HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix A2 - Initial Study
Appendix A-2
Initial Study
Ventana at Duncan Canyon
Specific Plan Amendment
Initial Study
prepared by
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Contact: Paul Gonzales, Senior Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1980 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 105
Redlands, California 92374
October 2021
Ventana at Duncan Canyon
Specific Plan Amendment
Initial Study
prepared by
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Contact: Paul Gonzales, Senior Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1980 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 105
Redlands, California 92374
October 2021
This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.
Table of Contents
Initial Study i
Table of Contents
Initial Study .............................................................................................................................................1
1. Project Title .........................................................................................................................1
2. Lead Agency Name and Address .........................................................................................1
3. Contact Person and Phone Number ...................................................................................1
4. Project Location ..................................................................................................................1
5. Existing Conditions ..............................................................................................................1
6. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address .................................................................................4
7. General Plan Designation ....................................................................................................4
8. Zoning..................................................................................................................................4
9. Description of Project .........................................................................................................4
10. Project Setting and Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ................................................. 12
11. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ....................................................... 12
12. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the
Project Area Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21080.3.1? ....................................................................................................................... 12
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................................................ 13
Determination ..................................................................................................................................... 13
Environmental Checklist ...................................................................................................................... 15
1 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................... 15
2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................. 17
3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 19
4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 23
5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 27
6 Energy .............................................................................................................................. 29
7 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................. 33
8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................................. 39
9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................... 41
10 Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................................... 45
11 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................................... 51
12 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................... 53
13 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 55
14 Population and Housing ................................................................................................... 59
15 Public Services .................................................................................................................. 61
16 Recreation ........................................................................................................................ 65
17 Transportation ................................................................................................................. 67
18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. 69
19 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................... 71
20 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................ 75
21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................. 79
References ........................................................................................................................................... 81
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
ii
Tables
Table 1 Proposed Land Use Summary .............................................................................................5
Table 2 Comparison of Existing Specific Plan and Proposed Project ...............................................7
Table 3 Planning Area Key Elements ...............................................................................................7
Table 4 Electricity Consumption in 2019 for the SCE Service Area .............................................. 29
Table 5 Natural Gas Consumption in SCG Service Area in 2018 ................................................... 30
Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................2
Figure 2 Project Location ..................................................................................................................3
Figure 3 Existing and Proposed Land Use Plan .................................................................................6
Figure 4 Conceptual Site Plan for Planning Areas 1, 3 and 5 ............................................................8
Figure 5 Conceptual Site Plan for Planning Areas 2, 4 and 6 ............................................................9
Initial Study
Initial Study 1
Initial Study
1. Project Title
Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment (project)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Paul Gonzales, Senior Planner
909-350-6658
4. 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 located in the northern part of the City of Fontana, within San Bernardino County, California. The
project is bound by the I-15 Freeway to the north and west, Citrus Avenue to the east, and a
Southern California Edison (SCE) Transmission Line Corridor to the south. Figure 1 shows the
regional context of the project site, and Figure 2 shows the project site in its vicinity context.
Regional access to the project site is available via the 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.
5. Existing Conditions
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 feet above mean sea
level (amsl) at the northern edge of the project to approximately 1,675 feet amsl at the southern
edge along Lytle Creek Road and the I-15 Freeway. 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
Figure 1 Regional Location
Initial Study
Initial Study 3
Figure 2 Project Location
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
4
6. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
Frontier Enterprises
2151 East Convention Center Drive, Suite 114
Ontario, California 91764
7. General Plan Designation
According to the City’s General Plan Land Use Map, the Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan
area has two land use designations of General Commercial (C-G) and Multi Family Residential
(R-MF).
8. Zoning
The City’s General Plan Zoning map designates the project area as the Ventana at Duncan Canyon
Specific Plan (Specific Plan). The Specific Plan includes the following uses:
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR)
Commercial (C)
Mixed Use (MU)
A Specific Plan Amendment is proposed and would include the following uses:
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
High Density Residential (HDR)
Mixed-Use Entertainment (MU ENT)
Commercial (COM)
Open Space (OS)
9. Description of Project
Background
The existing Duncan Canyon at Ventana Specific Plan (2007 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 (10) Planning Areas consisted of four types of land use designations including Commercial,
Mixed Use, Medium Density Residential, and Medium-High Density Residential. The project included
the development of up to 574,500 square feet (sf) 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.
A Draft EIR for the Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2005111048)
was prepared and circulated for public review from August 15 to September 28, 2006. The Final EIR
(2007 EIR) was certified and the project approved by the City of Fontana on March 27, 2007.
Initial Study
Initial Study 5
Project Overview
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 (6) Planning Areas.
The project would include the development of up to 476,500 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 incorporates five (5) types of land use designations including:
Medium Density Residential (MDR): Areas designated MDR include up to 538 dwelling units at
a maximum of 26 dwelling units per acre (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 Entertainment (MU-ENT): Areas designated for MU-ENT include up to 600 dwelling
units at a maximum of 24 du/ac; commercial uses including restaurants, retail, office space up
to 104,000 sf; amenities; and open space
Commercial (COM): Areas designated for COM include office, medical, retail, research and
development, manufacturing and light industrial up to a total of 344,000 sf
Open Space (OS): The area designated as OS 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
Table 1 provides a breakdown of proposed land use by planning area. As shown below in Figure 3,
the project includes six (6) Planning Areas (1 through 6) that have been renumbered since the
adoption of the existing Specific Plan.
Table 1 Proposed Land Use Summary
Plan Area Use Acres Dwelling Units Gross Floor Area1
1 Medium Density Residential 20.7 538 -
2 High Density Residential 13.2 396 -
3 Commercial 9.7 - 180,000
4 Mixed Use - Entertainment 25.0 737 104,000
5 Commercial 7.2 - 92,500
6 Commercial 7.7 - 100,000
Open Space 0.5 - -
Arterial Roads 7.2 - -
Backbone Roads 10.3 - -
Total 101.5 1,671 476,500
1 in square-feet
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
6
Figure 3 Existing and Proposed Land Use Plan
Changes from the Existing Specific Plan
Development under the existing Specific Plan, and the proposed project would have many of the
same features, 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 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.
Initial Study
Initial Study 7
Table 2 Comparison of Existing Specific Plan and Proposed Project
Residential acres Dwelling Units Residential Density Commercial GFA
Existing Specific
Plan
56 842 15.0 574,500
Proposed Project 64.6 1,671 25.9 476,500
Change 8.6 829 10.9 -98,000
GFA=gross floor area in square feet; residential density is in units per acre.
The greatest difference between the existing Specific Plan and the proposed project is the overall
increase in residential units 1,671 compared to the 842 units under the existing Specific Plan. This is
an increase of 829 units, and 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 for the proposed project.
Project Characteristics
Table 3 provides key elements located in each planning area. In addition, Figure 4 and Figure 5 show
the conceptual site plans for the planning areas.
Table 3 Planning Area Key Elements
Plan Area Key Elements
1 Campanile tower feature, recreation center, residential units, outdoor pool
2 Recreation center, residential units, outdoor pool
3 Corporate office, research and development, light manufacturing
4 Piazza, market, pharmacy, restaurants, retail, recreational center, residential units,
outdoor pool
5 Mid-rise hotel, restaurant, retail
6 Corporate office, 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.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
8
Figure 4 Conceptual Site Plan for Planning Areas 1, 3 and 5
Initial Study
Initial Study 9
Figure 5 Conceptual Site Plan for Planning Areas 2, 4 and 6
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
10
Project Architecture Design
Building design would implement a Mediterranean architectural theme and would focus on a mixed-
use, Tuscan village environment. 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 would be visually distinct and would create a view into Fontana from I-15.
Project Circulation
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 the adjacent state
highway. The collector road, Lytle Creek Road, runs diagonally through the project area and offers
improved internal connection from the primary roads to each of the individual planning areas.
Project Pedestrian Network
Sidewalk and paseos are the two main categories of pedestrian access serving the project area. The
sidewalks serve as a backbone to the site’s pedestrian traffic while the paseos establish a network of
experiential pedestrian corridors inspired by Tuscan villages.
Project Regional Trails
The project area is in close proximity to various public open space amenities including bike and
pedestrian trails. In addition, the project area is located within a short distance of planned trails and
parks as well as the Fontana North Skate Park and the Fontana Park Aquatic Center.
Project Drainage
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.
Project Sewer
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.
Project Water
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.
Initial Study
Initial Study 11
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.
Project Dry Utilities
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.
Project Public Services
The project area is served by the:
Fontana Unified School District (FUSD)for school facilities.
Fontana Fire Protection District through contract by the San Bernardino County Fire Department
for fire protection services.
Fontana Police Department (FPD) for public safety services.
Project Construction
The project would be built out in six complete phases with construction estimated to begin in 2022
and be completed by 2030.
The arterial (Duncan Canyon Road and Citrus Avenue) and backbone roads (Lytle Creek Road) would
be developed together during the first phase of development. Once this backbone infrastructure is
in place, the remaining PAs 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 is able to
accommodate a minimum of three entry and exit points per PA. 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.
