types of work in fire-prone areas.
These regulations include the following:
Earthmoving and portable equipment with internal combustion engines would be equipped
with a spark arrestor to reduce the potential for igniting a wildland fire (PRC Section 4442)
Appropriate fire suppression equipment would be maintained during the highest fire danger
period—from April 1 to December 1 (PRC Section 4428)
On days when a burning permit is required, flammable materials would be removed to a
distance of 10 feet from any equipment that could produce a spark, fire, or flame, and the
construction contractor would maintain the appropriate fire suppression equipment
(PRC Section 4427)
Environmental Impact Analysis Wildfire
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.16-7
On days when a burning permit is required, portable tools powered by gasoline-fueled internal
combustion engines would not be used within 25 feet of any flammable materials (PRC Section
4431)
Senate Bill 1241 (Kehoe) of 2012
Senate Bill 1241 requires cities and counties in SRAs and VHFHSZs to address fire risk in the safety
element of their general plans. The bill also resulted in amendments to the CEQA Guidelines’ Initial
Study checklist to include questions related to fire hazard impacts for projects located in or near
lands classified as SRAs and VHFHSZs. By adopting these amendments, the Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research recognized that low-density, leapfrog development may create higher
wildfire risks than high-density, infill development.
Government Code Section 51182
In an area or land that is in a VHFHSZ, a person who owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains
an occupied dwelling or occupied structure in, upon, or adjoining a mountainous area, forest-
covered land, brush-covered land, grass-covered land, or land that is covered with flammable
material, shall at all times do all of the following:
Maintain defensible space of 100 feet from each side and from the front and rear of the
structure
Remove that portion of a tree that extends within 10 feet of the outlet of a chimney or
stovepipe
Maintain a tree, shrub, or other plant adjacent to or overhanging a building free of dead or
dying wood
Maintain the roof of a structure free of leaves, needles, or other vegetative materials
Prior to constructing a new dwelling or structure that will be occupied or rebuilding an occupied
dwelling or occupied structure damaged by a fire in that zone, the construction or rebuilding of
which requires a building permit, obtain a certification from the local building official that the
dwelling or structure, as proposed to be built, complies with all applicable State and local
building standards
California Public Utilities Commission General Orders
General Order 95
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) General Order 95 applies to construction and
reconstruction of overhead electric lines in California. The replacement of poles, towers, or other
structures is considered reconstruction and requires adherence to all strength and clearance
requirements of this order. The CPUC has promulgated various rules to implement the fire safety
requirements of General Order 95, including:
Rule 18A requires utility companies take appropriate corrective action to remedy safety
hazards.
General Order 95 nonconformances requires that each utility company establish an auditable
maintenance program.
Rules 31.2 requires that lines be inspected frequently and thoroughly.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.16-8
Rule 35 requires that vegetation management activities be performed in order to establish
necessary and reasonable clearances. These requirements apply to all overhead electrical supply
and communication facilities that are covered by General Order 95, including facilities on lands
owned and maintained by State and local agencies.
Rule 38 establishes minimum vertical, horizontal, and radial clearances of wires from other
wires.
Rule 43.2.A.2 requires that for lines located within Tier 2 or Tier 3 zones, the wind loads
required in Rule 43.2.A.1 be multiplied by a wind load factor of 1.1. (CPUC 2018)
General Order 165
General Order 165 establishes requirements for the inspection of electric distribution and
transmission facilities that are not contained within a substation. Utilities must perform “Patrol”
inspections, defined as a simple visual inspection of utility equipment and structures that is
designed to identify obvious structural problems and hazards, at least once per year for each piece
of equipment and structure. “Detailed” inspections, where individual pieces of equipment and
structures are carefully examined, are required every five years for all overhead conductor and
cables, transformers, switching/protective devices, and regulators/capacitors. By July 1st of each
year, each utility subject to this General Order must submit an annual report of its inspections for
the previous year under penalty of perjury (CPUC 2017a).
General Order 166
General Order 166 Standard 1.E requires that investor-owned utilities develop a fire prevention plan
which describes measures that the electric utility will implement to mitigate the threat of power-
line fires. Additionally, this standard requires that investor-owned utilities (IOU) outline a plan to
mitigate power line fires when wind conditions exceed the structural design standards of the line
during a red flag warning in a high fire threat area. Fire prevention plans created by IOUs are
required to identify specific parts of the utility’s service territory where the conditions described
above may occur simultaneously. Standard 11 requires that utilities report annually to the CPUC
regarding compliance with General Order 166 (CPUC 2017b).
Senate Bill 1028
Senate Bill 1028 (2016) requires each electrical corporation to construct, maintain, and operate its
electrical lines and equipment in a manner that will minimize the risk of catastrophic wildfire posed
by those components, and makes a violation of these provisions by an electrical corporation a crime
under State law. The bill also requires each electrical corporation to annually prepare a wildfire
mitigation plan and submit to the CPUC for review. The plan must include a statement of objectives,
a description of preventive strategies and programs that are focused on minimizing risk associated
with electric facilities, and a description of the metrics that the electric corporation uses to evaluate
the overall wildfire mitigation plan performance and assumptions that underlie the use of the
metrics.
c. Local Regulations
Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) was last updated in June 2017. The intent of the
LHMP is to demonstrate the plan for reducing and/or eliminating risk in the City of Fontana. The
Environmental Impact Analysis Wildfire
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.16-9
LHMP process encourages communities to develop goals and objectives that will reduce risk and
build a more disaster resilient community by analyzing potential hazards. Section 4.4, Wildfire
Hazard Profile, of the LHMP includes a discussion on the existing wildfire regulatory environment,
past wildfire occurrences, location/geographic extent of wildfire, wildfire magnitude/severity,
frequency/probability of future occurrences of wildfire, and information regarding future
development within high fire hazard severity zones.
City of Fontana General Plan
The Public and Community Services and Noise and Safety chapters City of the Fontana General Plan
contain citywide goals and policies to prevent the loss of life and property, and to minimize injuries
and property damage in the event of hazards, including fires. The following goals and policies
specifically address community wildfire risk.
Public and Community Services
Goal 2: Fontana's Fire Department meets or exceeds state and national benchmarks for protection
and responsiveness.
Policy: Continue the City’s successful partnership with the San Bernardino County Fire
Department.
Noise and Safety
Goal 1: Enhanced public safety and the protection of public and private property.
Goal 2: Provide effective emergency response to natural or human-induced disasters that minimizes
the loss of life and damage to property, while also reducing disruptions in the delivery of
vital public and private services during and following a disaster.
Goal 3: The City of Fontana is a community that implements proactive fire hazard abatement
strategies, and as a result, is minimally impacted by wildland and urban fires.
Goal 6: The City shall continue to ensure to the fullest extent possible that, in the event of a major
disaster, essential structures and facilities remain safe and functional as required by current
law. Essential facilities include hospitals, police stations, fire stations, emergency operation
centers, communication centers, generators and substations, and reservoirs.
Goal 7: Threats to public and private property from urban and wildland fire hazards are reduced in
Fontana.
Policy: The City shall continue to require residential, commercial, and industrial structures
to implement fire hazard-reducing designs and features.
Policy: The City shall continue to ensure to the extent possible that fire services, such as fire
equipment, infrastructure, and response times, are adequate for all sections of the
city.
Policy: The City shall monitor development or redevelopment in areas where fire zones
have been mapped through the city.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.16-10
4.16.3 Impact Analysis
a. Thresholds of Significance
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the project would have significant impacts
related to wildfire if it would:
Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire
Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment
Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes
Impacts to wildfire were analyzed in an Initial Study (Appendix A-2). The Initial Study determined
that impacts related to the project substantially impairment of an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan, in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very
high fire hazard severity zones, would be less than significant since project construction and
operational activities would not result in street closures that could impede emergency access or
evacuation. Therefore, these impacts are not further evaluated in this section.
b. Methodology
The discussion of wildfire impacts was limited to Section 4.15, Human Health and Hazards, of the
2007 EIR, as part of the analysis for impacts to human health related to hazards. Evaluation of this
subject has since been expanded under CEQA to be its own environmental issue area.
The assessment of impacts related to wildfire hazards and risks were evaluated considering fire
hazard severity zone mapping for the City (CAL FIRE 2021) and the Ventana Duncan Canyon Planning
Area 6 Fire Protection Plan prepared by Herbert Spitzer, Senior Wildland Fire Associate (2021)
(Appendix J).
c. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Impact W-1 THE PROJECT IS LOCATED NEAR AREAS DESIGNATED AS A VHFHSZ. HOWEVER, THE PROJECT SITE’S FLAT
TERRAIN AND COMPLIANCE WITH CODES, REGULATIONS, AND PROPOSED POLICES WOULD PREVENT THE EXACERBATION OF
WILDFIRE RISKS AND SUBSEQUENT EXPOSURE OF PROJECT OCCUPANTS TO POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS. IMPACTS WOULD
BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
As shown in Figure 4.16-1, the project site is surrounded by areas designated as VHFHSZs within an
LRA and SRA. The proposed project would facilitate development of nearly double the residential
units associated with the existing Specific Plan (i.e., 1,671 units compared to 842 units). The
additional units would be accommodated via an increase in density from 15.0 to 25.9 units per acre,
Environmental Impact Analysis Wildfire
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.16-11
as well as a small increase in residential acreage of 8.6 acres (15 percent). In addition, the total
commercial area would be reduced by 98,000 square-feet (17 percent), from 574,500 square-feet
under the existing Specific Plan, to 476,500 for the proposed project. The increase in density would
place buildings closer together, and result in an increase in the overall intensity of development in
residential areas of the site.
The Noise and Safety chapter of the City’s General Plan states that single- and multi-family dwellings
located within FHSZs have a greater potential of being impacted by wildfires because the structures
are the least fire resistant and the population groups that inhabit them are the least prepared to
evacuate in a large-scale wildfire event. In addition, residential developments of medium or higher
densities are at an increased vulnerability to wildfires because there are minimal property setbacks
and construction is lightweight.
The project area is subject to Santa Ana winds, which are strong dry offshore winds that affect
southern California in autumn and winter. They can range from hot to cold, depending on the
prevailing temperatures in the source regions, the Great Basin, and upper Mojave Desert. The winds
are known for the hot dry weather (often the hottest of the year) that often occurs in the fall and
are infamous for fanning regional wildfires. Wildfire smoke produced from combustion of natural
biomass contains thousands of individual compounds, including particulate matter, carbon dioxide,
water vapor, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and other organic chemicals, nitrogen oxides, and
trace minerals that can be carried in the wind.
