HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
DOWNTOWN CORE PROJECT
(SCH: 2022110624)
MAY 2023
Prepared for:
City of Fontana
Planning Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Prepared by:
De Novo Planning Group
180 East Main Street, Suite 108
Tustin, CA 92780
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A L a n d U s e P l a n n i n g , D e s i g n , a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l F i r m
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
DOWNTOWN CORE PROJECT
(SCH: 2022110624)
MAY 2023
Prepared for:
City of Fontana
Planning Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
arico@fontana.org
909-350-6558
Prepared by:
De Novo Planning Group
180 East Main Street, Suite 108
Tustin, CA 92780
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 TOC-1 Table of Contents
Chapter Page Number
1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Project Location ......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Project Background .................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Project Objectives ...................................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Project Characteristics ............................................................................................... 1-3
1.5 Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 1-6
1.6 Summary of Project Alternatives ............................................................................... 1-8
1.7 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................ 1-9
2.0 Introduction and Purpose ....................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Purpose of the EIR ...................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Compliance with CEQA .............................................................................................. 2-2
2.3 EIR Scoping Process .................................................................................................... 2-2
2.4 Format of the EIR ....................................................................................................... 2-3
2.5 Incorporation by Reference ....................................................................................... 2-4
3.0 Project Description .................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Project Location ......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................... 3-1
3.3 Project Background .................................................................................................... 3-9
3.4 Project Characteristics ............................................................................................... 3-9
3.5 Approach to the Analysis ......................................................................................... 3-15
3.6 Statement of Project Objectives .............................................................................. 3-15
3.7 Required Agency Approvals and Use of the EIR ...................................................... 3-16
4.0 Basis of Cumulative Analysis ................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Cumulative Analysis in this EIR .................................................................................. 4-2
5.0 Environmental Analysis ........................................................................................................ 5.0-1
5.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................. 5.1-1
5.1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................ 5.1-1
5.1.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 5.1-2
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 TOC-2 Table of Contents
5.1.3 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................ 5.1-3
5.1.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds .................................................................... 5.1-5
5.1.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................................... 5.1-8
5.1.6 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................... 5.1-11
5.1.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ........................................................................ 5.1-12
5.1.8 References ......................................................................................................... 5.1-12
5.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 5.2-1
5.2.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................ 5.2-1
5.2.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 5.2-1
5.2.3 Regulatory Setting .............................................................................................. 5.2-11
5.2.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds .................................................................. 5.2-20
5.2.5 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 5.2-22
5.2.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................................... 5.2-24
5.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................... 5.2-41
5.2.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ........................................................................ 5.2-43
5.2.9 References ......................................................................................................... 5.2-43
5.3 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. 5.3-1
5.3.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................ 5.3-1
5.3.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 5.3-2
5.3.3 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................ 5.3-4
5.3.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds .................................................................... 5.3-9
5.3.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................................... 5.3-10
5.3.6 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................... 5.3-13
5.3.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ........................................................................ 5.3-14
5.3.8 References ......................................................................................................... 5.3-14
5.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................... 5.4-1
5.4.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................ 5.4-1
5.4.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 5.4-1
5.4.3 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................ 5.4-6
5.4.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds .................................................................. 5.4-10
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 TOC-3 Table of Contents
5.4.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................................... 5.4-12
5.4.6 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................... 5.4-16
5.4.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ........................................................................ 5.4-16
5.4.8 References ......................................................................................................... 5.4-16
5.5 Energy ................................................................................................................................ 5.5-1
5.5.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................ 5.5-1