Required Approvals
The project would require the following approvals by the Fontana City:
A Specific Plan Amendment (SPA No. 21-0001) to change the land uses, planning areas, and
other elements of the Specific Plan.
A General Plan Amendment (GPA 21-0006) to amend a portion of the project form commercial
to multi family.
Certification an Environmental Impact Report of (EIR) prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Fontana will consider certification of the EIR prior
to acting on other requested approvals.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
12
10. Project Setting and Surrounding Land Uses and
Setting
Figure 2 shows the project site and surrounding land uses. 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 above-ground
distribution lines located along Duncan Canyon Road and Citrus Avenue.
The site is predominately flat, with a gentle slope from approximately 1,835 feet above mean sea
level (amsl) at the northern edge of the project to approximately 1,675 feet amsl at the southern
edge along Lytle Creek Road and the I-15 Freeway. 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.
Surrounding land uses a major features 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.
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.
The I-15 freeway 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.
11. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
The City of Fontana is the lead agency with responsibility for approving the project.
12. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally
and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area
Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21080.3.1?
The City of Fontana is notifying culturally affiliated Tribes regarding the project and will consult with
any Tribes requesting governmental to government consultation consistent with Section 21080.3.1.
Also see Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources.
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Initial Study 13
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least
one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
■ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
■ Air Quality
■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources ■ Energy
■ Geology and Soils ■ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
■ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
■ Hydrology and Water
Quality
■ Land Use and
Planning
□ Mineral Resources
■ Noise ■ Population and
Housing
■ Public Services
■ Recreation ■ Transportation ■ Tribal Cultural Resources
■ Utilities and Service
Systems
■ Wildfire ■ Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Determination
Based on this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
■ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “less than
significant with mitigation incorporated” impact on the environment, but at least one
effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
Environmental Checklist Aesthetics
Initial Study 15
Environmental Checklist
1 Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Except as provided in PRC Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? ■ □ □ □
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a State scenic highway? □ □ ■ □
c. 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? ■ □ □ □
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area? ■ □ □ □
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
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. Development of the project site
has the potential to change and potentially interrupt views of scenic vistas from local roads,
especially Duncan Canyon Road east of I-15. The project would not adversely affect views from I-15
of these vistas. Impacts to scenic vistas will be further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
16
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
The project site is not within or adjacent to a designated State scenic highway, as identified by the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The nearest designated State scenic highway is a
portion of Route 2 (Angeles Crest Highway), approximately 17 miles to the northwest of the project
site (Caltrans 2018). Therefore, the project site is not visible from a scenic highway. Furthermore,
the project does not feature rock outcroppings or historic buildings. Scenic resources are limited to
windrows of Eucalyptus trees that would be removed. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant, and further analysis in an EIR is not required.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views
of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from 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?
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 to the east and south, including I-15. A 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.
The project would develop the site that is currently vacant into commercial, mixed use, and
residential uses, consistent with the revised Specific Plan. Changes to the visual character and
consistency with the applicable regulations governing scenic quality will be further evaluated in an
EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect
daytime or nighttime views in the area?
The project site is undeveloped and does have feature 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 the increase in vehicles accessing the project site. All outdoor lighting
would comply with the development standards in the City’s Zoning and Development Code, Section
30.697 (City of Fontana, 2020). Therefore, development of the project would increase the intensity
of lighting on the project site, from that of the undeveloped land to proposed commercial, mixed
use, and residential uses.
The project site is surrounded by residential development and is adjacent to the I-15 freeway and
other residential uses. The former emits daytime and nighttime light and glare in the area typical for
these uses. Implementation of the project would not significantly increase the ambient lighting in
the project vicinity. The project would comply with the lighting requirements in the revised Specific
Plan. Impacts related to light and glare from the project will be further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Initial Study 17
2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ ■
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
PRC Section 12220(g)); timberland (as
defined by PRC Section 4526); or
timberland zoned Timberland Production
(as defined by Government Code Section
51104(g))? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
The project site is currently undeveloped and is designated as Grazing Land as shown on the
California Important Farmland Finder (California Department of Conservation [DOC] 2016). The
nearest farmland designated as “Unique Farmland” is approximately two miles southwest of the
project (DOC 2016). However, the project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), and therefore would not convert
farmland to non-agricultural use. In addition, future development on the site would preclude any
grazing activities or future agricultural use on-site. Therefore, the project would not result in
impacts related to converting important farmland, and further analysis in an EIR is not required.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
18
NO IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act
contract?
The current zoning in the existing Specific Plan includes residential, commercial, and mixed-use
zones. The proposed zoning would include similar uses, in addition to open space. Both the existing
and proposed land use designations do not permit agricultural uses. Furthermore, 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 in this regard. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the project, and
further analysis in an EIR is not required.
NO IMPACT
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined
in PRC Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526); or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
As discussed above under response ‘2.b,’ the project site is currently zoned or proposed for
residential, commercial, mixed use, and open space uses. No forest land or timberland zoning is
present on the project site or in the surrounding area. As such, future development of the project
would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberland and would not result in the loss
of or conversion of forestland. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the project, and
further analysis in an EIR is not required.
NO IMPACT
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
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.
Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the project, and further analysis in an EIR is not
required.
NO IMPACT
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
The project site is currently undeveloped and would be converted into a mixed-use development,
including residential and commercial uses guided by the Specific Plan. 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. Given these considerations, the anticipated changes in the project site are
not expected to involve other changes in the environment that would result in further conversion of
farm or forest land. Therefore, there would be no impacts to agricultural land and forest use. No
further analysis in an EIR is required.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Air Quality
Initial Study 19
3 Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan? ■ □ □ □
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or
State ambient air quality standard? ■ □ □ □
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? ■ □ □ □
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
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 relies on local general plans and the Southern California Association of Governments’
(SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)
forecasts of regional population, housing, and employment growth in its own projections for
managing air quality in the Basin.
The growth projections used by the SCAQMD to develop the AQMP emissions budgets are based on
the population, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed in general plans and used by SCAG in
the development of the 2016 RTP/SCS. As such, projects that are consistent with the growth
anticipated by SCAG’s growth projections and a jurisdiction’s General Plan would not conflict with
the AQMP. If a project is less dense than anticipated by the growth projections, the project would
likewise be consistent with the AQMP.
The project would include the construction of up to 476,500 sf of commercial uses and 1,671
residential units. As discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, below, the California
Department of Finance’s (DOF) 2021 population estimate for Fontana is 213,944 residents (DOF
2021). Given an average household size of 4.02 persons per household for Fontana (DOF 2021), the
project would potentially add an estimated 6,717 residents1 to the City’s population.
SCAG forecasts the population of Fontana will increase to approximately 286,700 residents by the
year 2045, which is an increase of approximately 72,756 persons from the current population
(SCAG 2020). The level of population growth associated with the project (6,717 residents) would not
1 1,671 units x 4.02 persons per unit
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
20
exceed SCAG’s regional population projections, and the project would not directly or indirectly
induce substantial unplanned population growth. The project would account for approximately
eight percent of the City’s projected population growth through year 2045. Therefore, the level of
population growth associated with the project would not exceed regional population projections.
Furthermore, this analysis conservatively assumes that all project residents are new to Fontana,
whereas the likely scenario is that some of the future project residents may already live in the City.
Though the project would not alter the population or employment projections considered during
the development of the AQMP, potential exceedances of air quality emissions thresholds during the
construction and operational phases of the project may be inconsistent with the AQMP.
Construction activities such as the operation of construction vehicles and equipment over unpaved
areas, grading, trenching, and disturbance of stockpiled soils have the potential to generate fugitive
dust (PM10) through the exposure of soil to wind erosion and dust entrainment. In addition, exhaust
emissions associated with heavy construction equipment would potentially degrade air quality.
Construction emissions from the project could potentially exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds.
Long-term emissions associated with operation of residential and commercial developments under
the project would include emissions from vehicle trips, natural gas and electricity use, landscape
maintenance equipment, and consumer products and architectural coating. Emissions associated
with these developments could potentially exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds.
Based on the project’s potential to conflict with the AQMP, an air quality analysis will be completed
and evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air
quality standard?
Air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The non-attainment status of regional pollutants is a
result of past and present development, and the SCAQMD develops and implements plans for future
attainment of ambient air quality standards. Based on these considerations, project-level thresholds
of significance for criteria pollutants are relevant in the determination of whether a project’s
individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality. If a project’s
emissions would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds, it is considered to have a cumulatively
considerable contribution. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds
are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.
As discussed under Air Quality Standards and Attainment, the Basin has been designated as a
federal non-attainment area for ozone and PM2.5 and a State non-attainment area for ozone, PM10,
and PM2.5. The Basin is designated unclassifiable or in attainment for all other federal and State
standards. Based on the project’s potential for emissions to exceed SCAQMD significance
thresholds, an air quality analysis will be completed and incorporated into an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Air Quality
Initial Study 21
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Sensitive receptors are those individuals more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the
population at large. People most likely to be affected by air pollution include children, the elderly,
and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. According to the SCAQMD,
sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long-term
healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes
(SCAQMD 1993). Land uses surrounding the project include a school, residential developments,
parks, and undeveloped areas.