In addition to winds, topographical features can either assist or hinder wildfire spread. For example,
in the event a fire ignites at the bottom of a steep slope, it will spread much more quickly upwards
because it can pre-heat the upcoming fuels with rising hot air, and upward drafts are more likely to
create spot fires. Conversely, a rocky slope can function as a natural fire break due to a lack of fuel
and wide gap of open space. Generally, wildfires move more quickly uphill than downhill or than on
flat terrain (National Park Service 2017). Despite the potential for Santa Ana winds, the project site
is relatively flat and its lack of topographical features (i.e., slopes) would help reduce risks related to
wildfire spread and subsequent exposure of individuals to pollutant concentrations.
Goal 6 of the General Plan’s Noise and Safety chapter also states that the City of Fontana shall
ensure that sufficient resources are available to expand emergency protection and safety services as
the community grows. As discussed in Setting, fire protection services are provided by FFPD through
a contract with SBCFD, which operates seven fire stations within the City. The closest fire station to
the project site is Station 79 located approximately 0.1 mile west of the project site. As discussed in
Section 4.13, Public Services, the SBCFD would be able to service the project at existing staffing
levels. Fire Station 79 is approximately three minutes travel time from the project site (Herbert
Spitzer 2021), whereas the average response time to fires within Fontana is four minutes, 51
seconds.2 Therefore, the project site’s proximity to Fire Station 79 and other stations with
availability to quickly respond to potential fires would help reduce impacts associated with wildfire
spread and subsequent exposure of individuals to pollutant concentrations. The site is also adjacent
to I-15 to the west, which acts as a large fire break from properties on the western portion of the
site.
In addition, the proposed project would be required to include the fire protection measures
required by the California Building Code and Fire Code. Those measures include ignition-resistant
construction with exterior walls of noncombustible or ignition resistant material from the surface of
the ground to the roof system sealing any gaps around doors, windows, eaves, and vents to prevent
2 Communication from Lauri Lockwood of the SBCFD (November 2, 2021)
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.16-12
intrusion by flame or embers. Development would also be required to meet California Building Code
requirements, including CCR Title 24, Part 2, which includes specific requirements related to exterior
wildfire exposure. CCR Title 14 sets forth the minimum development standards for emergency
access, fuel modification, setback, signage, and water supply, which help prevent loss of structures
or life by reducing wildfire hazards risk. Compliance with existing regulatory requirements for
implementation of fire protection measures (e.g., ignition-resistant construction materials and
measures) would further reduce impacts associated with wildfire spread and subsequent exposure
of individuals to pollutant concentrations.
Final project design would be subject to plan check by the FFPD to verify compliance with applicable
fire prevention and protection requirements. Compliance with pertinent building standards would
reduce the demand for fire protection services from the project. Thus, no significant fire hazards are
expected to be created on the project site. Compliance with codes, regulations, and proposed
polices would reduce the risk of exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Impacts would be
less that significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Threshold 2: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Impact W-2 THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED NEAR AREAS DESIGNATED AS A VHFHSZ. HOWEVER, THE PROJECT
WOULD NOT REQUIRE NEW OR UNIQUE INFRASTRUCTURE TO RESPOND TO A POTENTIAL WILDFIRE HAZARD AND NO IMPACTS
WOULD OCCUR FROM FIRE-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE. FURTHERMORE, COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING
CODE AND CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, AS WELL AS THE PROCEDURAL REVIEW BY THE CITY OF FONTANA AND FFPD, WOULD
MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS IMPLEMENTATION OF UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE. THE PROJECT WOULD NOT EXACERBATE FIRE
RISK AND IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The project site is surrounded by areas designated as an VHFHSZ within an SRA and LRA. However,
as part of project implementation, project-related infrastructure would be required to meet
minimum California Building Code and California Fire Code standards for fire safety. The project
would improve vehicle circulation via the proposed realignment of Lytle Creek Road, which would
run diagonally through the project area and offer improved internal connection from the primary
roads to each of the individual planning areas.
The project would be served by existing water infrastructure along Duncan Canyon Road and Citrus
Avenue south of Duncan Canyon Road. A new water main line would be constructed, following the
alignment of Lytle Creek Road north of Duncan Canyon Road, along with planned water
infrastructure on Citrus Avenue. Dry utilities would be extended to the north and south along Lytle
Creek Road from existing facilities in Duncan Canyon Road. Therefore, the project would include
installation of utility infrastructure; however, the project would be required to provide fire safety
measures to support fire suppression activities, including compliance with State and local fire codes,
a fire hydrant system, paved access, and secondary access routes. These features would be subject
to review by the FFPD to ensure that emergency vehicles may respond quickly to potential
Environmental Impact Analysis Wildfire
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4.16-13
occurrences of wildfire. In addition, the project would not trigger the need for new or unique
infrastructure to respond to a potential wildfire hazard, so no new impacts to the environment
would occur from fire-related infrastructure. Compliance with the California Building Code and
California Fire Code, as well as the procedural review by the City of Fontana and FFPD would
minimize the potential impacts. Therefore, the infrastructure associated with the project would not
exacerbate fire risk and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Threshold 3: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Impact W-3 WITH ADHERENCE TO BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, BUILDING CODES, AND ALL APPLICABLE
FEDERAL, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS, THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN EXPOSURE OF PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES
TO SIGNIFICANT RISKS, INCLUDING DOWNSLOPES OR DOWNSTREAM FLOODING OR LANDSLIDES, ASSOCIATED WITH POST-
FIRE RUNOFF AND SLOPE INSTABILITY AS WELL AS DRAINAGE CHANGES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The project is surrounded by areas designated as a VHFHSZ within an SRA and LRA. The project site
is designated as an area of minimal flood hazard in the FEMA National Flood Hazard Map (FEMA
2020), and the area surrounding the intersection at Duncan Canyon Road and Citrus Avenue on the
east border of the project site is designated as medium landslide susceptibility in the City of Fontana
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) (City of Fontana 2017). However, the project site is relatively
flat and, as discussed in the Initial Study (Appendix A-2) and Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, the
project site is not located in a landslide hazard area and there are no landslide hazards in the
vicinity, as depicted by United States Geological Survey. The site’s lack of topographical features
(i.e., slopes) in conjunction with a minimal flood potential of the project area would reduce impacts
associated with exposure of people or structures to risks, including flooding or landslides, from post-
fire runoff and slope instability. Impacts would be less than significant.
Drainage on site would change with implementation of the proposed project; however, Best
Management Practices (BMP) would slow the velocity of water and allow sediment and debris to
settle out of the water column, thereby minimizing the potential for downstream flooding,
erosion/siltation, or exceedances of stormwater drainage system capacity. Adherence with BPMs,
building codes, and all applicable federal, regional, and local regulations the project would not
create conditions that would result in exposure of people or structures to significant risks associated
with drainage changes. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
4.16.4 Cumulative Impacts
Planned and pending projects in the City and surrounding areas are listed in Table 3-1 in Section 3,
Environmental Setting, and include residential, commercial, and industrial land uses.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4.16-14
A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an
individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15065[a][3]).
Cumulative development occurring within FHSZs would be subject to risk of wildfire hazards.
Development of cumulative projects occurring within FHSZs would be subject to compliance with
the California Building Code and California Fire Code. All proposed construction would be required
to meet minimum standards for fire safety. Development occurring within the City would be subject
to review by the City and FFPD to ensure cumulative development is designed to provide a
minimum of fire safety and support fire suppression activities, including compliance with State and
local fire codes, fire sprinklers, a fire hydrant system, paved access, and secondary access routes.
Implementation of these plans and policies, in conjunction with compliance with the Fire Code, and
City and FFPD requirements, would minimize potential cumulative impacts with respect to wildfire
hazards.
As indicated above, the project would not result in significant wildfire hazard impacts following
conformance with the California Building Code, California Fire Code, Fontana Municipal Code, and
other City and FFPD requirements. The proposed realignment of Lytle Creek Road would improve
area circulation and better allow FFPD emergency access to the project area. Therefore, the
proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact.
Other CEQA Required Discussions
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5-1
5 Other CEQA Required Discussions
This section discusses growth-inducing impacts, irreversible environmental impacts, and energy
impacts resulting from the proposed project.
5.1 Effects Found Not to be Significant
An Initial Study was prepared for Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment. Based on
the analysis therein the project would result in less than significant impacts or no impacts for the
below subjects. Therefore, these subjects are not further evaluated in this EIR.
Table 5-1 Impacts Found to be Less than Significant Impacts or No Impacts
Issue Area Initial Study Findings Less Than Significant Impacts or No Impacts
Aesthetics The project would not damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway. Impacts would be less than significant.
Agricultural Resources The project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance. No impact to Farmland would occur.
Neither the site nor nearby lands are enrolled under the Williamson Act. As such, implementation of the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and no impact would occur.
No forest land or timberland zoning is present on the project site or in the surrounding area.
No impact to these resources would occur.
No forest land exists on the project site or in the surrounding area. As such, future development of the project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
The project site is surrounded by residential developments and undeveloped land zoned as
Residential Planned Community (R-PC), Regional Mixed Use (R-MU), Medium Density (R-2),
Multiple Family (R-3), Public Facility (P-PF), and Residential Planned Community (R-PC).
Neither the project area or surrounding uses include agriculture or forest uses. No impact to
these resources would occur.
Air Quality The project would not result in significant emissions that would lead to odors. Potential
impact would be less than significant.
Geology and Soil The project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects
involving seismic-related ground failure and liquefaction. Impacts would be less than
significant.
The project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects
involving landslides. Impacts would be less than significant.
The project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Impacts would
be less than significant.
The project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Impacts would be less than
significant.
The project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater. The project would not require nor install a septic system or alternative
treatment system. No impact would occur.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
5-2
Issue Area Initial Study Findings Less Than Significant Impacts or No Impacts
Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant.
The project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impact would occur.
The project would not be located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard
or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. No impact would occur.
Hydrology and Water
Quality
The project site is not located in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone. Therefore, the
project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. No impact would
occur.
Land Use and Planning The project would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur.
Mineral Resources The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the residents of the State. No impact would occur.
The project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. Impacts
would be less than significant.
Noise The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, the project would not
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. No impact
would occur.
Population and
Housing
The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur.
Transportation The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or
incompatible use. Impacts would be less than significant.
The project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Impacts would be less than
significant.
Wildfire The project construction and operational activities would not result in street closures that could impede emergency access or evacuation. Therefore, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Impacts would be less than significant.
5.2 Growth Inducement
Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of a proposed project’s potential to
foster economic or population growth, including ways in which a project could remove an obstacle
to growth. Growth does not necessarily create significant physical changes to the environment.
However, depending upon the type, magnitude, and location of growth, it can result in significant
adverse environmental effects. Therefore, the proposed project’s growth inducing potential is
considered significant if project-induced growth could result in significant physical effects in one or
more environmental issue areas.
5.2.1 Population Growth
As discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, the proposed project would directly generate
population growth because it includes residential uses. In addition, the project involves commercial
uses including, but not limited to, restaurants, retail, office space, medical, research and
Other CEQA Required Discussions
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5-3
development, and light industrial use, which may indirectly increase the population if new
employees relocate to the City. The proposed 1,671 units would account for less than 10 percent of
the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 17,519 housing units and are, therefore,
within anticipated growth planned under the General Plan Housing Element by 2030.