5.5.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 5.5-1
5.5.3 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................ 5.5-2
5.5.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds .................................................................... 5.5-9
5.5.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................................... 5.5-9
5.5.6 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................... 5.5-13
5.5.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ........................................................................ 5.5-13
5.5.8 References ......................................................................................................... 5.5-13
5.6 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................. 5.6-1
5.6.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................ 5.6-1
5.6.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 5.6-1
5.6.3 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................ 5.6-6
5.6.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds .................................................................... 5.6-9
5.6.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................................... 5.6-10
5.6.6 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................... 5.6-15
5.6.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ........................................................................ 5.6-16
5.6.8 References ......................................................................................................... 5.6-16
5.7 Greenhouse Gases Emissions............................................................................................... 5.7-1
5.7.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................ 5.7-1
5.7.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 5.7-1
5.7.3 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................ 5.7-5
5.7.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds .................................................................. 5.7-18
5.7.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................................... 5.7-22
5.7.6 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................... 5.7-33
5.7.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ........................................................................ 5.7-33
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 TOC-4 Table of Contents
5.7.8 References ......................................................................................................... 5.7-34
5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................... 5.8-1
5.8.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................ 5.8-1
5.8.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 5.8-1
5.8.3 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................ 5.8-5
5.8.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds .................................................................. 5.8-10
5.8.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................................... 5.8-11
5.8.6 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................... 5.8-17
5.8.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ........................................................................ 5.8-17
5.8.8 References ......................................................................................................... 5.8-18
5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................................. 5.9-1
5.9.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................ 5.9-1
5.9.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 5.9-1
5.9.3 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................ 5.9-3
5.9.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds .................................................................. 5.9-10
5.9.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................................... 5.9-11
5.9.6 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................... 5.9-16
5.9.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ........................................................................ 5.9-16
5.9.8 References ......................................................................................................... 5.9-16
5.10 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................................... 5.10-1
5.10.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................ 5.10-1
5.10.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 5.10-1
5.10.3 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................ 5.10-3
5.10.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds ................................................................ 5.10-7
5.10.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................... 5.10-8
5.10.6 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 5.10-23
5.10.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .................................................................... 5.10-23
5.10.8 References ..................................................................................................... 5.10-23
5.11 Noise .............................................................................................................................. 5.11-1
5.11.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................ 5.11-1
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 TOC-5 Table of Contents
5.11.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 5.11-1
5.11.3 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................... 5.11-12
5.11.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds .............................................................. 5.11-16
5.11.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................. 5.11-17
5.11.6 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 5.11-27
5.11.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .................................................................... 5.11-29
5.11.8 References ..................................................................................................... 5.11-29
5.12 Population and Housing ................................................................................................... 5.12-1
5.12.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................ 5.12-1
5.12.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 5.12-1
5.12.3 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................ 5.12-3
5.12.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds ................................................................ 5.12-8
5.12.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................... 5.12-9
5.12.6 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 5.12-11
5.12.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .................................................................... 5.12-11
5.12.8 References ..................................................................................................... 5.12-11
5.13 Public Services and Recreation ........................................................................................ 5.13-1
5.13.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................ 5.13-1
5.13.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 5.13-1