Construction of the project would result in the temporary generation of emissions associated with
on-site equipment operation and off-site trucks and worker vehicles, which could potentially exceed
SCAQMD significance thresholds. In addition, long-term emissions associated with operation of the
project, such as vehicle trips and natural gas and electricity use, could potentially exceed SCAQMD
significance thresholds. As a result, residents of the surrounding land uses could be exposed to air
pollutants or toxic air contaminants. Based on the project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant concentrations, an air quality analysis will be completed and included in an
EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting
a substantial number of people?
The occurrence and severity of potential odor impacts depends on numerous factors. The nature,
frequency, and intensity of the source; the wind speeds and direction; and the sensitivity of the
receiving location, each contribute to the intensity of the impact. Although offensive odors seldom
cause physical harm, they can be annoying and cause distress among the public and generate citizen
complaints.
Odors would be potentially generated from vehicles and equipment exhaust emissions during
construction of the project, which would be attributable to concentrations of unburned
hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment and architectural coatings. Such odors
would disperse rapidly from the project site, generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect
substantial numbers of people and would be limited to the construction period. Furthermore,
construction would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which regulates nuisance odors.
Accordingly, impacts associated with odors during construction would be temporary and less than
significant.
SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) identifies land uses associated with odor complaints
as agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, chemical and food processing plants, composting,
refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. 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, potential impacts would be less
than significant, and further analysis in an EIR is not required.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
22
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Biological Resources
Initial Study 23
4 Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ■ □ □ □
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ ■ □
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on State
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means? □ □ ■ □
d. Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? ■ □ □ □
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? ■ □ □ □
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan? □ □ □ ■
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
24
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
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 to the east and south, including 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. Given the lack
of native vegetation, the potential for candidate, sensitive or special status species is low. However,
the project site is identified as critical habitat for the endangered San Bernardino Merriam’s
kangaroo rat, Dipodomys merriami parvus (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2020a). Therefore,
potential impacts to candidate, sensitive or special status species will be further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Previous disturbance, and development have cut off the project site from the historic fluvial flow
patterns and scouring regimes of Lytle Creek and flows from the San Gabriel Mountains. According
to the previous EIR and the City’s General Plan, there are no wetland areas on the project sites (City
of Fontana 2007). Furthermore, as discussed above in criteria ‘a’, 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, these conditions have not changed and the project
site lacks riparian habitat, and is not located within any sensitive natural community. Nonetheless,
this impact will be further evaluated in an EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
As discussed above in criteria ‘b,’ previous disturbance, and development have cut off the project
site from the historic fluvial flow patterns. There is no riparian habitat, and there are no discernable
drainages present on the project site. Nonetheless, this impact will be further evaluated in an EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Biological Resources
Initial Study 25
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
As discussed above in criteria ‘a’ and ‘b,’ the project site does not feature any native plant
communities on or adjacent to the project site and the project does not have any connectivity to
native habitat assemblages. While the project site is located near the foothills of the San Gabriel and
San Bernardino Mountains which is a location in the that has potential for wildlife movement, I-15
serves a substantial barrier between the project site and these features (City of Fontana 2007).
Nonetheless, this impact will be further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The project features Eucalyptus trees from historic windrows that are considered heritage trees
under Fontana Municipal Code Section 28.61-75. The project would 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. Project impacts will be further described and evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation
plan?
The project would comply with the City’s interim Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)
for north Fontana, consistent with Fontana Ordinance No. 1464, and as applicable. The program
incorporates a tiered development mitigation fee that is required for new development in north
Fontana, including the project site. the project site is not located within an area subject to an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or any other approved
habitat conservation plan at the regional, or State levels. Project impacts will be further described
and evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
26
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Cultural Resources
Initial Study 27
5 Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5? ■ □ □ □
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5? ■ □ □ □
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? □ □ ■ □
Rincon received search results of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at
the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located at California State University, Fullerton
in December 2020. The search was performed to identify previously recorded cultural resources, as
well as previously conducted cultural resources studies within the project site and a one-mile radius
surrounding it. The CHRIS search included a review of available records at the SCCIC, as well as the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the CRHR, the Office of Historic Preservation Historic
Properties Directory, the California Inventory of Historic Resources, the Archaeological
Determinations of Eligibility list, and historical maps.
The SCCIC records search identified 35 cultural resources recorded within a one-mile radius of the
project site. Four of these resources 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 would be impacted by the project.
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
The records search identified four historic-period cultural resources were previously recorded within
the project site: 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. Of these four
resources, only P-36-012742: Lytle Creek Winery appear to be eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); however, Rincon’s survey efforts were unable to relocate
the resource; thus, extant remains of the resource do not contain integrity. Impacts will be further
evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
28
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
The site has been disturbed by previous development and no archaeological resources have been
recorded within the project site. Although no archaeological resources are known to exist within the
project site, unanticipated discoveries are a possibility during ground-disturbing activities. Impacts
to archaeological resources will be further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
No cemeteries are known to exist within the project site; however, 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 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 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.
Impacts to human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, will be further
evaluated in an EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Energy
Initial Study 29
6 Energy
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation? ■ □ □ □
b. Conflict with or obstruct a State or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency? ■ □ □ □
Natural gas service for the Specific Plan area is provided by Southern California Gas Company (SCG)
through the existing lines on-site and within the right-of-way of Duncan Canyon Road. Electric
service for the Specific Plan area is provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) through existing
lines in Duncan Canyon Road. The existing 2007 EIR did not evaluate energy because this subject
was not a component of CEQA when the document was prepared.
Electricity and Natural Gas
SCE would provide electricity to the project area. Table 4 shows the electricity consumption by
sector and total for SCE for 2019, the most recent available data.
Table 4 Electricity Consumption in 2019 for the SCE Service Area
Agriculture and Water Pump Commercial Building Commercial Other Industry Mining and Construction Residential Streetlight Total Usage
2,788 30,406 4,413 13,088 2,359 27,324 532 80,912
Notes: Usage expressed in gigawatt hours (GWh).
Source: CEC 2020a
SCE’s energy sources include renewable power sources, large hydroelectric, natural gas, nuclear,
and unspecified sources of power (electricity from transfers that are not traceable to specific
generation sources). SCE’s “Green Rate” program provides an option for residential and business
customers to offset half or all of their energy usage by paying into a fund for solar energy sources
(SCE 2020). San Bernardino County consumed 14,987 GWh of electricity in 2019 (CEC 2020b).
SCG would provide natural gas to the project area. Table 5 shows the natural gas consumption by
sector and total for SCG for 2019, the most recent available data.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
30
Table 5 Natural Gas Consumption in SCG Service Area in 2018
Agriculture
and Water
Pump
Commercial
Building
Commercial
Other Industry
Mining and
Construction Residential Total Usage
73 948 82 1,684 219 2,419 5,425
Notes: All usage expressed in million US therms (MMThm).
Source: CEC 2020c
Petroleum
In 2018, approximately 40 percent of the State’s energy consumption (3,170 trillion British Thermal
Units [Btu]) was used for transportation activities (U.S. Energy Information Administration
[EIA] 2020). Though California’s population and economy are expected to grow, gasoline demand is
projected to decline from roughly 15.8 billion gallons in 2017 to between 12.3 billion and 12.7 billion
gallons in 2030, a 20 percent to 22 percent reduction. This decline comes in response to both
increasing vehicle electrification and higher fuel economy for new gasoline vehicles (CEC 2018a).
a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
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 project
would require site preparation and grading, including hauling material offsite; pavement and asphalt
installation; building construction; architectural coating; and landscaping and hardscaping.
Project-related construction energy demand would be confined to the construction period, which
would be relatively short in relation to the overall life of the project. In addition, project design and
energy features would be in conformance with the latest version of CALGreen and Building Energy
Efficiency Standards. It is reasonable to assume that construction equipment would be maintained
to applicable standards, and construction activity and associated fuel consumption and energy use
would be temporary and typical of similar-sized construction projects in the region. Furthermore, in
the interest of cost efficiency, construction contractors would not utilize fuel in a manner that is
wasteful or unnecessary. However, further analysis is required to quantify energy use related to
construction.
Operational Energy Demand
Operation of residential and commercial units would increase energy demand from greater
electricity, natural gas, and gasoline consumption due to the development of new buildings and an
increase in residents and employees. Natural gas and electricity would be used for heating and
cooling systems, lighting, appliances, water use, and the overall operation of the buildings. Gasoline
consumption would be attributed to the trips generated from residents, employees, and visitors.
The operations phase of the project would result in energy consumption for residence operations
and equipment; outdoor lighting; and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC). Operational
electrical consumption would be equal to the residences’ electrical output through a photovoltaic
(PV) system, as required by 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR 2019). Gasoline
Environmental Checklist Energy
Initial Study 31
consumption would be attributed to the trips generated from project residences and commercial
buildings. The estimated number of average daily trips associated with the project will be estimated
in an EIR.