As shown in Table 4.2-7 in Section 4.2, Air Quality, the proposed project would accommodate a
service population consisting of 6,801 residents and 473 employees. Considering a worst-case
scenario, if all projected employees and their families were to relocate to Fontana, there would be a
population growth of 7,274 persons. According to the 2020-2045 Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)
growth forecasts project an increase of approximately 72,800 persons in the City’s population over
the next 23 years, for an estimated 2045 population of 286,700 residents (SCAG 2020). As discussed
in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, based on this forecast population, the City’s population
would be approximately 239,266 in 2030 (the buildout year of the proposed project), which is an
increase of 25,322 persons atop the current population of 213,944 (DOF 2021).1 As such, the
addition of 7,274 persons (assuming project employees are also residents) would consist of
approximately 29 percent of the City’s projected growth by 2030. Therefore, the proposed project
would not generate population growth in exceedance of existing SCAG population forecasts.
The project would facilitate construction on a currently undeveloped area. As discussed in Section
4.3, Biological Resources, the development of the site has the potential to create direct or indirect
impacts to burrowing owl and nesting birds and raptors through removal of ground cover and
habitat, and from construction during the breeding season. However, with implementation of
Mitigation Measures BIO-1A through BIO-1C, which address potential impacts on burrowing owls
and nesting birds through preconstruction surveys and other avoidance measures, impacts would
be less than significant. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, due to lack of
integrity of known historical resources, the project would not create an adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource. However, development of the site has potential to disturb
undiscovered cultural resources. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2B through
CUL-2D would address such impacts during construction through awareness programs, monitoring,
and other procedures in the event a tribal or archaeological resource is encountered. Similarly,
impacts related to unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources during project construction
activities would be less than significant with Mitigation Measure GEO-3 through paleontological
monitoring, as discussed in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 4.2,
Air Quality, and Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, this EIR, development and operation of the
project would not generate air quality or GHG emissions that would result in a significant impact.
The project site also lacks significant scenic resources, surface water, or other environmental
resources.
Population growth associated with the project would not result in significant long-term physical
environmental effects.
5.2.2 Economic Growth
The proposed project would generate temporary employment opportunities during construction.
However, the proposed project would also add long-term employment opportunities associated
1 Assuming an increase of 72,800 persons between the years 2022 and 2045 results in an average growth of 3,165 persons per year for
the next 23 years. To obtain a population estimate for the year 2030 (i.e., eight years into the future and the buildout year of the proposed project), an average of 3,165 persons per years is multiplied by eight, which results in an estimated 2030 population of 25,322 persons for the City of Fontana.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
5-4
with operation of commercial space. Table 5-2 shows the potential increase in job opportunities
generated by the proposed project.
Table 5-2 Employment Generated by Proposed Project
Commercial Land Use Proposed Project Employment Density Total
Commercial 476,500 SF1 1,009 SF/employee2 473 employees
2 SCAG Employment Density Study, 2001, Table II-B, San Bernardino,
http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committee-documents/bl5aX1pa20091008155406.pdf.
Note: SF = square feet
Similar to the existing Specific Plan, the proposed project would include employment generating
uses (commercial, light industrial, etc.). The project would result in a small decrease in employment
generating square-footage, from 574,500 square feet under the existing Specific Plan to 476,500
square feet under the proposed project, a decrease of 98,000 square feet. It is anticipated that most
employment opportunities associated with on-site commercial development would be staffed by
existing residents in the Specific Plan area or neighboring jurisdictions and would not result in
substantial population growth.
The proposed project would not induce substantial economic expansion to the extent that direct
physical environmental effects would result. Moreover, the environmental effects associated with
any future development in or around Fontana would be addressed as part of the CEQA
environmental review for such development projects.
5.2.3 Removal of Obstacles to Growth
As discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation, the proposed project would construct Duncan Canyon
Road at its ultimate half-width (north side) as a Major Highway (132-foot right-of-way) and
construct Citrus Avenue at its ultimate half-width as a Primary Highway (104-foot right-of-way).
Additionally, the proposed project would include the realignment of Lytle Creek Road. These
changes would not present a significant change to existing circulation and would be intended to
accommodate expected traffic volumes and project site access needs. The project implementation
would not remove an obstacle to growth.
5.3 Irreversible Environmental Effects
The CEQA Guidelines require that EIRs contain a discussion of significant irreversible environmental
changes. This section addresses non-renewable resources, the commitment of future generations to
the proposed uses, and irreversible impacts associated with the proposed project.
The proposed project involves infill development on a currently undeveloped area in the City of
Fontana. Construction and operation of the project would involve an irreversible commitment of
construction materials and non-renewable energy resources. The project would involve the use of
building materials and energy, some of which are non-renewable resources. Consumption of these
resources would occur with any development in the region and are not unique to the proposed
project.
The proposed project would also irreversibly increase local demand for non-renewable energy
resources such as petroleum products and natural gas. The project would be subject to the energy
conservation requirements of the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of
Other CEQA Required Discussions
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5-5
Regulations, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings)
and the California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of
Regulations). The California Energy Code provides energy conservation standards for all new
commercial and residential buildings constructed in California, and the Green Building Standards
Code requires solar access, natural ventilation, and stormwater capture. Consequently, the project
would consume electricity, natural gas, and fuel during construction and operation. However, the
project would not place significant additional demand on the energy providers (Southern California
Edison or Southern California Gas) and would comply with applicable conservation standards.
Neither project construction nor operation would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy. Impacts would be less than significant.
Additional vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would incrementally increase local
traffic and regional air pollutant and GHG emissions. However, as discussed in Section 4.2, Air
Quality, and Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, development and operation of the project
would not generate air quality or GHG emissions that would result in a significant impact.
Furthermore, as determined in Section 4.14, Transportation, long-term impacts associated with the
proposed project would be less than significant based on City and regional thresholds. The project
would also require a commitment of law enforcement, fire protection, water supply, wastewater
treatment, and solid waste disposal services. However, as discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services,
and Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, impacts to these service systems would be less than
significant.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
5-6
This page intentionally left blank.
Alternatives
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-1
6 Alternatives
6.1 Introduction
Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable
alternatives to the project, or a range of reasonable alternatives to the location of the project, that
could feasibly attain the project’s basic objectives. An EIR does not need to consider every
conceivable alternative, but it does have to consider a range of potentially feasible alternatives that
will facilitate informed decision making and public participation.
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), the discussion of alternatives must include
several different issues. The discussion of alternatives must focus on alternatives to the project, or
to the project location, which would avoid or substantially reduce any significant effects of the
project, even if the alternatives would be costlier or hinder to some degree the attainment of the
project objectives. The “No Project” alternative must also be evaluated. The “No Project” analysis
must discuss the existing conditions and what would reasonably be expected to occur in the
foreseeable future if the project was not approved. The range of alternatives required is governed
by a “rule of reason.” Therefore, the EIR must only evaluate those alternatives necessary to permit a
reasoned choice. The alternatives must be limited to only ones that would avoid or substantially
lessen any of the significant effects of the project.
Additionally, an EIR should not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably
ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. The CEQA Guidelines also require
an EIR to state why an alternative is being rejected. If the City ultimately rejects any or all
alternatives, the rationale for rejection will be presented in the findings that are required prior to
the certification of the EIR and action is taken on the project. According to CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6(f)(1), among the factors that may be considered when addressing the feasibility of
alternatives are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of
infrastructure, general plan consistency, regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and
whether the applicant could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternate
site.
The project alternatives are evaluated to determine the extent to which they attain the basic project
objectives, while significantly reducing or avoiding any significant effects of the project. As discussed
in Section 2, Project Description, the objectives for the proposed project, are as follows:
To support the area demand for housing and contribute residential units to meet the City’s
housing goal of 17,519 units.1
To create a master-planned, mixed-use community that creates a unique sense of place.
To provide quality housing with various size options to accommodate different housing needs.
To actualize the City’s vision for the Regional Mixed-Use designation in north Fontana.
To establish a unique window into North Fontana from I-15.
To introduce a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented activity center in this area of the city.
1 As discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, the City has released the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update 2021-2029 which was adopted in January 2022 and included a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 17,518 total housing units allocated to the City by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
6-2
To integrate a mix of commercial, office and residential uses both vertically and horizontally.
To create a protected urban village environment that is unique to Fontana and the Inland
Empire.
To enhance the northern Fontana visual environment.
To contribute to the jobs/housing balance.
To facilitate revenue generating uses; and
To facilitate a walkable village environment.
Included in this analysis are two alternatives, including the CEQA-required “no project” alternative,
which involve changes to the project that may reduce the project-related environmental impacts as
identified in this SEIR. Alternatives have been developed to provide a reasonable range of options to
consider that would help decision-makers and the public understand the general implications of
revising or eliminating certain components of the proposed project. The following alternatives are
evaluated in this SEIR:
Alternative 1: No Project/Existing Specific Plan
Alternative 2: Reduced Density
The purpose of an alternatives analysis is to allow the decision-makers to determine whether there
is an environmentally superior alternative that would meet most of the project’s objectives. An
alternatives analysis need not consider every conceivable alternative to the project but rather those
alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. CEQA establishes no categorical legal imperative
as to the scope of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR. Each case must be evaluated on its facts,
which in turn must be reviewed in light of CEQA’s statutory purpose.
6.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Included in this analysis are alternatives, including the CEQA-required “No Project” alternative and
the reduced intensity alternative, which involve changes to the project that may reduce the
project-related environmental impacts identified in this EIR. Alternatives have been developed to
provide a reasonable range of options to consider that would help decision-makers and the public
understand the general implications of revising or eliminating certain components of the proposed
project. Table 6-1 summarizes the No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative and Reduced Density
Alternative.
Table 6-1 Comparison of Project Alternatives’ Buildout Characteristics
Feature Proposed Project
Alternative 1:
No Project/Existing Specific Plan
Alternative 2:
Reduced Density
Area 102 acres Same area Same area
Use Mixed use/residential Mixed use/residential Mixed use/residential
Dwelling units 1,671 842 1,257
Detailed descriptions of the alternatives are included herein, along with an evaluation of the
environmental impacts for each alternative.
Alternatives
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-3
6.2.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Existing Specific Plan
a. Description
The No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative assumes that the proposed project would not be
implemented, and the project site would be developed under the existing Specific Plan. Under the
existing Specific Plan, on-site development would consist of 842 housing units and 574,500 square
feet of total commercial area rather than 1,671 units and 476,500 square feet under the proposed
project. The existing Specific Plan would consist of retail commercial, office, hotel, restaurant, and
research and development uses on the central section and northwestern boundary and residential
uses on the southwestern and eastern sections of the site. Many of the same features from the
proposed project would remain under the existing Specific Plan, including residential villages, a focal
point piazza, a campanile tower, and the construction of Lytle Creek Road through the project site.