5.13.3 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................ 5.13-3
5.13.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds ................................................................ 5.13-7
5.13.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................... 5.13-8
5.13.6 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 5.13-15
5.13.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .................................................................... 5.13-15
5.13.8 References ..................................................................................................... 5.13-15
5.14 Transportation ................................................................................................................. 5.14-1
5.14.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................ 5.14-1
5.14.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 5.14-1
5.14.3 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................ 5.14-4
5.14.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds .............................................................. 5.14-12
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 TOC-6 Table of Contents
5.14.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................. 5.14-13
5.14.6 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 5.14-18
5.14.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .................................................................... 5.14-20
5.14.8 References ..................................................................................................... 5.14-20
5.15 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. 5.15-1
5.15.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................ 5.15-1
5.15.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 5.15-1
5.15.3 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................ 5.15-3
5.15.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds ................................................................ 5.15-8
5.15.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................... 5.15-9
5.15.6 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 5.15-11
5.15.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .................................................................... 5.15-11
5.15.8 References ..................................................................................................... 5.15-11
5.16 Utilities and Services Systems .......................................................................................... 5.16-1
5.16.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................ 5.16-1
5.16.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................... 5.16-1
5.16.3 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................ 5.16-4
5.16.4 Significance Criteria and Thresholds .............................................................. 5.16-11
5.16.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................. 5.16-12
5.16.6 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 5.16-18
5.16.7 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .................................................................... 5.16-20
5.16.8 References ..................................................................................................... 5.16-20
6.0 Other CEQA Considerations .................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Caused by the
Proposed Project Should it be Implemented ................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project ................................................... 6-3
7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project ...................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Alternatives Considered in this EIR ............................................................................ 7-1
7.3 Environmental Analysis .............................................................................................. 7-4
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 TOC-7 Table of Contents
8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant ........................................................................................ 8-1
8.1 References ................................................................................................................. 8-6
9.0 Report Preparers ..................................................................................................................... 9-1
Table Page Number
Table 1-1: Proposed Project Development Potential .......................................................... 1-6
Table 1-2: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................... 1-11
Table 3-1: Summary of Existing On-Site Development ........................................................ 3-2
Table 3-2: Proposed Project Development Potential ........................................................ 3-14
Table 4-1: San Bernardino County Growth Projections ....................................................... 4-3
Table 4-2: City of Fontana Growth Projections.................................................................... 4-4
Table 5.2-1: Meteorological Summary ................................................................................ 5.2-2
Table 5.2-2: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ......................................................... 5.2-7
Table 5.2-3: Local Area Air Quality Levels .......................................................................... 5.2-10
Table 5.2-4: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds ........... 5.2-20
Table 5.2-5: Local Significance Thresholds (Construction/Operations) ............................. 5.2-21
Table 5.2-6: Unmitigated Construction-Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day) . 5.2-28
Table 5.2-7: Mitigated Construction-Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day) ..... 5.2-29
Table 5.2-8: Operational-Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day) ........................ 5.2-30
Table 5.2-9: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions (Maximum Pounds per Day)
....................................................................................................................... 5.2-37
Table 5.2-10: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions (Maximum Pounds per Day)
....................................................................................................................... 5.2-38
Table 5.3-1: Special-Status Plants and Animals – One-Mile Search .................................... 5.3-3
Table 5.4-1: Designated Local Historic Resources Within the Project Area ........................ 5.4-6
Table 5.5-1: Project Operational Natural Gas and Electricity Usage ................................. 5.5-10
Table 5.5-2: On-Road Mobile Fuel Generated by Project Construction Activities – By Phase
....................................................................................................................... 5.5-11
Table 5.6-1: Likelihood of Having One or More Earthquakes by Size in the Next 30 Years
(Starting from 2014) ........................................................................................ 5.6-3
Table 5.7-1: Construction GHG Emissions (Metric Tons/Year) .......................................... 5.7-22