The project would be subject to applicable building codes at the time of construction, which are
continuously evolving to include more energy-efficient requirements. The project would comply
with all standards set in California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, which would minimize the wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during operation. California’s Green
Building Standards Code (CALGreen; California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11) requires
implementation of energy efficient light fixtures and building materials into the design of new
construction projects. These standards are specifically crafted for new buildings to result in energy
efficient performance so that the buildings do not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy. The standards are updated every three years and each iteration is more
energy efficient than the previous standards. In addition, as previously stated, low-rise residential
buildings meeting 2019 standards will require solar PV generation equal to the operational
electricity consumption.
Despite the energy efficiency measures described above, project changes have the potential to
significantly increase energy and petroleum demand due to an increase in development and
intensity, compared to the approved Specific Plan. Therefore, the project may have potentially
significant impacts, and this impact will be further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
The increase in residents, employees, and development under the project would result in increased
energy consumption when compared to the approved Specific Plan, through electricity to power
facilities, natural gas for heating and cooking, and petroleum use through motor vehicles on the
project site. As discussed in criteria (a), new development would comply with Title 24 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards.
In addition, Senate Bill 100 (SB 100) mandates 100 percent clean electricity for California by 2045.
Because the project would be powered by the existing electricity grid, the project would eventually
be powered by renewable energy mandated by SB 100 and would not conflict with this statewide
plan. Therefore, no conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose
energy efficiency is anticipated. Nonetheless, this impact will be further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
32
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils
Initial Study 33
7 Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1. 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? □ □ ■ □
2. Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ ■ □
3. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? □ □ ■ □
4. Landslides? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? □ □ ■ □
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse? □ □ ■ □
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property? □ ■ □ □
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater? □ □ □ ■
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? ■ □ □ □
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
34
a.1. 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?
a.2. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
The project site, like much of the Southern California region, may experience moderate to
potentially severe ground shaking from earthquakes generated on known faults within 60 miles
(approximately 100 kilometers) of the project site, such as the Cucamonga Fault. According to fault
maps from the California Department of Conservation (DOC), the northern portion of the City of
Fontana is located within a designated Earthquake Fault Zone for the San Jacinto Fault, as defined
under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act.
The project site is located approximately 0.4 miles south of an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone (DOC 2018).
However, based on geologic investigations, the 2007 EIR determined that the fault zone presented
no evidence of faulting. Therefore, active faulting was determined to not be present at the City’s
northern end (City of Fontana 2007). The nearest earthquake zones include the Cucamonga Fault
Zone in the Sierra Madre Fault System, located approximately 1,600 to 2,400 feet northwest of the
project site, at Lytle Creek Canyon. In addition, the San Jacinto Fault is located approximately 1.8
miles northeast of the project site.
Furthermore, 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 2020). 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. Impacts related to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking,
will be further evaluated in an EIR
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.3. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
According to the California Department of Conservation maps for liquefication potential, the project
site is not located within a liquefication hazard zone (DOC 2018). In addition, the 2007 EIR evaluated
the site-specific liquefaction potential based on project site soil samples. The 2007 EIR determined
that since groundwater levels are located more than 50 feet below the ground surface, the project
site would not be subject to liquefaction hazards. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction is
considered very low to remote (City of Fontana 2007). Furthermore, as stated above in the
discussion provided for criteria ‘a.1’ and ‘a.2,’ structures would be constructed to comply with the
seismic design criteria of the CBC. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant
impact, and no further analysis in an EIR is required.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils
Initial Study 35
a.4. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
The project site is generally flat, with elevations ranging from 1,828 feet amsl on the northern
portion of the site to approximately 1,672 feet amsl on the southwestern portion of the site.
According to the CDC’s Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map, no portion of the project
site is located in a landslide hazard area and there are no designated landslide hazard areas in the
vicinity (DOC 2018). Therefore, the project would have no impact, and no further analysis in an EIR is
required.
NO IMPACT
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Construction activities would disturb soil on the project site, resulting in potential for soil erosion
and loss of topsoil. The project area is subject to strong winds during Santa Ana wind events. As
noted in Section 3, Air Quality, the project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403
regarding incorporation of measures to reduce fugitive dust, which would reduce the potential for
construction-related wind erosion (SCAQMD Rule 403(d)(2)). SCAQMD Rule 403 includes
requirements for the application of water or stabilizing agents to prevent generation of dust
plumes, pre-watering materials prior to the use of tarps to enclose haul trucks, stabilizing sloping
surfaces using soil binders until vegetation or ground cover efficiently stabilize slopes, hydroseeding
prior to rain, and washing mud and soils from equipment at the conclusion of trenching activities.
Implementation of these measures pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 403 would reduce the potential for
project construction to result in substantial erosion or loss of topsoil wind associated with wind.
Because the project would disturb more than one acre of land, it would be subject to the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ)
(“Construction General Permit”) adopted by the SWRCB. Compliance with the permit requires the
project applicant to file a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB. Permit conditions require preparation of
a project-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which must describe the site, the
facility, erosion and sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal,
implementation of approved local plans, construction sediment and erosion control measures,
maintenance responsibilities, and non-stormwater management controls. Inspection of construction
sites before and after storms is also required to identify stormwater discharge from the construction
activity and to identify and implement erosion controls, where necessary. Compliance with existing
regulatory requirements, including implementation of applicable best management practices
(BMPs) related to wind and water erosion control, would reduce potential soil loss and erosion from
the site. Therefore, impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant, and
further analysis in an EIR is not required.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
36
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
As stated above in criteria ‘a.1’ through ‘a.4,’ the project site is not located in or adjacent to an
Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone, and there are no known active or potentially active faults trending toward
or through the site (DOC 2018). Furthermore, the project site is not located within a liquefication
hazard zone (DOC 2018). The 2007 EIR determined that due to depth to groundwater, very low
potential for liquefaction and lack of nearby conditions, the potential for lateral spreading is also
considered very low to remote (City of Fontana 2007); these conditions have not changed.
Furthermore, pursuant to Title Chapter 5.61 of the Fontana Code of Ordinances, the project would
comply with CBC requirements which include foundation and structural design standards.
Compliance with applicable CBC seismic standards would reduce impacts related to unstable soils.
Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact, and no further analysis in an EIR
is not required.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. 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?
Sie 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. The 2007 EIR identified mitigation to further address
soil conditions in final design as follows:
Mitigation Measure 4.7.1: Temporary excavations may be constructed to a vertical depth of
four feet. Excavation between 4 to 10 feet deep must have side slopes no steeper than 1.5:1
(horizontal:vertical). Trench backfill shall be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the
laboratory maximum dry density and the upper 12 inches of trench backfill underlying
pavements should be compacted to a minimum 95 percent of the laboratory maximum density.
Additional recommendations in the geotechnical investigation and other applicable
requirements of the California Construction and General Industry Safety Orders, the
Occupational Safety and Health Act and current amendments, and the Construction Safety Act
shall be followed.
Mitigation Measure 4.7.2: The following corrosion control measures shall be implemented for
buried materials:
All steel and wire concrete reinforcement shall have at least 3 inches of concrete cover
when cast against soil, unformed.
As a minimum, below-grade ferrous metals shall be given a high quality protective
coating, such as 18-mil plastic tape, extruded polyethylene, coal-tar enamel or Portland
cement mortar.
Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils
Initial Study 37
Below-grade metals shall be electrically insulated (isolated) from above-grade metals by
means of dielectric fittings in ferrous utilities and/or exposed metals structures breaking
grade.
These mitigation measures would be applicable to the project to reduce potential impacts
associated with expansive soils to less than significant. Nevertheless, as the mitigation measures are
still applicable, they will be carried forward into an EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
e. Would the project 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 be connected to the City’s sewer system for wastewater collection and treatment
and would not require nor install a septic system or alternative treatment system. Therefore, the
project would not result in impacts related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems, and
no further analysis in an EIR is required.
NO IMPACT
f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
The project site is underlain by old alluvial fan deposits including sandy gravels and gravelly sands
with silty sand interbeds. 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,
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 I-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).
Ground-disturbing activities during project construction may impact previously unknown
paleontological resources that may be present below the project site surface. Therefore,
construction of the project could result in impacts to paleontological resources and will be further
evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
38
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Initial Study 39
8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment? ■ □ □ □
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases? ■ □ □ □
Overview of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases
(GHGs). The gases that are 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 and perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Water vapor is excluded from
the list of GHGs because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are
largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.
GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are
emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of
fossil fuel combustion, and CH4 results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and
landfills. Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWPs), which are 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 GHG emissions, referred to as carbon
dioxide equivalent (CO2e), and is the amount of a GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. CO2 has a
100-year GWP of one. By contrast, CH4 has a GWP of 28, meaning its global warming effect is
28 times greater than that of CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [IPCC] 2014a).2
The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates Earth’s temperature. Without the natural
heat-trapping effect of GHGs, the Earth’s surface would be about 33 degrees Celsius (°C) cooler
(USEPA 2020). However, emissions from human activities, particularly the consumption of fossil
fuels for electricity production and transportation, have elevated the concentration of GHGs in the
atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations.