Alternative 1 would meet most project objectives, specifically Objectives 2 through 12. However,
alternative 1 would not fulfill Objective 1 to the same extent as the proposed project, which would
contribute 1,671 units to the City’s housing goal and RHNA of 17,519 units allocated to the City by
SCAG.
b. Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Visual Resources
Under Alternative 1, the project site would be developed under the existing Specific Plan. The visual
character of the site is composed of previously disturbed land, non-native grass, Southern California
Edison (SCE) transmission lines, Interstate 15 (I-15), and eucalyptus windrows. The project site
occurs in an area that consists of a mosaic of undeveloped/vacant land and new residential
developments. Views from areas to the south of the site would change as the proposed residential
villages and commercial areas are built on the site. Development under Alternative 1 would lead to
structures up to four stories high that would change the foreground views from vacant land to a mix
of residential and commercial structures. As such, Alternative 1 also has the potential to change and
interrupt views of scenic vistas from local roads, especially Duncan Canyon Road east of I-15.
However, on-site development would not adversely affect views of vistas from I-15. Additionally,
building setback requirements for individual structures would preserve distant mountain views and
prevent total view obstruction on area roads.
Development under Alternative 1 would be visually similar to the proposed project. Impacts to
visual resources would be less than significant, and the impacts would be equal when compared to
the proposed project.
Light and Glare
Under development of the existing Specific Plan development would be accompanied by new
sources of light and glare. Increased lighting levels could impact adjacent residential uses to the
west and south but would not lead to a significant adverse effect on these residences since the
homes are separated from the site by the SCE right-of-way and I-15. Any light spillover would be
within these corridors and not farther south or west. Compliance with the outdoor lighting
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
6-4
guidelines and the City’s development regulations regarding lighting would prevent the creation of
significant adverse light and glare impacts.
Development under Alternative 1 would have similar impacts to that of the proposed project.
Impacts to light and glare would be less than significant, and the impacts would be equal when
compared to the proposed project.
Air Quality
Under Alternative 1, construction impacts would be similar to the proposed project. Because
Alternative 1 would decrease overall density, it would produce proportionally less air pollutant
emissions associated with project construction and operation. Alternative 1 would require
incrementally less construction hauling trips to deliver materials to the site due to construction of
829 less housing units, which is an approximately 50 percent reduction from the 1,671 units under
the proposed project. As such, the reduction in units under Alternative 1 would result in a reduction
in air pollutant emissions from on-site residential uses when compared to the proposed project.
However, the commercial square footage under Alternative 1 would be approximately 21 percent
more than the commercial use under the proposed project. Nonetheless, as discussed in Section
4.2, Air Quality, the 2007 EIR determined that the existing Specific Plan would result in a significant
and unavoidable impact (even with implementation of mitigation) related to air quality emissions
from mobile sources at operation, consistent with the significant and unavoidable impact
determination associated the proposed project (i.e., Impact AQ-2).
Impacts under Alternative 1 would be similar to the proposed project. However, due to the
decrease in overall density, air quality emissions under Alternative 1 would be less than the
proposed project.
Biological Resources
Under Alternative 1, potential impacts to biological resources would be similar to those of the
proposed project since it would have the same development footprint. The project site consists of
vacant, undeveloped land that has been subject to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances from
historic agricultural activities, surrounding development and routine weed abatement activities.
Development would lead to the additional disturbance of existing vegetation and habitat and the
introduction of landscaping plant materials. These include the removal of existing mature trees on
the site and non-native grassland areas. Development of the site also has the potential to create
direct or indirect impacts to burrowing owl and nesting birds and raptors through removal of ground
cover and habitat, and from construction during the breeding season. However, as with the
proposed project, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with
implementation of mitigation identified in the 2007 EIR to address potential impacts to migratory
and nesting birds, raptors, and burrowing owl. Therefore, impacts to biological resources would be
equal when compared to the proposed project.
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Alternative 1 would have the same footprint as the proposed project; therefore, development under
the existing Specific Plan would have similar impacts related to cultural resources when compared
to the proposed project. Due to lack of integrity of known historical resources, Alternative 1 would
not result in an adverse change to a historical resource. However, as with development under the
proposed project, construction activities would have the potential to disturb undiscovered cultural
resources. Impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of
Alternatives
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-5
mitigation identified in the 2007 EIR to address tribal concerns related to archaeological resources.
Therefore, impacts cultural and tribal cultural resources would be equal when compared to the
proposed project.
Energy
Under Alternative 1, energy use during construction and operation would be slightly reduced in
conjunction with the reduction in overall density when compared to the proposed project. Impacts
under Alternative 1 would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. However, due to
the decrease in density, energy use under Alternative 1 would be less than the proposed project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Because Alternative 1 would decrease overall density, it would produce less air GHG emissions
associated with project construction since it would require incrementally less construction hauling
trips to deliver materials to the site due to constructing 829 less housing units.
Operational impacts under Alternative 1 would also result in less GHG emissions associated with the
reduction in overall density, including vehicle trip related GHG emissions. The reduction in units
under Alternative 1 would amount to an approximately 50 percent decrease in housing units (i.e.,
829 units from the proposed 1,671 units), which would result in a reduction in GHG emissions from
on-site residential uses when compared to the proposed project. The commercial square footage
under Alternative 1 would be approximately 21 percent more than the commercial use under the
proposed project. Both Alternative 1 and the proposed project would have less than significant
impacts, however, impacts related to GHG emissions under Alternative 1 would be less than the
proposed project.
Geology and Soils
Impacts related to geology and soils under Alternative 1 would be similar to the proposed project
due to the same development footprint and construction materials and methods that would be
used. Development under Alternative 1 would encounter similar geologic phenomena (faults,
seismic ground shaking, landslides, etc.), soil conditions, and paleontological resources when
compared to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, individual projects would be
required to investigate and address the site-specific geologic and soil conditions, along with
engineering recommendations incorporated into the final design for consistency with California
Building Code (CBC) requirements. Similarly, in the event that paleontological resources are
discovered, each individual project would be required to comply with the applicable regulatory
requirements and mitigate any potential impacts to resources on the individual project sites.
Therefore, development under the existing Specific Plan would have similar impacts related to
geology and soils when compared to the proposed project. Impacts to geology and soils would be
less than significant after implementation of mitigation for paleontological resources identified in
the 2007 EIR, and impacts would be equal when compared to the proposed project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 1 would have the same development footprint and would also develop land that was
historically used for agricultural purposes and may present hazards to construction workers, future
residents, employees, and visitors. However, as with the proposed project, in the event that
hazardous materials are utilized or encountered on-site, development would be required to comply
with the applicable regulatory requirements to mitigate any potential impacts on the project site.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
6-6
Therefore, as with the proposed project, development under the existing Specific Plan would result
in less than significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Furthermore, due to the
similar proposed uses, identical location, and development footprint, impacts would be equal when
compared to the proposed project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative 1, development under the existing Specific Plan would result in an increased
demand for water and implementation of impervious surfaces on the site. In comparison to the
proposed project, Alternative 1 would have similar impacts with respect to an increase in
impervious surfaces, increases in off-site runoff rates and volumes, and stormwater runoff
pollutants during operation. As with the proposed project, Alternative 1 would be required to
comply with the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Statewide Construction General Permit, including preparation and implementation of a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to minimize construction-related erosion, sedimentation,
and non-point source pollution. In addition, Alternative 1 would also be subject to the requirements
of the applicable Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit, which would require Best
Management Practices (BMP) to capture and treat on-site stormwater runoff for new development
and significant redevelopment projects. Similar to the proposed project, impacts related to
hydrology and water quality would be less than significant. However, the proposed project would
include an increase in residential units and would consequently incrementally increase demand for
water when compared to the existing Specific Plan. Therefore, impacts under Alternative 1 would be
less than those for the proposed project.
Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative 1, there would be no zone change from Medium Density Residential (MDR),
Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR), Commercial (C) and Mixed Use (MU). All development
under Alternative 1 would comply with development and design standards in the adopted existing
Specific Plan, which included a General Plan Amendment. In addition, future development on the
project site would comply with the City’s performance standards and the development policies for
land use compatibility. Alternative 1 would be consistent with the underlying land use regulations
and policies. Impacts would be less than significant. Because the proposed project would include a
Specific Plan Amendment and General Plan Amendment, impacts would be less under Alternative 1
when compared to the proposed project.
Noise
Under Alternative 1, development under the proposed existing Specific Plan would generate
construction and operation noise impacts. Because the project would be built in phases, future on-
site residential uses and sensitive receivers would be exposed to construction and operation (on-site
traffic) noise levels that could exceed applicable standards. However, development under
Alternative 1, similar to the proposed project, would comply with Fontana Municipal Code noise
regulations and implement mitigation measures identified in the 2007 EIR to avoid significant
impacts related to construction and operational noise as well as land use compatibility. Noise
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation under both Alternative 1 and the proposed
project. However, noise impacts under Alternative 1 would be less than those of the proposed
project due to the decrease in overall density and associated operational noise.
Alternatives
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-7
Population and Housing
As with the proposed project, development under Alternative 1 would lead to the construction of
new housing units on the site, an increase in the City’s population, and the generation of jobs for
the local community. The existing Specific Plan would accommodate a service population of 5,383
persons. By comparison, the proposed project would accommodate a service population consisting
of 6,081 residents and 473 employees, for a total of 7,274 persons. Nonetheless, as discussed in
Section 4.12, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not generate population growth
in exceedance of existing SCAG population forecasts.
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 1 would include employment generating uses
(commercial, light industrial, etc.). Alternative 1 would increase commercial square footage and
result in more employment opportunities than the proposed project (i.e., 476,500 square feet under
the proposed project to 574,500 square feet under the existing Specific Plan). Regardless,
employment associated with on-site commercial development would likely be staffed with residents
in the Specific Plan area or neighboring local jurisdictions and would not result in substantial
population growth. Impacts related to population growth would be less than significant under
Alternative 1, similar to the project. However, because Alternative 1 would contribute 1,891 less
persons (i.e., difference between service populations of 7,274 persons and 5,383 persons) to the
City’s population, impacts related to growth would be less than the proposed project. Nonetheless,
Alternative 1 would not fulfill Objective 1 to the same extent as the proposed project, which would
contribute 1,671 units to the City’s housing goal and RHNA of 17,519 units allocated to the City by
SCAG.
Public Services and Recreation
Alternative 1 would create demands for police and fire protection services, schools, parks, libraries,
and medical services, similar to the proposed project. However, payment of required development
fees would address impacts from increased demand for public services. In addition, Alternative 1
would result in 829 housing units less than the proposed project and would generate less of a
demand for public services due to a decrease in overall density. While impacts would be less than
significant under Alternative 1, similar to the proposed project, overall demand for public services
would under Alternative 1 would be less than the proposed project.