Table 5.7-2: Operational GHG Emissions 2040 (Metric Tons/Year)................................... 5.7-23
Table 5.7-3: Project Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan ........................................... 5.7-25
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 TOC-8 Table of Contents
Table 5.7-4: Project Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS ......................................... 5.7-29
Table 5.10-1: General Plan Consistency............................................................................. 5.10-10
Table 5.11-1: Decibel Addition ............................................................................................. 5.11-2
Table 5.11-2: Typical Noise Levels ....................................................................................... 5.11-2
Table 5.11-3: Perceived Changes in Noise Levels ................................................................ 5.11-3
Table 5.11-4: Noise Reduction Afforded by Common Building Construction ..................... 5.11-6
Table 5.11-5: Typical Human Reaction and Effect on Buildings Due to Ground-Borne
Vibration ........................................................................................................ 5.11-7
Table 5.11-6: Short-Term Noise Measurement Summary ................................................... 5.11-9
Table 5.11-7: Long-Term Noise Measurement Summary .................................................. 5.11-10
Table 5.11-8: Existing Exterior Noise Levels Along Roadways ........................................... 5.11-11
Table 5.11-9: FHWA Design Noise Levels ........................................................................... 5.11-13
Table 5.11-10: 2040 Future Traffic Noise Levels with Downtown Core Project (dBA, CNEL)
..................................................................................................................... 5.11-19
Table 5.11-11: Change in Traffic Noise Along Project Area Roadways (dBA, CNEL at 50 feet)
..................................................................................................................... 5.11-21
Table 5.11-12: Typical Construction Noise Levels................................................................ 5.11-23
Table 5.11-13: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment.................................. 5.11-26
Table 5.11-14: Human Response to Transient Vibration ..................................................... 5.11-27
Table 5.11-15: Change in Traffic Noise With and Without Proposed Project (dBA, CNEL at 50
feet) .............................................................................................................. 5.11-28
Table 5.12-1: Historic Population Trends (2010 – 2020) ..................................................... 5.12-1
Table 5.12-2: SCAG Growth Forecasts (2016-2045) ............................................................ 5.12-2
Table 5.12-3: Existing Housing Supply Mix .......................................................................... 5.12-2
Table 5.12-4: Labor Force Participation and Unemployment ............................................. 5.12-3
Table 5.12-5: Fontana 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation ................................. 5.12-4
Table 5.13-1: Fontana Unified School District Existing School Capacity .............................. 5.13-3
Table 5.13-2: Fontana Unified School District Student Generation Rates ......................... 5.13-11
Table 5.13-3: Required Parkland Dedication ..................................................................... 5.13-14
Table 5.14-1: Existing Omnitrans Fixed-Route System ........................................................ 5.14-3
Table 5.14-2: Project Area VMT ......................................................................................... 5.14-15
Table 5.14-3: VMT Within the Fontana City Boundary ...................................................... 5.14-19
Table 5.16-1: FWC Service Reliability Assessment for Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry
Years ............................................................................................................... 5.16-2
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 TOC-9 Table of Contents
Table 7-1: Growth Projections by Alternative (2040) .......................................................... 7-4
Table 7-2: Alternative 1: No Project/Existing General Plan Compared to the Proposed
Project ................................................................................................................ 7-5
Table 7-3: Alternative 2: Reduced Growth Alternative Compared to the Proposed
Table 7-4: Comparison of Alternatives .............................................................................. 7-27
Figure Page Number
Figure 3-1: Regional Vicinity Map ......................................................................................... 3-3
Figure 3-2: Downtown Core Project Area ............................................................................. 3-4
Figure 3-3: Hierarchy of Streets ............................................................................................ 3-5
Figure 3-4: Downtown Area Plan .......................................................................................... 3-6
Figure 3-5: Existing General Plan Land Use Categories ......................................................... 3-7
Figure 3-6: Existing FBC Zoning Districts ............................................................................... 3-8
Figure 3-7: Proposed Land Use Categories ......................................................................... 3-11
Figure 3-8: Proposed FBC Districts ...................................................................................... 3-12
Figure 5.1-1: Project Area and Transit Priority Areas ........................................................... 5.1-7
Figure 5.11-1: Noise Measurement Location Map ............................................................. 5.11-30
Figure 5.11-2: Existing Roadway Noise Level Contours ...................................................... 5.11-31
Figure 5.11-3: 2040 Future Noise Contours with Project ................................................... 5.11-33
Appendices
Appendix A – Notice of Preparation
Appendix B – Notice of Preparation Comment Letters
Appendix C – Air Quality, Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Data
Appendix D – Noise Study
Appendix E – Transportation Analysis
Appendix F – Tribal Consultation/Correspondence
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 TOC-10 Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-1 Executive Summary
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
Located in southern San Bernardino County approximately 50 miles east of the City of Los Angeles,
Fontana is a rapidly growing urban community encompassing 52 square miles, including the City’s Sphere
of Influence (SOI). Fontana is in a valley and is adjacent to three major transportation corridors, including
Interstates 10 and 15 and State Route 210. Surrounding communities are the cities of Rancho Cucamonga
and Ontario to the west, the city of Rialto and the unincorporated community of Bloomington to the east,
the city of Jurupa Valley to the south, and the San Gabriel Mountains and San Bernardino National Forest
to the north. Figure 3-1, Regional Vicinity Map, shows the location of Fontana in relation to the region.