2 The IPCC’s (2014a) Fifth Assessment Report determined that methane has a GWP of 28. However, modeling of GHG emissions was completed using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2, which uses a GWP of 25 for methane, consistent with the IPCC’s (2007) Fourth Assessment Report.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
40
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
Worldwide anthropogenic emissions of GHGs were approximately 46,000 million metric tons (MMT)
of CO2e in 2010. CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributed
about 65 percent of total emissions in 2010 (IPCC 2014b).
Total U.S. GHG emissions were 6,577.2 MMT of CO2e in 2019. Emissions decreased by 1.7 percent
from 2018 to 2019, and since 1990, total U.S. emissions have increased by an average annual rate of
0.1 percent for a total increase of 2.0 percent between 1990 and 2019. In 2019, the transportation
and industrial end-use sectors accounted for 35 percent and 16 percent, respectively, of nationwide
GHG emissions while the residential and commercial end-use sectors accounted for 6 percent and 5
percent of nationwide GHG emissions, respectively, with electricity emissions distributed among the
various sectors (USEPA 2021).
Based on the CARB’s California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2018, California produced
425 MMT of CO2e in 2018. The major source of GHG emissions in California is the transportation
sector, which comprises 40 percent of the State’s total 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 15 percent (CARB 2020).
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
Construction of residential and commercial uses would result in short-term greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions associated with activities such as equipment use, construction worker trips, and delivery
and hauling of construction supplies and debris. Operation of the project would result in long-term
increases in GHG emissions due to increased vehicle trips associated with the population growth
and emissions from energy consumption associated with the new development.
Overall, the project would generate both short-term construction related GHG emissions and
long-term operational emissions, which could result in significant impacts. This impact will be
further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The project would increase the development density anticipated for the site under the existing
Specific Plan by increasing the density and amount of housing units. As discussed under Regulatory
Setting, 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’s
consistency with these plans and applicable policies in the City’s General Plan will be further
evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Initial Study 41
9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? □ □ ■ □
b. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment? ■ □ □ □
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
0.25 mile of an existing or proposed
school? ■ □ □ □
d. 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? □ □ □ ■
e. For a project located in an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area? □ □ □ ■
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? □ □ ■ □
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires? ■ □ □ □
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
42
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Project construction would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials, such as vehicle fuels
and fluids, that could be released should a leak or spill occur. However, contractors would be
required to implement standard construction best management practices (BMPs) for the use and
handling of such materials to avoid or reduce the potential for such conditions to occur. Any use of
potentially hazardous materials during construction of the project would be required to comply with
all local, state, and federal regulations regarding the handling of potentially hazardous materials.
Likewise, the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during construction would be
required to comply with applicable State and federal laws, such as the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Material
Management Act, and California Code of Regulations Title 22.
Project development would primarily include commercial and residential uses, which are not land
uses typically associated with the use, transportation, storage, or generation of significant quantities
of hazardous materials. Operation of these developments would likely involve an incremental
increase in the use of common household hazardous materials, such as cleaning and degreasing
solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and other materials used in regular property and landscaping
maintenance. Use of these materials would be subject to compliance with existing regulations,
standards, and guidelines established by local, State, and federal agencies related to storage, use,
and disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, upon compliance with all applicable laws and
regulations relating to environmental protection and the management of hazardous materials,
potential impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials
during construction and operation would be less than significant, and no further analysis in an EIR is
required.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
As described above under response ‘9.a,’ the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials
during the construction of the project would be conducted in accordance with applicable local,
State, and federal laws, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Material Management Act, and California Code of
Regulations Title 22. In addition, asbestos and lead-based paint would not be released into the
environment since there are currently no structures on the project site. However, the project site
was historically used as vineyards and residual pesticide concentrations could still be present in the
soils. Disturbance of these soils could pose hazards to receptors at adjacent land uses. Therefore,
impacts related to the release of hazardous materials would be potentially significant and will be
analyzed further in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Initial Study 43
c. 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?
Falcon Ridge Elementary School (5740 Lytle Creek Road) is located approximately 0.25-miles south
of the project site. As discussed above, the commercial and residential development under the
project would not involve the use or transport of large quantities of hazardous materials. However,
due to the potential for release of contamination during the construction period, this impact is
potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project 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?
According to the California State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker and the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control’s EnviroStor databases, there are no hazardous material
sites present within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site (SWRCB 2021; DTSC 2021). Therefore, and
the project would have no impact, and further evaluation of the project in an EIR is not required.
NO IMPACT
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
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. The nearest airport is the Ontario International
Airport located approximately 11 miles southwest of the project site. Therefore, the project would
have no impact, and further analysis in an EIR is not required.
NO IMPACT
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The project includes the construction of commercial and residential land uses and the realigned
Lytle Creek Road. 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. Furthermore, development
under the project 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 be expected to interfere with the implementation of the City’s emergency
management plans from the City’s General Plan Safety Element. Ultimately, the development of the
newly aligned Lytle Creek Road would be expected improve connectivity and emergency access for
the area. Nonetheless, this subject will be further evaluated in an EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
44
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Development on the project site would change the vacant site to developed land, eliminating the
potential for brush fires. The project site is not a designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
(VHFHSZ) or a State Responsibility Area; however, the northeastern portion of the project site is
bordered by a designated VHFHSZ. In addition, the adjacent land to the north and northeast of the
project is designated as a VHFHSZ, High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and a State Responsibility Area
(California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CAL FIRE] 2021). Based on the project’s
proximity to VHFHSZs, this impact may be potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an
EIR. Wildfire impacts are further discussed in Section 20, Wildfire.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study 45
10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality? ■ □ □ □
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin? ■ □ □ □
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; ■ □ □ □
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site; ■ □ □ □
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or ■ □ □ □
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? ■ □ □ □
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation? □ □ □ ■
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan? ■ □ □ □
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
46
Hydrologic Setting
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 included the project site (Basin Plan).
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. Water from these underground wells is pumped into
booster stations where it is blended with imported water (City of Fontana 2007).
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Construction
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).
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.
Operation
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
single-family 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, pesticides, and herbicides applied to ornamental landscaping, pet waste, trash, debris,
and sediments.
Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study 47
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 project would not violate water quality
standards or otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
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. However, this impact will be further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
The project site overlies the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin. The Groundwater Basin recharge
areas are Lytle Creek, Reche Canyon, and the Santa Ana River. 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 State Water Project). (City of Fontana 2007).
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 resources. Therefore, implementation of the project may result in a decrease of
groundwater supplies and would have potentially significant impacts, and further analysis in an EIR
is warranted.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
48
c.(i) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
c.(ii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
c.(iii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner 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?
c.(iv) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows?
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 significance criterion 10(a) 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,
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. Nonetheless, this impact will
be further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
The project site is designated Zone X on the most recent FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, indicating
an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA 2020). 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. The project site is not located in an inundation zone.
(California Department of Water Resources 2015). Therefore, the project would result in no impact,
and no further analysis in an EIR is required.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study 49
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan?
The Santa Ana Region 8 RWQCB’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 (Santa Ana
RWQCB 2019).
As discussed above in criteria ‘a,’ the project would implement on-site storage of stormwater
runoff, pursuant to the City’s 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 commercial buildings. As discussed in response (a), (b), and (c)
above, increased water demand on the project site, construction activities, and expanded
impervious surface on the campus could potentially impact water quality and groundwater supplies.
Therefore, the project could potentially conflict with existing water quality control or groundwater
management plans. The project could have potentially significant impacts, and further analysis in an
EIR is warranted.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
50
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Land Use and Planning
Initial Study 51
11 Land Use and Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community? □ □ □ ■
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? ■ □ □ □
a. Would the project physically divide an established community?
The project site is currently undeveloped but is planned for residential and commercial use under
the existing Specific Plan. The project would similarly construct residential and commercial uses. The
project site is surrounded by existing single- and multi-family residential development, and adjacent
to the SCE Transmission Line Corridor and undeveloped land. The project does not involve
construction of freeways, walls, or other features that would divide an established community.
Although the project includes the construction of the realigned Lytle Creek Road, the road would
traverse through the Specific Plan Area and therefore would not divide an established community,
but rather provide access to and through the new development. The project would have no impact,
and no further analysis in an EIR is required.
NO IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
The project includes a comprehensive Specific Plan Amendment to modify and update the overall
development plan of the existing Specific Plan to reflect current planning and market demands. The
Specific Plan Amendment would include changes to land use designations, planning areas, and other
elements within the existing Specific Plan.
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 Entertainment (MU ENT), Commercial (COM), and Open Space (OS) land use designations.