Transportation
Under Alternative 1, development would generate short-term traffic during construction, and long-
term traffic during the operational life of the project similar to the proposed project. Because
Alternative 1 would decrease overall density, it would produce less construction hauling trips to
deliver materials to the site due to the construction of 829 less housing units.
As with the proposed project, development under Alternative 1 would also contribute to
transportation improvements through payments to transportation programs, development impact
fees, or fair-share contributions. During the operation period, Alternative 1 would decrease vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) compared to the proposed project due to the development of less trip-
generating residences. As discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation, the proposed project would not
exceed the City’s adopted threshold of 15 percent below County of San Bernardino baseline VMT
per service population in both baseline and cumulative scenarios and impacts would be less than
significant. Therefore, impacts under Alternative 1 would be less than significant, similar to the
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
6-8
proposed project. However, due to the decrease in density, transportation impacts under
Alternative 1 would be less than the proposed project.
Utilities and Service Systems
Under Alternative 1, development under the existing Specific Plan would require utility services and
the extension of existing infrastructure systems to serve residential and commercial uses on the site,
as with the proposed project. Coordination with utility agencies would ensure adequate and timely
services, and water and energy conservation and recycling programs would reduce total demands.
Alternative 1 would result in 829 housing units less than the proposed project which would generate
less of a demand on utilities due to a decrease in overall density (i.e., less water demand,
wastewater generation, solid waste generation). Under Alternative 1, impacts would remain less
than significant, and due to the decrease in density, demand on utilities under Alternative 1 would
be less than that of the proposed project.
Wildfire
Alternative 1 would have the same footprint as the proposed project; therefore, development under
the existing Specific Plan would have similar impacts related to wildfire to that of the proposed
project. The project site is surrounded by areas designated as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
(VHFHSZ). Similar to the proposed project, development under Alternative 1 would be required to
meet Fire Code standards for fire safety and would be subject to review by the City and Fontana Fire
Protection District (FFPD) to verify development is designed to provide a minimum of fire safety and
support fire suppression activities, including compliance with State and local fire codes, fire
sprinklers, a fire hydrant system, paved access, and secondary access routes. Impacts related to
wildfire would also be less than significant and equal when compared to the proposed project.
6.2.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Density Alternative
a. Description
Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Density Alternative would include the development of
476,500 square feet of commercial uses, dwelling units in three separate residential villages with
accompanying amenities, a focal point piazza (public square), and the realignment of Lytle Creek
Road, on an approximately 102-acre site. Alternative 2 would have the same footprint and location
as the proposed project. However, Alternative 2 would include 1,257 residential units (rather than
1,671 residential units under the proposed project).
The purpose of Alternative 2 is to evaluate the effects of the proposed project at a lower residential
density to reduce impacts related to traffic, as well as some operational impacts such as energy,
GHG emissions, and water usage. Alternative 2 would involve an approximately 25 percent
reduction in units when compared to the proposed project. Alternative 2 would be otherwise
consistent with the proposed project and would meet most project objectives, particularly
Objectives 2 through 12. However, Alternative 2, would not fulfill Objective 1 to the same extent as
the proposed project, which would contribute 1,671 units to the City’s housing goal and RHNA of
17,519 units allocated to the City by SCAG.
Alternatives
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-9
b. Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Visual Resources
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would convert the undeveloped site into a mixed-use
development. The visual character of the site is composed of previously disturbed land, non-native
grass, SCE transmission lines, I-15, and eucalyptus windrows. The project site occurs in an area that
consist of a mosaic of undeveloped/vacant land and new residential developments. Views from
areas to the south of the site would change as the proposed residential villages and commercial
areas are built on the site. Development under Alternative 2 would lead to structures that would
change the foreground views from vacant land to a mix of residential and commercial structures. As
such, Alternative 2 has the potential to change and interrupt views of scenic vistas from local roads,
especially Duncan Canyon Road east of I-15. However, on-site development would not adversely
affect views of vistas from I-15. Additionally, building setback requirements for individual structures
would preserve distant mountain views and prevent total view obstruction on area roads.
Development under Alternative 2 would be visually similar to the proposed project. Impacts to
visual resources would be less than significant, and the impacts would be equal when compared to
the proposed project.
Light and Glare
Under Alternative 2, development would be accompanied by new sources of light and glare.
Increased lighting levels could impact adjacent residential uses to the west and south but would not
lead to a significant adverse effect on these residences since the homes are separated from the site
by the SCE right-of-way and I-15. Any light spillover would be within these corridors and not farther
south or west. Compliance with the outdoor lighting guidelines and the City’s development
regulations regarding lighting would prevent the creation of significant adverse light and glare
impacts.
Development under Alternative 2 would have similar impacts to that of the proposed project.
Impacts to light and glare would be less than significant, and the impacts would be equal when
compared to the proposed project.
Air Quality
Alternative 2 would result in similar air pollutant impacts when compared to the proposed project.
The commercial square footage under Alternative 2 and associated emissions from operation of
commercial uses would be the same as the proposed project. However, because Alternative 2 would
decrease residential density, it would produce proportionally less air pollutant emissions associated
with the construction and operation of 414 less housing units, which is an approximately 25 percent
reduction from the 1,671 units under the proposed project. Nonetheless, as discussed in Section
4.2, Air Quality, the 2007 EIR determined that the existing Specific Plan would result in a significant
and unavoidable impact (even with implementation of mitigation) related to air quality emissions
from mobile sources at operation, consistent with the significant and unavoidable impact
determination associated the proposed project (i.e., Impact AQ-2). Because Alternative 2 would
involve construction and operation of 1,257 residential units (a quantity of units between those
units under the existing Specific Plan and proposed project), it is anticipated that air quality
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
6-10
emissions from mobile sources would also be significant and unavoidable under Alternative 2 even
with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.
Impacts under Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed project. However, due to the
decrease in residential units, air quality impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than the
proposed project.
Biological Resources
Construction impacts under Alternative 2 would be the be similar to those of the proposed project
since it would have the same development footprint. The project site consists of vacant,
undeveloped land that has been subject to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances from historic
agricultural activities, surrounding development and routine weed abatement activities.
Development would lead to the additional disturbance of existing vegetation and habitat and the
introduction of landscaping plant materials. These include the removal of existing mature trees on
the site and non-native grassland areas. Development of the site also has the potential to create
direct or indirect impacts to burrowing owl, nesting birds and raptors through removal of ground
cover and habitat, and from construction during the breeding season. However, as with the
proposed project, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with
implementation of mitigation measures listed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources. Therefore,
impacts would be equal when compared to the proposed project.
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Alternative 2 would have the same footprint as the proposed project; therefore, development under
the existing Specific Plan would have similar impacts related to cultural resources when compared
to the proposed project. Due to lack of integrity of known historical resources, Alternative 2 would
also not create an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. However, as with
development under the proposed project, construction activities have the potential to disturb
undiscovered cultural resources. Impacts to cultural and tribal resources would be less than
significant with implementation of the mitigation measures listed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources.
Impacts would be equal when compared to the proposed project.
Energy
Under Alternative 2, energy use during construction and operation would be slightly reduced due to
the reduction in residential density when compared to the proposed project. Impacts under
Alternative 2 would less than significant, similar to the proposed project. However, due to the
decrease in density, energy use under Alternative 2 would be less than the proposed project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 2 would produce less air GHG emissions associated with project construction since it
would require incrementally less construction hauling trips to deliver materials to the site due to the
construction of 414 less housing units, which is an approximately 25 percent reduction from the
1,671 units under the proposed project.
Operational impacts under Alternative 2 would also be expected to have a reduction in GHG
emissions associated with the reduction in residential density, including vehicle trips related GHG
emissions. Both Alternative 2 and the proposed project would have less than significant impacts,
Alternatives
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-11
however, impacts related to GHG emissions under Alternative 2 would be less than those of the
proposed project.
Geology and Soils
Impacts related to geology and soils under Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed project
due to the same development footprint and construction materials and methods that would be
used. Development under Alternative 2 would encounter similar geologic phenomena (faults,
seismic ground shaking, landslides, etc.), soil conditions, and paleontological resources when
compared to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, individual projects would be
required to investigate and address the site specific geologic and soil conditions, along with
engineering recommendations incorporated into the final design for consistency with CBC
requirements. Similarly, in the event that paleontological resources are discovered, each individual
project would be required to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements and mitigate any
potential impacts to resources on the individual project sites. Therefore, development Alternative 2
would have similar impacts related to geology and soils when compared to the proposed project.
Impacts to geology and soils would be less than significant after implementation of mitigation for
paleontological resources identified in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, and impacts would be equal
when compared to the proposed project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impacts under Alternative 2, would have the same development footprint and would also develop
land that was historically used for agricultural purposes and may present hazards to construction
workers, future residents, employees, and visitors. However, as with the proposed project, in the
event that hazardous materials are utilized or encountered on-site, development would be required
to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements and mitigate any potential impacts to
resources on the project site.
Therefore, as with the proposed project, development under Alternative 2 would result in less than
significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Furthermore, due to the similar
proposed uses, identical location, and development footprint, impacts would be equal when
compared to the proposed project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
As with the proposed project, development under Alternative 2 would result in an increased
demand for water and implementation of impervious surfaces on the site. In comparison to the
proposed project, Alternative 2 would have similar impacts with respect to an increase in
impervious surfaces, increases in off-site runoff rates and volumes, and stormwater runoff
pollutants during operation. Alternative 2 would be required to comply with the requirements of
the NPDES Statewide Construction General Permit, including preparation and implementation of a
SWPPP to minimize construction-related erosion, sedimentation, and non-point source pollution. In
addition, Alternative 2 would also be subject to the requirements of the applicable MS4 permit,
which would require BMPs to capture and treat on-site stormwater runoff for new development
and significant redevelopment projects. Similar to the proposed project, impacts related to
hydrology and water quality would be less than significant. However, there would be 414 more
residential units under the proposed project which would increase demand for water when
compared to Alternative 2. Therefore, impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than those of the
proposed project.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
6-12
Land Use and Planning
As with the proposed project, Alternative 2 would include a Specific Plan Amendment and General
Plan Amendment due to the increase in development compared to the existing Specific Plan.
Development under Alternative 2 would also comply with the City’s performance standards and the
development policies for land use compatibility. With approval of the proposed land use
entitlements, Alternative 2 would be consistent with the underlying land use regulations and
policies and impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. Impacts would
be equal when compared to the proposed project.
Noise
As with the proposed project, development under Alternative 2 would generate construction and
operation noise impacts. Because the project would be built in phases, future on-site residential
uses and sensitive receivers would be exposed to construction and operation (on-site traffic) noise
levels that could exceed applicable standards. However, development under Alternative 2, similar to
the proposed project, would comply with Fontana Municipal Code noise regulations and implement
mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts related to construction noise and land use
compatibility. Noise impacts would be less than significant with mitigation under both Alternative 2
and the proposed project. However, noise impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than those of
the proposed project due to the decrease in residential density and associated operational noise.