The proposed Project Area encompasses approximately 478 acres bounded by Foothill Boulevard on the
north, Randall Avenue on the south, Juniper Avenue on the west, and Mango Avenue on the east, as
shown in Figure 3-2, Downtown Core Project Area.
1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The City of Fontana adopted the "Fontana Forward" 2015-2035 General Plan update in 2018. As part of
that update, the City Council approved Chapter 14, Downtown Area Plan. The goal of Chapter 14,
Downtown Area Plan is to create a vibrant, walkable, mixed-use area with high quality housing and retail
options. The FBC (Municipal Code Chapter 30, Article III) was created and adopted in 2019 as part of the
Zoning and Development Code to implement Chapter 14, Downtown Area Plan. The City is seeking to
improve the FBC in the Project Area with straightforward development guidelines, a stronger residential
presence, more support for mixed-uses, a streamlined development process, and development incentives
exclusive to the Project Area.
To realize their vision of making Downtown Fontana a lively mixed-used destination, the City has also
identified the opportunity to reduce constraints associated with the development of housing in the
Project Area as a primary opportunity to initiate redevelopment of Downtown Fontana. To help provide
additional housing opportunities within the Project Area, the City applied for and was awarded a Senate
Bill 2 (SB 2) Planning Grant in 2020. The scope of work for the SB 2 grant is focused on the Project Area
with the primary goals to:
● Identify opportunity areas for housing density increases.
● Streamline review and approval for housing.
● Identify and eliminate constraints to building housing.
● Create clear and concise development and design standards.
The Downtown Fontana Development Guide (one of the deliverables associated with the SB 2 Planning
Grant) is being developed to provide recommended changes to the FBC, objective development
standards, expedited review guidelines, and development impact fee incentives. The recommended
changes to the FBC and their implementation, described further below, is the subject of this EIR.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-2 Executive Summary
1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), the EIR project description must include a statement of
objectives sought by the proposed Project. The statement of objectives should include the underlying
purpose of the Project and may discuss the Project benefits. The City has identified that the primary
purpose of the proposed Project is to increase the number of high-quality housing development approvals
in the Project Area and allowing for commercial uses to create a dynamic Downtown. Additionally, the
City has identified the following Project objectives:
• Provide for new residential development opportunities in order to meet the goals of the SB 2
Planning Grant.
• Establish FBC districts that encourage housing and supporting commercial development.
• Create and apply a new land use category for the Project Area to provide consistency and allow
for development at the densities and intensities needed to implement the FBC districts.
• Enhance the pedestrian experience and promote walkability, by ultimately closing a quarter-mile
portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic.
• Provide objective development standards that would facilitate permitting of housing projects.
• Create a Downtown Fontana Development Guide to serve as a "how-to" guide for the
development community so that the City can realize its vision for the Downtown.
• Implement the following goals, policies, and/or actions from the General Plan:
o Support regulations that promote creation of compact and walkable urban village-style
design in new developments (Chapter 4: Community and Neighborhoods).
o Support revitalization of the central area of the city with an integrated approach,
including mixed-use development, infill housing, infrastructure improvements,
interconnections and placemaking programs that create great public amenities (Chapter
4: Community and Neighborhoods).
o Continue to ensure excellent management of non-single-family housing (Chapter 4:
Community and Neighborhoods).
o Make land use decisions that support walking, bicycling, and public transit use, in
alignment with the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable
Communities Strategy (Chapter 9: Community, Mobility and Circulation).
o Encourage a mix of uses in the downtown core, appealing to a wide range of customer
types, with a focus on families (Chapter 14: Downtown Area Plan).
o Encourage mixed-use development within the Downtown and along major corridors
(Chapter 14: Downtown Area Plan).
o Encourage new “in-town” housing types targeted to young people and young families to
help attract and retain the next generation of Fontanans (Chapter 14: Downtown Area
Plan).