Because the project requires an amendment to existing land use plans and policies, consistency of
this requested approval with applicable City and regional land use policies will be analyzed further in
an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
52
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Mineral Resources
Initial Study 53
12 Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the State? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of the State?
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral Resources Spatial Data Mapper was used to
determine that no metallic or nonmetallic mineral resources or mining activities have been mapped
on the project area. In addition, although mining claims have been registered approximately
0.25-miles north and 0.35-miles southwest of the project area, no active mines or mining claims are
located on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site (USGS 2018). Implementation of the
project would not result in the loss of any known mineral resources. Therefore, 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 impacts would occur as a result of the project, and no further
analysis in an EIR is required.
NO IMPACT
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) was enacted to promote
conservation and protection of significant mineral deposits. SMARA requires the State to identify
and classify mineral deposits within the State as either: (1) containing little or no mineral deposits
(MRZ-1), (2) significant deposits (MRZ-2) or (3) deposits identified but further evaluation needed
(MRZ-3 and MRZ-4).
According to the California Department of Conservation, the project site and vicinity is within MRZ-3
(Shumway 1994). However, the project site is currently undeveloped, and no portion of the project
site would be used for extraction of mineral resources, nor would extraction be consistent with the
adjacent residential and commercial uses. In addition, the City of Fontana General Plan does not
identify any mineral resources in the area of the project site. Therefore, the project would have a
less than significant impact on mineral resources, and no further analysis in an EIR is required.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
54
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Noise
Initial Study 55
13 Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? ■ □ □ □
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? ■ □ □ □
c. For a project located within the vicinity of
a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
The project would develop approximately 102 acres of commercial, residential, and related
infrastructure uses, including the reconstruction of Lytle Creek Road through the site. Nearby
noise-sensitive receivers consist of existing single- and multi-family residences adjacent to the east
of the project site. Residences located across the freeway would be separated from the construction
activities at the site by at least 200 feet. Furthermore, as the residential villages are developed on
the site, residences at the site would be exposed to construction noise impacts as other nearby
planning areas are under construction. These sensitive receivers may be subject to both temporary
construction noise and long-term operational noise.
Construction
Construction activity would temporarily expose surrounding sensitive receptors (existing residential
uses) to increased noise levels. Construction noise would typically be greater during the heavier
periods of initial construction (i.e., site preparation and grading work) and would be less during the
later construction phases (i.e., building construction, architectural coating). Typical heavy
construction equipment during project grading and site preparation would include backhoes,
graders, and dozers. It is assumed that diesel engines would power the construction equipment.
Construction equipment would not all operate at the same time or in the location on the project
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
56
site. In addition, construction equipment would not be in constant use during the eight-hour
construction day.
Mobile equipment moves around the construction site with power applied in cyclic fashion, such as
bulldozers, graders, and loaders (FTA 2018). Therefore, noise impacts from construction equipment
are assessed from the center of the equipment activity area (i.e., construction site). Construction
noise at nearby sensitive receptors was modeled using the FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise
Model (RCNM). The closest sensitive receptors to project construction noise impacts would be
newly developed single-family residences immediately to the east of the project site.
Sources of construction noise could include heavy-equipment operation, pile drivers, and other
equipment associated with grading, excavation, and building construction. Trucks, haulers, and
other construction equipment traveling to and from the campus construction sites and staging areas
could increase noise levels to the point of nuisance for on-campus sensitive receptors. While
construction hours could be limited to certain times of day and days of the week, impacts are
potentially significant during construction and will be further analyzed in an EIR.
Operational Noise
Operation of the project would generate traffic-related noise associated with trips to and from the
project site, through traffic on the newly aligned Lytle Creek Road, as well as on-site noise typical of
residential, and commercials uses. Operational noise has the potential to impact nearby residences
east of the project site. Therefore, this issue will be further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
Operation of the project would not include stationary sources of significant vibration, such as heavy
equipment operations. Rather, construction activities have the greatest potential to generate
groundborne vibration affecting nearby receptors. Certain types of construction equipment can
generate high levels of groundborne vibration. Construction of the project would potentially utilize
loaded trucks, graders, and/or dozers during most construction phases. The City has not adopted
specific numerical standards for vibration impacts during construction. Therefore, Caltrans
Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (2020) was referenced to evaluate
potential construction vibration impacts related to both potential building damage and human
annoyance. Based on the Caltrans criteria, construction vibration impacts would be significant if
vibration levels exceed 0.5 in./sec. PPV for residential structures and 2.0 in./sec. PPV for industrial
and commercial structures, which is the limit where minor cosmetic, i.e., non-structural, damage
may occur to these buildings. In addition, construction vibration impacts would cause human
annoyance at nearby receivers if vibration levels exceed 0.24 in./sec. PPV, which is the limit above
which temporary vibration activities become distinctly perceptible.
Because groundborne vibration could cause physical damage to structures and is measured in an
instantaneous period, vibration impacts were modeled based on the distance from the location of
vibration-intensive construction activities, conservatively assumed to be at edge of the project site,
to the edge of nearby off-site structures. Therefore, the analysis of groundborne vibrations differs
from the analysis of construction noise levels in that modeled distances for vibration impacts are
those distances between the project site to nearest off-site structures (regardless of sensitivity)
Environmental Checklist Noise
Initial Study 57
whereas modeled distances for construction noise impacts are based on the property line of the
nearest off-site sensitive receptors.
Construction activities known to generate excessive ground-borne vibration include pile driving. It is
unknown at this stage of planning if pile driving would be required to drive foundation piles into the
ground for any projects that would occur under the LRDP. This analysis conservatively assumes
project implementation would involve use of impact pile drivers for more than one location. The
upper range for an impact pile driver would create approximately 1.518 in/sec PPV at 25 feet
(FTA 2018). If conservative estimated distances from project construction to existing buildings, a pile
driver may be used within 50 feet of those structures. This would equal a vibration level of 0.7086
in/sec PPV at the nearest buildings, which would exceed the distinctly perceptible impact for
humans of 0.24 in/sec PPV. Furthermore, sensitive collections or specimens could be damaged and
older buildings could incur damage from the vibration. The distance to which an impact pile driver
would exceed 0.2 in/sec PPV would be approximately 160 feet. Therefore, if an impact pile driver is
used within 160 feet of the nearest building, impacts from vibration would be potentially significant
and detailed technical analysis in an EIR is warranted.
Another potential source of substantial vibration during general project construction activities
would come from a vibratory roller, which would be used during paving activities and may be
deployed within 50 feet of the nearest buildings. A vibratory roller would create approximately
0.210 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet (FTA 2018). This would equal a vibration level of 0.098
in/sec PPV at a distance of 50 feet. As it is unknown if vibratory rollers would be needed for the
project at this stage of planning, conservative estimates indicate impacts could be potentially
significant and will be further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
The nearest airports are Ontario International, approximately 10.7 miles southwest of the project
site, and San Bernardino International approximately 12.9 miles southeast of the project site. The
project would not be situated within two miles of a public airport, public use airport, or an airport
land use plan area. Therefore, the project would not result in any impacts from exposure to
excessive noise levels generated by airports or private airstrips. No impacts are anticipated and
further analysis in an EIR is not required.
NO IMPACT
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
58
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Population and Housing
Initial Study 59
14 Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? ■ □ □ □
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The project would construct 1,671 residential units in the City of Fontana. According to the
California DOF, the City of Fontana has a current population of 213,944 with an average household
size of 4.02 (DOF 2021). Based on the average household size of 4.02, the increase of 1,671
residential units would potentially add an estimated 6,7173 residents to the City.
SCAG forecasts the population of Fontana will increase to approximately 286,700 residents by the
year 2045, which is an increase of approximately 72,756 persons from the current population
(SCAG 2020). The level of population growth associated with the project (6,717 residents) would not
exceed SCAG’s regional population projections, and the project would not directly or indirectly
induce substantial unplanned population growth. The project would account for approximately
eight percent of the City’s projected population growth through year 2045. However, the project
would exceed the growth anticipated in the existing Specific Plan which proposed the development
of 842 residential units. This is an increase of 829 units, and represents an increase of 98 percent, or
nearly double the residential units. The additional units under the project 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). Therefore, impacts relating to substantial unplanned population growth
could be potentially significant and will be further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
3 1,671 units x 4.02 persons per unit
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
60
b. Would the project 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. The project would construct 1,671 residential units. Implementation of the project
would not displace any housing, and the project would not necessitate the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere since the project would have the overall effect of adding to the
housing supply in the City. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the project, and no
further analysis in an EIR is required.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Public Services
Initial Study 61
15 Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, or the need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
1 Fire protection? ■ □ □ □
2 Police protection? ■ □ □ □
3 Schools? ■ □ □ □
4 Parks? ■ □ □ □
5 Other public facilities? ■ □ □ □
a.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?
Fire protection services are provided by the San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD) which
operates seven fire stations within the City. The nearest fire station to the project site is Station 79
located approximately 0.1 miles west of the project site, at 4075 Coyote Canyon Road, Fontana.