Population and Housing
As with the proposed project, development under Alternative 2 would lead to the construction of
new housing units on the site, an increase in the city’s resident population, and the generation of
jobs for the local community. Alternative 2 would include the same square-footage of employment
generating uses (commercial, light industrial, etc.) as the proposed project (i.e., 476,500 square
feet). Employment associated with on-site commercial development would likely be staffed with
residents in the Specific Plan area or neighboring local jurisdictions and would not result in
substantial population growth similar to the proposed project. The proposed project would
accommodate a service population consisting of 7,274 persons. Nonetheless, as discussed in Section
4.12, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not generate population growth in
exceedance of existing SCAG population forecasts. Because Alternative 2 would develop 414 fewer
residents, its population growth would also be within forecasts and impacts related to population
growth would be less than significant, similar to the project. However, because Alternative 2 would
generate less population, impacts related to growth would be less than the proposed project.
Nonetheless, Alternative 2 would not fulfill Objective 1 to the same extent as the proposed project,
which would contribute 1,671 units to the City’s housing goal and RHNA of 17,519 units allocated to
the City by SCAG.
Public Services and Recreation
Alternative 1 would create demands for police and fire protection services, schools, parks, libraries,
and medical services, similar to the proposed project. Payment of required development fees would
address potential impacts from increased demand for public services. However, Alternative 2 would
result in 414 housing units less than the proposed project and would therefore generate less of a
demand for public services. While impacts would be less than significant under Alternative 2, similar
to the proposed project, overall demand for public services would under Alternative 2 would be less
than the proposed project.
Alternatives
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-13
Transportation
Under Alternative 2, development would generate short-term traffic during construction, and long-
term traffic during the operational life of the project similar to the proposed project. Because
Alternative 2 would decrease residential density, it would produce less construction hauling trips to
deliver materials to the site due to the construction of 414 less housing units.
As with the proposed project, development under Alternative 2 would also contribute to
transportation improvements through payments to transportation programs, development impact
fees, or fair-share contributions. During the operation period, Alternative 2 would decrease VMT
compared to the proposed project due to the development of less trip-generating residences. As
discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation, the proposed project would not exceed the City’s adopted
threshold of 15 percent below County of San Bernardino baseline VMT per service population in
both Baseline and Cumulative scenarios and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore,
similar to the proposed project, impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than significant, and due
to the decrease in density, transportation impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than the
proposed project.
Utilities and Service Systems
Under Alternative 2, development would require utility services and the extension of existing
infrastructure systems to serve residential and commercial uses on the site, as with the proposed
project. Coordination with utility agencies would ensure adequate and timely services, and water
and energy conservation and recycling programs would reduce total demands. Alternative 2 would
result in 414 housing units less than the proposed project and would generate less of a demand on
utilities due to a decrease in overall density (i.e., less water demand, wastewater generation, solid
waste generation). Under Alternative 2, impacts would remain less than significant, and due to the
decrease in residential density, demand on utilities under Alternative 2 would be less than that of
the proposed project.
Wildfire
Alternative 2 would have the same footprint as the proposed project; therefore, development under
Alternative 2 would have similar impacts related to wildfire to that of the proposed project. The
project site is surrounded by areas designated as VHFHSZs. As with the proposed project,
development under Alternative 2 would be required to meet Fire Code standards for fire safety and
would be subject to review by the City and FFPD to verify development is designed to provide a
minimum of fire safety and support fire suppression activities, including compliance with State and
local fire codes, fire sprinklers, a fire hydrant system, paved access, and secondary access routes.
Impacts related to wildfire would also be less than significant, and impacts would be equal when
compared to the proposed project.
6.3 Alternatives Considered but Rejected
6.3.1 No Build
A “no build” alternative, in which the site would remain undeveloped; however, due to the previous
adoption of the existing Specific Plan, the site has already been identified as an area where
commercial/residential development could be built. Because this area is meant to fulfill RHNA
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
6-14
requirements, future development would still occur on the site. Therefore, this scenario was
rejected from further consideration.
6.3.2 Alternative Project Site
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2) sets forth considerations to be used in evaluating an
alternative location. The section states that the “key question” is whether any of the significant
effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by relocating the project. The
CEQA Guidelines identify the following factors that may be taken into account when addressing the
feasibility of an alternative location: site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure,
General Plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, whether
the project applicant can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative
site.
The CEQA Guidelines establish that only locations that would accomplish this objective should be
considered alternative locations for the proposed project. As discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality,
the proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable impact (even with implementation
of mitigation) related to air quality emissions from mobile sources at operation (i.e., Impact AQ-2),
consistent with the significant and unavoidable air quality impact associated with the existing
Specific Plan, as identified in the 2007 EIR. However, mobile source emissions are generated by
motor vehicle trips to and from the project site associated with operation of on-site development.
Since this impact is independent of project location, development of the same land uses would
result in a similar significant and unavoidable impact at an alternative site. Furthermore, there is a
possibility that an alternative site could result in other significant and unavoidable impacts in the
event that the site immediately abuts sensitive receivers and/or is currently developed and contains
significant resources (e.g., biological and/or cultural resources). Since the 2007 EIR had previously
identified this significant and unavoidable impact related to air quality emissions at full buildout of
the project site, this scenario was rejected from further consideration.
6.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative
An alternatives analysis is intended to facilitate consideration of whether environmentally superior
alternative could meet most project objectives. Therefore, key to selection of the range of
alternatives is to identify alternatives that meet most of the project’s objectives but have reduced
level of environmental impacts. Table 6-2 indicates whether each alternative’s environmental
impact is greater than, less than, or similar to that of the proposed project for each of the issue
areas studied. Based on the alternatives analysis, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would have similar
impacts to the proposed project.
Table 6-2 Impact Comparison of Alternatives
Topic Proposed Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Aesthetics Less than significant = =
Air Quality Less than significant < <
Biological Resources Less than significant with mitigation = =
Cultural Resources Less than significant with mitigation = =
Energy Less than significant < <
Greenhouse gas Less than significant < <
Alternatives
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 6-15
Topic Proposed Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Geology and Soils Less than significant with mitigation = =
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less than significant with mitigation = =
Hydrology and Water Quality Less than significant < <
Land use and Planning Less than significant < =
Noise Less than significant with mitigation < <
Population and Housing Less than significant < <
Public Services Less than significant < <
Transportation Less than significant < <
Utilities and Service Systems Less than significant < <
Wildfire Less than significant = =
> Impacts would be greater compared to the proposed project (increased level of impact)
< Impacts would be less compared to the proposed project (reduced level of impact)
= Similar level of impact to the proposed project
Alternative 1 (No Project/No Build Alternative) assumes that the proposed project would not be
developed, and the project site would be developed under the existing Specific Plan. Under the
existing Specific Plan, on-site development would consist of 842 housing units and 574,500 square
feet of total commercial area. The existing Specific Plan would consist of retail commercial, office,
hotel, restaurant, and research and development uses on the central section and northwestern
boundary and residential uses on the southwestern and eastern sections of the site. Alternative 1
would reduce operational impacts associated with air pollutant emissions, energy, GHG emissions,
hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation, and
utilities and service systems when compared to the proposed project, due to the reduction in
overall density. Alternative 1 would meet most project objectives, particularly Objectives 2 through
12. However, Alternative 1 would not fulfill Objective 1 to the same extent as the proposed project,
which would contribute 1,671 units instead of 842 units to the City’s housing goal and RHNA of
17,519 units.
Alternative 2 (Reduced Density Alternative), evaluates the effects of the proposed project at a lower
residential density to reduce impacts related to traffic, as well as some operational impacts such as
energy, GHG emissions, and water usage. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would
include the development of 476,500 square feet of commercial uses, 1,257 dwelling units in three
separate residential villages with accompanying amenities, a focal point piazza (public square), and
the construction of the realigned Lytle Creek Road, on an approximately 102-acre site. Alternative 2
would have the same footprint, location, and commercial uses as the proposed project; however,
Alternative 2 would involve an approximately 25 percent reduction in units when compared to the
proposed project (i.e., 414 housing units less). Alternative 2 would also reduce operational impacts
associated with air pollutant emissions, energy, GHG emissions, hydrology and water quality, noise,
population and housing, public services, transportation, and utilities and service systems when
compared to the proposed project. However, due to the same project footprint and similarity in
land uses, Alternative 2 would still require mitigation to reduce impacts associated with biological
resources, cultural resources, geology and soils (i.e., paleontological resources), hazards and
hazardous materials, and noise. Alternative 2 would be otherwise consistent with the proposed
project and would meet Objectives 2 through 12. However, Alternative 2, would not fulfill Objective
1 to the same extent as the proposed project, which would contribute 1,671 units instead of 1,257
units to the City’s housing RHNA goal of 17,519 units.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
6-16
The proposed project would meet all objectives with similar impacts in terms of environmental
significance with compared to Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. However, the 50 percent reduction in
housing units under Alternative 1 would result in the least construction and operational impacts
when compared to Alternative 2 and the proposed project and is, therefore, determined to be an
Environmentally Superior Alternative. Nonetheless, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines
requirement to identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative other than the No Project
Alternative (in this case also the existing Specific Plan alternative), a comparative evaluation of the
remaining alternative was conducted. Alternative 2 would also reduce project impacts to a greater
degree than the proposed project due to the 25 percent reduction in housing units while
modernizing development plans for the Specific Plan area. Therefore, Alternative 2 is selected as the
Environmentally Superior Alternative. Nonetheless, neither Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would
fulfill Objective 1 to the same extent as the proposed project, which would contribute 1,671 units to
the City’s housing goal and RHNA of 17,519 units.
References
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-1
7 References
7.1 Bibliography
Aleshire & Wynder LLP. 2019. AB 756; California’s Regulatory Response to PFAS. [online]:
http://www.awattorneys.com/news/ab-756-california%E2%80%99s-regulatory-response-
pfas. Accessed October 2021.
Bean, Walton. 1968. California: An Interpretive History. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
Bell ML, McDermott A, Zeger SL, Samet, JM, Dominici, F. 2004. “Ozone and Short-Term Mortality in
95 US Urban Communities, 1987–2000.” JAMA 292:2372-2378.
California Air Pollution Control fficers Association (CAPCOA). 2021. California Emissions Estimator
Model User Guide: Version 2020.4.0. Prepared by BREEZE Software, A Division of Trinity
Consultants in collaboration with South Coast Air Quality Management District and the
California Air Districts. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/user-guide-
2021/01_user-39-s-guide2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6 (accessed June 2021).
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 2008.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf.