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-3 Executive Summary
o Ensure that future street improvements to Foothill and Arrow Boulevards and Sierra
Avenue improve the appearance and pedestrian environment while accommodating
traffic flows (Chapter 14: Downtown Area Plan).
o Locate multi-family development in mixed-use centers, preferably where there is nearby
access to retail, services, and public transportation (Chapter 15: Land Use, Zoning, and
Urban Design).
o Promote interconnected neighborhoods with appropriate transitions between lower-
intensity and higher-intensity land uses (Chapter 15: Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design).
o Promote revitalization and redevelopment of downtown and older neighborhoods in the
central area of the city (Chapter 15: Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design).
o Transform downtown into a vibrant local and regional destination (Chapter 15: Land Use,
Zoning, and Urban Design).
o Promote a land use pattern that provides connections among land uses and a mixture of
land uses (Chapter 15: Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design).
o Support high-quality development in design standards and in land use decisions (Chapter
15: Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design).
1.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The City is proposing to create a new focused area in the Downtown Core (Project Area) by creating and
implementing a new General Plan land use category and six new FBC districts specific to the Project Area.
The Project would involve amending General Plan Chapter 9, Community Mobility and Circulation,
including Exhibit 9.2, Hierarchy of Streets in Fontana, Chapter 14, Downtown Area Plan, and Chapter 15,
Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design, including establishing a new General Plan land use category,
amending the General Plan Land Use Map to apply the new land use category, and amending the Zoning
and Development Code, including the Zoning District Map, as described below. The proposed Project,
would in part, provide increased residential development opportunities, consistent with the goals of the
SB 2 Planning Grant received by the City.
1.4.1 GENERAL PLAN TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENTS
Chapter 9: Community Mobility and Circulation
The Project proposes to modify the existing circulation within the Project Area specific to Nuevo Avenue,
Wheeler Avenue, and Sierra Avenue; refer to the Project Area Circulation and Parking discussion below.
General Plan Chapter 9, Exhibit 9.2 would be amended to modify the roadway functional class for Nuevo
Avenue and Wheeler Avenue to downtown corridor, and to remove the roadway functional class for Sierra
Avenue between Arrow Boulevard and Orange Way; related text modifications would also occur for
consistency.
Chapter 14: Downtown Area Plan
Modifications to text and graphics would occur within Chapter 14 to be consistent with the proposed
modifications to Chapter 9 and 15.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-4 Executive Summary
Chapter 15: Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design
The Project proposes to amend General Plan Chapter 15, Exhibit 15.10 to include the addition of a new
WMXU-3: Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core (0.2-2.0 Commercial FAR, 2.1-70 du/ac) land use
category. Text modifications would also occur within other areas of Chapter 15 as needed to incorporate
the WMXU-3 land use category.
General Plan Land Use Map
The General Plan Land Use Map would be amended to apply the WMXU-3: Walkable Mixed-Use
Downtown Core (0.2-2.0 Commercial FAR, 2.1-70 du/ac) land use category within the Project Area, as
shown on Figure 3-7, Proposed Land Use Categories.
1.4.2 ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS
Zoning and Development Code Chapter 30, Article III, Form-Based Code, would be amended to
incorporate six new FBC districts, described below, including permitted land uses, increased densities and
development standards by zoning district, building types, frontage types, general regulations, design and
architectural regulations, private open space types, and public open space standards specific to each new
FBC District. Article IV, Zoning Districts, Section 30-405, Section 30-406, and Table No. 30-408 would also
be amended to incorporate the Downtown Core and associated land use districts. The Fontana Zoning
District Map would be amended to incorporate the Downtown Core.
The Project proposes the following six new FBC districts as shown on Figure 3-8, Proposed FBC Districts:
Civic Core. The Civic Core district would involve a mix of existing and new public uses, including the existing
City Hall, Library, and Park spaces. Building heights would be a maximum of 70 feet.