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 project would be located within the existing service area of SBCFD. The project would
incrementally increase the service population of the SBCFD by adding 1,671 dwelling units to the
project area. The project would also add new commercial uses, thereby increasing the incremental
demand for fire service. 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.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
62
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 permit. Fees paid by the project would be used
solely for the construction or reimbursement for construction of public safety improvements
identified by 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. Impacts to fire protection services will be further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.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?
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. Based on the 2019 population of Fontana, the FPD maintains a staffing ratio of
nine officers per 10,000 residents.
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 may contribute incrementally to demand for new or expanded police
protection facilities. As discussed above in criteria ‘a.1,’ the project would be required to pay public
safety program fees. Furthermore, any expanded or new police facilities would be required to
undergo the appropriate level of environmental review. Impacts to police protection services will be
further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.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?
The project site is in the Fontana Unified School District (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.). As part of the City’s permitting process, a school fee will be paid to
the Fontana Unified School District prior to City’s issuance of building permits.
The project would result in a population increase of approximately 6,717 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.
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
Environmental Checklist Public Services
Initial Study 63
district, would address school capacity impacts. Based on State law, impacts to school capacity
would be less than significant under CEQA because the applicant would be required to pay
State-mandated school impact developer fees.
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. Nevertheless, impacts to schools will be further
evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered parks, public facilities, 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?
The project would develop 1,671 dwelling units, in addition to new commercial uses.
The project would add approximately 6,717 residents to the City, thereby creating a demand for
recreation and park facilities. The need for recreation facilities will be somewhat offset by the
provision of on-site facilities such as pools, play areas and sport courts. Future parkland expansion
projects would be required to undergo the appropriate level of project-specific environmental
review and mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts, as necessary. Impacts will be
further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of other 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?
The Fontana Public Library is located approximately 4.43 miles south of the project site. The project
would develop up to 1,671 new dwelling units, which would incrementally increase the service
population of the Fontana Public Library. Impacts will be further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
64
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Recreation
Initial Study 65
16 Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated? ■ □ □ □
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? ■ □ □ □
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
Recreational amenities in Fontana include 34 parks, totaling 1,196 acres of parkland (City of Fontana
2018). According to the DOF, there are an estimated 213,944 residents in the City of Fontana (DOF
2021). With the 1,196 acres of public parkland in the city, there are approximately 5.6 acres of
parkland per 1,000 residents. Chapter 7, Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails, in the General
Plan establishes a citywide parkland level of service goal of five acres of public parkland per 1,000
residents. The project would add approximately 6,717 residents to the city and would increase the
population to approximately 220,661 residents, resulting in approximately 5.4 acres of parkland per
1,000 residents. In addition, the project would include the construction of various recreational
facilities, including three recreation centers and swimming pools within Planning Areas 1, 2, and 4,
and 0.5 acre of open space at the southwestern tip of the project site. However, the city would not
meet the standard of 5.5 acres per 1,000 residents. Impacts will be further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The project includes the construction of various recreational facilities including three recreation
centers and swimming pools, which would be located in Planning Areas 1, 2, and 4. These facilities
are expected to serve some of the recreational needs of the residents onsite and would not have an
adverse physical effect on the environment. However, as discussed above in response ‘16.a,’ the
project would not meet the standard of 5.5 acres per 1,000 residents and thus, may require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Impacts will be further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
66
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Transportation
Initial Study 67
17 Transportation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities? ■ □ □ □
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)? ■ □ □ □
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? □ □ ■ □
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
The project would generate short-term traffic during construction, and long-term traffic during the
operational life of the project. A comprehensive traffic study will be prepared for the project;
however, capacity impacts/level of service of are no longer a consideration under CEQA but may still
be considered by the County as part of the project review process outside of CEQA. Potential
conflicts with programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system will be
further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
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 shifts 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. Vehicle miles traveled (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. An assessment of the project’s VMT
characteristics will be further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
68
c. 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)?
The project area is accessible through two primary roads, Duncan Canyon Road and Citrus Avenue,
and a collector road, Lytle Creek Road. Duncan Canyon Road connects the site to the adjacent
interstate highway. Citrus Avenue connects the site to the greater part of the City of Fontana. The
collector road, Lytle Creek Road, runs diagonally through the Specific Plan area and offers improved
internal connection from the primary roads to each of the individual planning areas. Project site
plans indicate the provision of on-site streets and drive aisles to accommodate vehicular access to
and circulation throughout the entire project site.
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, the project would have a less than significant impact on
roadways and roadway hazards, and further analysis in an EIR is not required.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
The project would not involve off-site improvements to travel lanes of public streets or modify any
existing emergency access route in a way that would result in inadequate emergency access. Vehicle
circulation on the project site would provide adequate width and turn radius for emergency
vehicles, and project site plans would be reviewed and approved by FFD prior to construction.
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. Therefore, the project’s
potential impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant, and further analysis in
an EIR is not required.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Tribal Cultural Resources
Initial Study 69
18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in a PRC Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
PRC Section 5020.1(k), or ■ □ □ □
b. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of 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. ■ □ □ □
a. 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)?
The project has the potential to impact tribal cultural resources, if present, during site clearance and
earthmoving activities. Tribes with possible cultural affiliation and interest within the project area
will be notified pursuant to the requirements of Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18, and
consultation with the potentially affected Tribes will occur, as appropriate, between the city and the
Tribes. Potential impacts will be further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. 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? 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.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
70
As discussed above under response ‘18.a,’ the project has the potential to impact tribal cultural
resources, if present, during site clearance and earthmoving activities. Consultation with the
potentially affected Tribes will occur, as appropriate, between Fontana and the Tribes. Potential
impacts will be further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Utilities and Service Systems
Initial Study 71
19 Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects? ■ □ □ □
b. Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years? ■ □ □ □
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments? ■ □ □ □
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals? ■ □ □ □
e. Comply with federal, State, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? ■ □ □ □
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves
or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand
in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Project development would be adjacent to existing development and would connect to existing
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities and infrastructure. However, the population growth would result in an associated increase
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
72
in demand on existing infrastructure, which may result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities. Therefore, the project may have a potentially significant impact, and
further technical analysis in an EIR is warranted.
Water
Potable water service for the Specific Plan area would be provided by West San Bernardino County
Water District (West Valley Water District). Duncan Canyon Road and Citrus Avenue south of
Duncan Canyon Road have existing water infrastructure. Planned water infrastructure on Citrus Ave
is anticipated to be completed as part of the Monterado development. A new water main line would
follow the alignment of Lytle Creek Road. North of Duncan Canyon Road the main line would create
a loop connection with the planned infrastructure in Citrus Avenue. To the south of Duncan Canyon
Road, the main line would connect to an existing line along I-15 at the southern edge of the Plan
area, and laterals provided to each planning area as needed.
The water purveyor will be contacted before completion of the EIR to confirm that water is
available, and the project would not require any new additional facilities not previously considered.
Improvements would be installed during project construction and within the project site; therefore,
the construction would not increase the project’s disturbance area or substantially increase
emissions above the direct impacts of the project. Therefore, impacts with respect to new or
expanded water facilities would be potentially significant, and further analysis in an EIR is required.
Wastewater Treatment
Sewer service for the project area would be 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 nearby cities. 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 Plan area. Points of Connection (POC) will be provided to each
planning area, as needed. Wastewater treatment facilities operated by the City of Fontana and San
Bernardino County Water Sanitation District (SBCSD) would treat wastewater generated by the
project. The project would be responsible for constructing on-site wastewater collection systems
and paying standard sewer connection fees to the City of Fontana and SBCSD. The project would
involve an increase in the demand for wastewater treatment compared to the existing Specific Plan
due to the increase in residential dwelling units. Impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity
will be further evaluated in an EIR.
Stormwater Drainage
Drainage of the project area is expected to generally follow the existing on-site drainage pattern,
flowing from the northeast to the southwest. 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.
Environmental Checklist Utilities and Service Systems
Initial Study 73
Development under the Specific Plan Amendment is required to obtain NPDES coverage, which
ensure that a State’s mandatory standards for clean water and the federal minimums are being met.
Projects that disturb one acre or more of land must comply with construction and post-construction
requirements detailed in the applicable NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges
Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities.
The project would increase impervious surfaces over the project site due to construction of
structures, hardscaped open space, and on-site pedestrian and vehicle circulation. Consequently,
the project would reduce infiltration potential and increase surface runoff on the project site.
Pursuant to City Low Impact Development (LID) requirements and the applicable MS4 permit, the
project would be required to capture and treat runoff from the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm
event. As part of the project’s final design review, the project would be required to submit a LID
plan demonstrating adequate stormwater retention using infiltration basins, bioretention areas,
capture and use, or other BMPs to the maximum extent practicable. Such BMPs would slow the
velocity of water, thereby minimizing the potential for exceedances of stormwater drainage system
capacity. Given that stormwater conveyance would be constructed to not exceed the flow rate of
the existing condition, impacts related to new or expanded stormwater facilities as a result of the
project would be less than significant, and no further analysis in an EIR is required.