______. 2011. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Public Hearing to
Consider the “LEV III” Amendments to the California Greenhouse Gas and Criteria Pollutant
Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures and to the On-Board
Diagnostic System Requirements for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty
Vehicles, and to the Evaporative Emission Requirements for Heavy-Duty Vehicles. December
7, 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/levisor.pdf
______. 2013. The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality. Available:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac.htm
______. 2014. AB 32 Scoping Plan Website. Updated June 2014. Accessed October 2021. Available:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm
______. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 14, 2017.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf
______. 2018a. “California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000-2017.”
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2017/ghg_inventory_trends_00-
17.pdf (accessed October 2019).
______. 2018b. “2020 Business-as-Usual (BAU) Emissions Projection – 2014 Edition”. Last modified:
June 22, 2018. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/bau.htm (accessed October 2019).
______. 2021. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019 Trends of Emissions and Other
Indicators. July.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2019/ghg_inventory_trends_00-
19.pdf (accessed October 2021).
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
7-2
California Air Resources Board. 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. May 4, 2016. Available online:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf
______. 2017. Area Designations Maps/State. Last updated November 2017.
______. 2018a. Area Designations Maps/National. Last updated October 2018.
______. 2018b. Criteria Pollutants. Top 4 Summary: Select Pollutant, Years, & Area. [dataset]
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php. (Accessed September 2021).
______. 2018c. Advanced Clean Cars Overview. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-
work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program. (Accessed October 2019).
______. 2019. Summary: Diesel Particulate Matter Health Impacts. Available online:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/summary-diesel-particulate-matter-health-impacts
(accessed September 2019).
California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2006. Climate Scenarios for California.
https://research.fit.edu/media/site-specific/researchfitedu/coast-climate-adaptation-
library/united-states/west-coast-amp-hawaix27i/california---statewide/CCCC.--2006.--
Climate-Scenarios-for-California.pdf
California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources. 2021.
Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources – Well Finder.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#close (accessed January 2022).
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2018. DOC Maps: Geologic Hazards. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/geologichazards/#webmaps. Accessed October 2021.
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State, 2011-2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark.
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/ (accessed August 2021).
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State, 2011-2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/ (accessed November
2021).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
Available at: file:///C:/Users/dtimms/Downloads/BUOW_MIT_StaffReport2012.pdf.
Accessed October 2021
______. 2021. QuickView Tool in the Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS).
Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS. Accessed October 2021
California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2020. “California Agricultural Production Statistics.”
https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/ (accessed June 2021).
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2018. Strategic Plan.
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5590/2018-strategic-fire-plan-approved-08_22_18.pdf
(accessed September 2021).
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2018. Strategic Plan.
https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/5504/strategicplan2019-final.pdf (accessed October 2021).
______. 2021. FHSZ Viewer. Available at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. (accessed October 2021).
References
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-3
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2021. FHSZ Viewer. Available at:
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed February 2021.
California Department of Resources and Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019a. SWIS
Facility/Site Summary: Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055).
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2662 (accessed October 2021).
______. 2019b. SWIS Facility/Site Summary: Pennsylvania Street Inert Landfill (36-AA-0313).
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2703 (accessed October 2021).
______. 2019c. SWIS Facility/Site Summary: Agua Mansa Landfill (36-AA-0019).
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2639 (accessed October 2021).
______. 2019d. SWIS Facility/Site Summary: Badlands Sanitary Landfill (33-AA-0006).
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2367 (accessed October 2021).
______. 2019e. SWIS Facility/Site Summary: Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill (33-AA-0007).
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2368 (accessed October 2021).
California Department of Resources Recycling and Conservation. 2020. “California’s Statewide
Recycling Rate.” Last modified: March 3, 2020.
https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/75percent/recyclerate (accessed August 2020).
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic
Noise Analysis Protocol. (CT-HWANP-RT-13-069.25.2) September. Available at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf
______. 2020 Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. (CT-HWANP-RT-20-
365.01.01) September. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-
media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2021. California State Scenic Highways.
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-
livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways (accessed September 2021).
California Department of Water Resources. 2018. Indicators of Climate Change in California. May
2018. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climate-
change/report/2018caindicatorsreportmay2018.pdf (accessed June 2021).
California Department of Water Resources. 2020. Bulletin 118, California’s Groundwater. Update
2019. Available at: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-
Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin-118/Files/California-GW-
FactSheet.pdf. Accessed October 2021.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018a. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. March 2018.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
03/Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf (accessed August 2021).
______. 2021a. Gas Consumption by County. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx
(accessed August 2021).
______. 2021b. Electricity Consumption by County.
http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed August 2020).
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
7-4
______. 2021c. California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15) Results.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/california-
retail-fuel-outlet-annual-reporting (accessed August 2021).
California Energy Commission. 2019. “2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” March 2018.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
03/Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf (accessed June 2021).
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2019. Gas Consumption by Entity.
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx (accessed October 2021).
______. 2021. 2019 Total System Electric Generation. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-
reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2020-total-system-electric-
generation/2019 (accessed October 2021).
City of Fontana .2018. Fontana Forward: General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental
Impact Report. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-
Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update (accessed October 2021).
City of Fontana. 2018. Conservation, Open Space, Parks And Trails.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26746/Chapter-7---Conservation-Open-
Space-Parks-and-Trails. (accessed September 2021).
______. 2018b. Fontana Forward: General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact
Report. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-
Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update (accessed October 2021).
______. 2019. Development Fees, City of Fontana.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/2271/Development-Impact-Fees?bidId=
(accessed September 2021).
______. 2021. Stations & Equipment. https://www.fontana.org/639/Stations-Equipment (accessed
October 2021).
City of Fontana. (2019). Development Fees, City of Fontana.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/2271/Development-Impact-Fees?bidId=
(accessed September 2021).
City of Fontana.2021. City of Fontana General Plan https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-
Update-2015---2035 (accessed November 2021).
City of Fontana. 2021. Stations & Equipment. https://www.fontana.org/639/Stations-Equipment
(accessed October 2021).
_______. 2017. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). Available at:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-
Plan. Accessed February 2021.
______.2018. Fontana Forward: General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact
Report. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-
Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update (accessed October 2021).
City of Fontana. 2021. Thousand Oaks General Plan.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/26744/Chapter-5---Housing (accessed
November 2021).
References
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-5
California Fuel Cell Partnership. 2021. H2 Station List. Updated August 13, 2021.
https://cafcp.org/sites/default/files/h2_station_list.pdf (accessed August 2021).
California Geological Survey (CGS). 2016. Earthquake Shaking Potential for California. Available at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/Map-Sheets/MS_048.pdf.
Accessed October 2021
California Native Plants Society (CNPS). 2021. Online Inventory of Rare, Threatened and Endangered
Plants of California. Available at: https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/cnps-inventory-of-rare-
plants. Accessed October 2021
California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. March
2009. http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf (accessed
June 2021).
California Natural Resources Agency. 2018. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action.
Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines. OAL Notice File No. Z-2018-0116-12.
https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/2018_CEQA_Final_Statement_of%20
Reasons_111218.pdf (accessed January 2022).
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2017a. General Order Number 165.
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M209/K552/209552704.pdf
(accessed October 2021).
______. 2017b. Standards for Operation, Reliability, and Safety During Emergencies and Disasters.
Revised December 14, 2017.
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M209/K451/209451792.pdf
(accessed October 2021).
______. 2018. Overhead Electric Line Construction. May 2018.
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M217/K244/217244586.pdf
(accessed October 2021).
Education Data Partnership (Ed Data). 2021. Fontana Unified. http://www.ed-data.org/district/San-
Bernardino/Fontana-Unified (accessed September 2021).
ELMT Consulting, Inc. 2021. Habitat Assessment for the Ventana Specific Plan Project Located in the
City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California.
Engelhardt, Zephyrin, O.F.M. 1927a. San Fernando Rey, the Mission of the Valley. Franciscan Herald
Press, Chicago.
______. 1927b. San Gabriel Mission and the Beginning of Los Angeles. Mission San Gabriel, San
Gabriel, California.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2020. FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Map.
Available at: https://hazards-
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b552
9aa9cd. Accessed October 2021.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook.
(FHWAHEP-06-015; DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02). Available at:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/construction_noise/handbook.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
7-6
______. 2011. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. (FHWAHEP-10-025).
December. Available at:
https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/noise/assets/fhwa-noise-guidance-dec-
2011
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
November. Available at: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-
innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-
0123_0.pdf
Fontana, City of. 2007. Final Environment Impact Report for the proposed “Ventana” at Duncan
Canyon Specific Plan. SCH 200511148. Available at:
https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2005111048/2. Accessed October 2021
______.2017. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). Available at:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-
Plan. Accessed February 2021.
______. 2018. General Plan. Available at: https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-Update-
2015---2035. Accessed September 2021.
Fontana, City of. 2015. City of Fontana 2015 - 2035 General Plan Update. Adopted November 13,
2018. https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015---2035 (accessed January
2022).
Fontana, City of. 2015. City of Fontana Climate Action Plan Draft. August.
https://igsberkeley.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16255coll1/id/169/ (accessed
June 2021).
______. 2018. Fontana Forward. Adopted November 13.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28271/Complete-Document---Approved-
General-Plan-Documents-11-13-2018 (accessed June 2021).
Fontana, City of. 2018. Fontana Forward: General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental
Impact Report. https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-
Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update (accessed October 2021).
Fontana Unified School District (FUSD). 2020. Developer Fee Justification Study.
https://www.fusd.net/cms/lib/CA50000190/Centricity/Domain/4/DFJ.pdf (accessed
October 2021).
______.2020b. Developer Fees. https://www.fusd.net/Page/639. (accessed September 2021).DOF
2021.
Gilliland FD, Berhane K, Rappaport EB, Thomas DC, Avol E, Gauderman WJ, London SJ, Margolis HG,
McConnell R, Islam KT, Peters JM. 2004. “The Effects of Ambient Air Pollution on School
Absenteeism Due to Respiratory Illnesses.” Epidemiology, 12(1):43-54.
Guinn, J. M. 1977. A History of California and an Extended History of Los Angeles and Environs,
Vol.1. Historic Record Company, Los Angeles.
Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). 2021. Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 4.
https://www.ieua.org/facilities/regional-water-recycling-plant-no-4/ (accessed October
2021).
References
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-7
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate
Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
______. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers -
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA.
______. 2018. Summary for Policymakers. In: Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on
the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global
greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to
the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ (accessed October 2021).
______. 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-
Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L.
Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T.
Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)] Cambridge University Press.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf
(accessed October 2021).
Lawrence E. Kinsler and R. Frey, Austin and B. Coppens, Alan and V. Sanders, James. Fundamentals
of Acoustics, 4th Edition. ISBN 0-471-84789-5. Wiley-VCH, December 1999.
Ldn Consulting. 2011. Noise Study, 9th and Palm Commercial Development, Imperial Beach CA.
Malcolm J. Crocker (Editor). 2007. Handbook of Noise and Vibration Control Book, ISBN: 978-0-471-
39599-7, Wiley-VCH, October.