Electric Power & Natural Gas
Electric service for the Specific Plan area would be provided by SCE through existing transmission
lines. SCE maintains substations and transmission lines throughout southern California.
Natural gas service for the Specific Plan area would be provided by SoCal Gas through the existing
lines within the right-of-way of Duncan Canyon Road. SCG provides natural gas service to
approximately six million residential and business customers across 20,000 square miles of southern
California, including Fontana and the project site (SCG 2019).
As discussed in Section 6, Energy, the project would increase electricity and natural gas demand;
however, this increase would not be considered a wasteful use of energy and is not anticipated to
require additional electricity substations or natural gas storage/transmission facilities. Both SCE and
SCG have indicated an ability to service the Specific Plan area based on preliminary review of the
project. These services will be confirmed prior to the completion of the EIR. Therefore, impacts with
respect to new or expanded electric power or natural gas facilities would be less than significant.
Further analysis is warranted in the EIR.
Telecommunications
Cable, telephone, and internet services within the City of Fontana are currently provided by AT&T.
The project would not involve any components requiring telecommunications infrastructure and
would not involve the relocation of existing telecommunications facilities. Existing
telecommunications infrastructure would serve the needs of project residents. These services will
be confirmed prior to the completion of the EIR. Therefore, impact related to telecommunications
facilities would be less than significant, and further analysis in an EIR is required.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
74
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Future development under the project would require water service from the West Valley Water
District. The project would involve an increase in the demand for water use compared to the
existing Specific Plan due to the increase in residential dwelling units. Water supply for the project
during normal, dry and multiple dry years will be further evaluated in the EIR based on a
project-specific water supply assessment.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
e. Would the project comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
Construction and operation of the project would generate solid waste. Waste and recycling services
to Plan area would be provided by Burrtec Waste Industries. The company’s service base includes
over 150,000 residential customers and more than 16,000 commercial customers throughout
Riverside, San Bernardino and Los Angeles counties. Burrtec operates five satellite hauling facilities
and three satellite Material Recovery Facilities/Transfer Stations, with its corporate headquarters
located in the City of Fontana. Collected solid wastes from Fontana are brought to the West Valley
Material Recovery Facility (MRF), located at 13373 Napa Street, west of the City of Fontana. This
MRF is permitted to accept 5,000 tons per day of municipal solid wastes and mixed recyclables.
Refuse from the MRF is brought to the Mid-Valley Landfill, located at 2390 North Alder Avenue in
the City of Rialto (City of Fontana 2007).
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. In accordance with 2016 CALGreen requirements, the project would be required to
achieve a minimum of 65 percent diversion rate for construction waste. For operational waste,
AB 939 requires all cities and counties to divert a minimum of 50 percent of all solid waste from
landfills. Impacts related to solid waste will be further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Wildfire
Initial Study 75
20 Wildfire
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? □ □ ■ □
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? ■ □ □ □
c. Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment? ■ □ □ □
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslopes or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes? ■ □ □ □
As discussed in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is not a designated Very
High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) or a State Responsibility Area. However, the adjacent land
to the north and northeast is designated as a VHFHSZ, High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and a State
Responsibility Area. In addition, adjacent land to the east of the project site is designated as a
VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE 2021).
a. If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
As discussed under response ‘9.f,’ project construction and operational activities would not result in
any street closures that could impede emergency access or evacuation. Furthermore, development
under the project 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 substantially impair the emergency management plans from the City’s
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
76
General Plan Safety Element. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact, and
further analysis in an EIR is not required.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Chapter 11, Noise and Safety, of the City’s General Plan states that single- and multi-family dwellings
located within Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) have a greater potential of being impacted by
wildfires because the structures are the least fire resistive 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 extremely lightweight. Based on the
project’s proximity to single- and multi-family dwellings within FHSZs and the project’s medium- and
high-density residential developments, impacts may be potentially significant and will be analyzed
further in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure
(such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
The project includes the construction of the realigned 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. In addition, 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. The construction of the realigned Lytle Creek Road, new water main line, planned water
infrastructure, and extension of dry utilities have the potential to result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment. Therefore, impacts may be potentially significant and will be analyzed
further in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist Wildfire
Initial Study 77
d. If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes
or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or
drainage changes?
The project site is designated as an area of minimal flood hazard in the Federal Emergency
Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Map (FEMA 2020). In addition, 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 LHMP 2017). Due to the project’s location adjacent to a
VHFHZ and its susceptibility to landslides, this impact may be potentially significant and will be
analyzed further in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
78
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist Mandatory Findings of Significance
Initial Study 79
21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Does the project:
a. Have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory? ■ □ □ □
b. Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)? ■ □ □ □
c. Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly? ■ □ ■ □
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, the project would not substantially degrade the
quality of the environment related to fish and wildlife species, habitat and populations or range.
Potential impacts to historical and prehistorical resources will be further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
80
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
The project has the potential to contribute to cumulatively significant aesthetics, air quality, cultural
resources, tribal cultural resources, GHG emissions, and traffic impacts. Such impacts could occur
during the construction phases and/or as a result of project operation. The EIR will evaluate the
project’s contribution to cumulative impacts on these and other topics.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The project has the potential to contribute to cumulatively significant aesthetics, air quality, cultural
resources, tribal cultural resources, GHG emissions, and traffic impacts. Such impacts could occur
during the construction phases and/or as a result of project operation. The EIR will evaluate the
project’s contribution to cumulative impacts on these and other topics.
The project could result in long-term air pollutant emissions or noise sources that would adversely
affect nearby sensitive receptors. Short-term construction activities could result in temporary
increases in pollutant concentrations and potentially significant off-site noise impacts. Pollutants of
primary concern commonly associated with construction-related activities include toxic air
contaminants gaseous emissions of criteria pollutants, and fugitive dust. Human health impacts
from the short-term and long-term cumulative contribution to air quality impacts from project
construction will be further evaluated in an EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
References
Initial Study 81
References
Bibliography
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2018. CA-GREET 3.0 Supplemental Document and Tables of
Changes. Fuel Specifications, Table 22. Available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/ca-
greet/cagreet_supp_doc_clean.pdf. Accessed September 2020.
______. 2020. “California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory – 2020 Edition. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data. Accessed February 2021.
California Code of Regulations (CCR). 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards - Reference Ace v22:
Section 1501.1 – Performance and Prescriptive Compliance Approaches for Low Rise
Residential Buildings. Available at:
https://energycodeace.com/site/custom/public/reference-ace-
2019/index.html#!Documents/section1501performanceandprescriptivecomplianceapproac
hesforlowr.htm. Accessed February 2021.
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Available
at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed February 2021.
______. 2018. DOC Maps: Geologic Hazards. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/geologichazards/#webmaps. Accessed February 2021.
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2020. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State, 2011-2020 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/. Accessed February
2021.
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 Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2021. EnviroStor. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed February 2021.
City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). 2017. Available at:
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-
Plan. Accessed February 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 February 2021.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018a. Toward A Clean Energy Future, 2018 Integrated Energy
Policy Report Update Volume II.
______. 2018b. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Available at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
06/Title24_2019_Standards_detailed_faq_ada.pdf. Accessed February 2021.
______. 2020a. Electricity Consumption by Entity. Available at:
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx. Accessed February 2021.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
82
______. 2020b. Electricity Consumption by County. Available at:
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. Accessed February 2021.
______. 2020c. Gas Consumption by Entity. Available at: http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx.
Accessed February 2021.
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 February 2021.
Fontana, City of. 2018. General Plan. Available at: https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-
Update-2015---2035. Accessed February 2021.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate
Change 2014, Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R.
Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner,
P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C.
Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,
USA.
Shumway, D.O. 1994. Mineral Land Classification of a Part of Southwestern San Bernardino County:
the San Bernardino Valley Area, California. Open File Report 94-08. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc.
Accessed February 2021.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April
1993.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. 2020 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Demographics & Growth Forecast
Appendix. Available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579.
Accessed February 2021.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2021. GeoTracker. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed February 2021.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2020. California Profile Overview. Available at:
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2. Accessed February 2021.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2021. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2019. USEPA #430-R-20-002. April 2020. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/draft-inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-
sinks-1990-2019. Accessed February 2021.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020a. National Wetlands Inventory. Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed February 2021.
______. 2020b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental Conservation Online System. Available
at:
https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe0989
3cf75b8dbfb77. Accessed February 2021.
References
Initial Study 83
U.S. Geological Survey. 2018 (USGS). Mineral Resources Online Spatial Data. Available at:
https://mrdata.usgs.gov/general/map-us.html#home. Accessed February 2021.
City of Fontana Ventana at Duncan Canyon Specific Plan Amendment
84
Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this Initial Study under contract to the City of Fontana. Persons
involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control are listed below.
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Deanna Hansen, Principal
Christine Donoghue, Project Manager
Shannon McAlpine, Environmental Planner
Destiny Timms, Environmental Planner
Rachel Irvine, Environmental Planner
Dario Campos, Production Specialist