McCawley, William. 1996. The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki
Museum/Ballena Press Cooperative Publication, Banning or Novato, California.
McConnell R, Berhane K, Gilliland F, London SJ, Islam T, Gauderman WJ, Avol E, Margolis HG, Peters
JM. 2002. “Asthma in exercising children exposed to ozone: a cohort study.” Lancet,
359:386-91.
Murphy, Rosalie. 2015. Why builders spray water on construction sites. The Desert Sun. September
1, 2015. https://www.desertsun.com/story/money/real-estate/2015/09/01/builders-spray-
water-construction-sites/71519806/ (accessed October 2021).
Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2021. Additional Hazardous Materials Review Letter Duncan Canyon
Specific Plan, City of Fontana, California
Rolle, Andrew. 2003. California: A History. Revised and expanded sixth edition. Harlan Davidson,
Inc., Wheeling, Illinois.
San Bernardino, County of. 2018. Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan.
http://cms.sbcounty.gov/Portals/50/solidwaste/SWAT/Engineering/SB-County-Final-Draft-
Siting-Element-SE-07-2018r.pdf?ver=2018-07-10-135822-030 (accessed April 2022).
San Bernardino, County of. 2019. Countywide Plan Draft Program Environmental Impact Report:
Section 5.4 Biological Resources. Available at: http://countywideplan.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/06/Ch_05-04-BIO.pdf. Accessed October 2021
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
7-8
San Bernardino, County of. 2019. Countywide Plan Draft Program Environmental Impact Report:
Section 5.6 Geology and Soils. Available at: http://countywideplan.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/06/Ch_05-06-GEO.pdf. Accessed October 2021
San Diego, County of. 2013. Project Description for the Desert Green Solar Farm. Borrego Springs,
San Diego County, California. Modification to Major Use Permit 3300-09-012 (P09-012); ER
No. 09-05-001A. San Diego, CA. February 22, 2013.
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/pds/PC/130329-Supporting-Documents/P09-
012W1/PDS2012-3301-09-012-01-_Project_Description.pdf (accessed October 2021).
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) 2014. Amicus Brief in Sierra Club
v. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch). https://casetext.com/brief/s219783-sierra-club-v-
county-of-fresno-friant-ranch-amicus-curiae-brief-of-south-coast-air-quality-management-
district (accessed March 2022).
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). 2017. Water Code Section 13383
Order to Submit Method to Comply with Statewide Trash Provisions; Requirements for
Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Co-Permittees within the Jurisdiction
of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Schremp, Gordon. 2017. Senior Fuels Specialist, California Energy Commission. Personal
communication via phone and email regarding fuel consumption in California by County and
by source with Lance Park, Associate Planner, Rincon Consultants, Inc. August 22, 2017.
______. 2020. County Policy Plan. Available at:
http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/LUS/GeneralPlan/Policy%20Plan%20and%20Policy%20
Maps.pdf. Accessed October 2021
Shumway, Gary L., Larry M. Vredenburgh Russell D. Hartill. 1980. Desert Fever An Overview of
Mining History of the California Desert Conservation Area. Available at:
https://archive.org/details/desertfeveroverv00shum/page/n1. Accessed April 2022
Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2019. Guidelines for Calculating
Emissions from Dairy and Poultry Operations. Available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/annual-emission-
reporting/guidecalcemisdairypoultryoperdec13.pdf?sfvrsn=7
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. Final Growth Forecast Appendix:
Regional Transportation Plan 2020-2045 Sustainable Communities Strategy: Towards a
Sustainable Future. https://scag.ca.gov/read-plan-adopted-final-plan (Accessed February
2022)
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020a. Regional Growth Forecast 2045.
https://scag.ca.gov/growth-forecasting (accessed November 2021)
______. 2021. SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/6th-cycle-rhna-final-allocation-plan.pdf?1625161899 (accessed November
2021).
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2001. Employee Density Study Report.
Prepared by The Natelson Company. Los Angeles, CA. October 31, 2001.
______. 2008. Final 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan.
References
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-9
______. 2016. Final Growth Forecast Appendix: Regional Transportation Plan 2016-2040 Sustainable
Communities Strategy: Towards a Sustainable Future.
http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS_DemographicsGrowthForecast.p
df. (Accessed October 2016.)
______. City of Fontana .2018. Fontana Forward: General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft
Environmental Impact Report.
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-Impact-
Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update (accessed October 2021).
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2001. Employee Density Study Report.
Prepared by The Natelson Company. Los Angeles, CA. October 31, 2001.
Southern California Historical Resources Information System at the South Central Coastal
Information Center (SCCIC). 2021. https://anthro.fullerton.edu/sccic/ (accessed February
2022).
Southern California Gas (SCG). 2021a. Natural Gas Transmission. https://www.socalgas.com/stay-
safe/pipeline-and-storage-safety/natural-gas-transmission (accessed October 2021).
______. 2021b. Natural Gas Pipeline Map. https://www.socalgas.com/stay-safe/pipeline-and-
storage-safety/natural-gas-pipeline-map (accessed October 2021).
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2003. Health Risk Assessment for Analyzing
Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis.
August 2003.
______. 2015a. Application of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for leave to file Brief
of Amicus Curiae in support of Neither Party and [Proposed] Brief of Amicus Curiae. In Sierra
Club v. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch, L.P.) (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, Case No. S219783.
Available at: https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/9-s219783-ac-south-coast-air-quality-
mgt-dist-041315.pdf
______. 2015. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. San Dimas, CA. March.
______. 2016. Final Air Quality Management Plan, March 2017. Available online:
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-
plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/final-2016-aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=15
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008b. Attachment E – Draft Guidance
Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-
significance-thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf (accessed June 2021).
State of California (State of California). 2018. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment
Statewide Summary Report. August 27, 2018. http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/
(accessed October 2021).
State Lands Commission. 1982. Grants of Land in California Made by Spanish or Mexican Authorities.
Electronic document. Available at: https://www.slc.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2018/11/1982-GrantsSpanishMexican.pdf. Accessed April 2022
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
7-10
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2019. Final 2014/2016 California Integrated Report
(Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List/305(b) Report). [online]:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2014_2016.shtml
?wbid=CAL8012700019991013173136. Accessed October 2021.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2021. GeoTracker. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed October 2021.
______. 2019. Santa Ana Region Basin Plan. San Bernardino, CA. June 2019.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2019. Web Soil Survey. Available at:
https://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed October 2021
U.S. Department of Energy. 2021. Alternative Fueling Station Locator.
https://afdc.energy.gov/stations/#/find/nearest?country=US&fuel=BD (accessed August
2021).
US Census Bureau. 2020. Definitions and Explanations.
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf (accessed November 2021).
U.S. Census Bureau (U.S. Census). 2021. QuickFacts.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/Fontanacalifornia,sanbernardinocountycalifo
rnia/PST045221 (accessed November 2021).
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2019a. Table C14. Energy Consumption Estimates per
Capita by End-Use Sector, Ranked by State, 2019.
https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_sum/html/rank_use_cap
ita.html&sid=US (accessed August 2021).
______. 2019b. California Energy Consumption Estimates, 2019.
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2 (accessed August 2021).
. 2020. California Electricity Profile 2019. Released November 2020.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/california/ (accessed August 2021).
. 2021a. Primary Energy Production Estimates in Trillion Btu, California, 1960-2019.
https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_prod/pdf/PT2_CA.pdf (accessed August 2021).
______. 2021b. U.S. energy facts explained. May 2021. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-
energy-facts/ (accessed August 2021).
______. 2021c. Profile Data. Updated August 19, 2021.
https://www.eia.gov/state/data.php?sid=CA#ConsumptionExpenditures (accessed August
2021).
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), United States Department of the Interior (DOI).
2002. FY 2001 Performance Report – National Fire Plan.
https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/documents/resources/reports/2001/6-16-en.pdf
(accessed October 2021).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2014. Policy Assessment for the Review of
the Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. May.
References
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-11
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2021a. Climate Change Indicators:
Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases. Last updated April 2021.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-
concentrations-greenhouse-gases (accessed January 2022).
______. 2021b. Climate Change Indicators: Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Last updated April
2021. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-global-
greenhouse-gas-emissions (accessed January 2022).
______. 2021c. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2019. April 2021.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-
1990-2019 (accessed January 2022).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021a. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html. Accessed October 2021
______. 2021b. National Wetlands Inventory. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/.
Accessed October 2021
Urban Crossroads. 2021a. The Ventana at Duncan Canyon Air Quality Impact Analysis. October.
(Appendix 4.2)
______. 2019c. Ventana at Duncan Canyon Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment. August.
(Appendix 4.2)
______. 2019e. The Ventana at Duncan Canyon Traffic Impact Analysis. July. (Appendix 4.11)
Urban Crossroads. 2021b. The Ventana at Duncan Canyon Greenhouse Gas Analysis. December.
(Appendix 4.7)
Urban Crossroads 2022. Ventana Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Study City of Fontana. April 6,
2022.
Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2015. San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management
Plan. Amended June 2017. Available at:
https://www.sbvmwd.com/home/showdocument?id=4196
______. 2020. Water Supply Assessment for the Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan.
Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2020. Water Supply Assessment for the Ventana at Duncan Canyon
Specific Plan.
Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2020. Water Supply Assessment for the Ventana at Duncan Canyon
Specific Plan. October 29, 2020.
West Valley Water District. 2012 Water Master Plan. 2012. Available at: https://wvwd.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/03/2012-Water-Master-Plan.pdf. Accessed October 2021
______. Overview. West Valley Water District. [Online] 2018. Available at:
https://agencyeta.com/WVWD/about/overview/. Accessed October 2021
Workman, Boyle. 1936. The City That Grew. Told by Caroline Walker. The Southland Publishing Co.,
Los Angeles, California.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
7-12
World Meteorological Organization (WMO). 2013. A summary of current and climate change
findings and figures: a WMO information note. March 2013.
https://library.wmo.int/opac/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=15892#.Wt9-Z8gvzIU
(accessed October 2021).
______. 2021. 2020 was one of three warmest years on record. January.
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/2020-was-one-of-three-warmest-years-
record (accessed March 2022).
7.2 List of Preparers
This SEIR was prepared by the City of Fontana, with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Consultant staff involved in the preparation of the EIR are listed below.
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Deanna Hansen, Principal Planner
Vanessa Villanueva, Senior Environmental Planner/Project Manager
Anna Choudhuri, Supervising Environmental Planner
Bill Vosti, Senior Planner
Jennifer DiCenzo, Senior Archaeologist
Christopher Purtell, Senior Archaeologist
Meghan Hearne, Environmental Scientist
Ryan Glenn, Archaeologist
Courtney Montgomery, Archaeologist
Mimi McNamara, Environmental Planner
Destiny Timms, Environmental Planner
Rachel Irvine, Environmental Planner
Shannon McAlpine, Environmental Planner