Gateway Core. The Gateway Core district would develop strong gateways along Sierra Avenue and serve
as a primary gateway to Downtown Fontana from the north and south. This area would contain a mix of
existing and new buildings and would support Downtown commercial uses by encouraging the
development of residential units near transit and along major corridors. Building heights would be a
maximum of 70 feet with a 55-foot maximum adjacent to street corners, and a 35-foot maximum adjacent
to Sierra Avenue. First floor commercial uses would be allowed anywhere in the district, and density
bonuses would be provided as an incentive for including optional commercial uses.
Multi-Family Core. The Multi-Family Core district would strengthen the opportunity for higher density
multi-family development within the Downtown Core. It would support Downtown commercial uses by
encouraging the development of residential units within walking distance. Building heights would be a
maximum of 55 feet. Density bonuses would be provided as an incentive for lot assemblages of at least
one acre.
Mixed-Use Core. The Mixed-Use Core district would involve a mix of existing and new commercial and
residential uses. Buildings built along major corridors would be built to the sidewalk to reinforce the street
as a pedestrian-friendly area. Building heights would be a maximum of 55 feet. First floor commercial uses
would be allowed anywhere in the district and required on Nuevo Avenue between Orange Avenue and
Arrow Boulevard, on Wheeler Avenue between Orange Avenue and Arrow Boulevard, and Arrow
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-5 Executive Summary
Boulevard between Juniper Avenue and Wheeler Avenue. Density bonuses would be provided as an
incentive for including optional commercial uses.
Neighborhood Core. The Neighborhood Core district would be largely composed of single-family homes
and would allow the development of extra units. This area would provide a transition between the
Downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods. Building heights would be a maximum of 40 feet. Density
bonuses would be provided as an incentive for lot assemblages of at least one acre.
Sierra Core. The Sierra Core district would reinforce Sierra Avenue between Arrow Boulevard and Orange
Way as the core of Downtown Fontana. This area would be enhanced with a pedestrian promenade and
public plazas, and provide a variety of entertainment, retail, service, and residential uses within existing
and new buildings. Building heights would be a maximum of 70 feet, with a 55-foot maximum adjacent to
street corners, and a 35-foot maximum adjacent to Sierra Avenue. First floor commercial uses would be
required.
PROJECT AREA CIRCULATION AND PARKING
The Project Area planned circulation would provide a more “walkable” environment, designed to
incorporate traffic calming measures to reduce traffic speeds, enhance pedestrian safety, and promote
walkability of the area, specifically along Sierra Avenue. Traffic-calming methods could include corner
bump-outs, parallel parking areas, sidewalk expansion, bike lanes and enhanced intersection paving areas.
To enhance the pedestrian experience and promote walkability, the Project proposes to ultimately close
a quarter-mile portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic. This would occur in two phases. Phase I
(interim condition) would reduce the number of travel lanes on Sierra Avenue from two lanes in each
direction to one lane in each direction, convert Wheeler Avenue to a one-way northbound street, and
convert Nuevo Avenue to a one-way southbound street. Phase II (the ultimate condition) would close
Sierra Avenue between Arrow Boulevard and Orange Way to vehicular traffic, diverting traffic to parallel
streets.
The Project Area would include parking opportunities through incorporation of various design solutions,
including on-street parking, public surface lots, on-site commercial and residential parking opportunities,
parking structures, and tuck under parking.
1.4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURAL REGULATIONS
The Downtown Fontana Development Guide summarizes development standards and design and
architectural regulations for all new development projects within the Project Area. Individual
development projects would be required to comply with the new FBC district development standards as
they define the minimum or baseline standards for urban design. The design guidelines further define the
desired character and image of development in the Project Area. Development standards, and the design
and architectural regulations, address a variety of development regulations including, but not limited to,
building facades, roofs, signs, mechanical equipment, landscaping, lighting, plazas, pedestrian walkways
and courtyards, and parking.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-6 Executive Summary
1.4.5 DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
The proposed General Plan, General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning District Map, and Zoning and
Development Code amendments would apply the new General Plan WMXU-3 land use category and new
Zoning and Development Code FBC districts to the Project Area. Table 1-1, Proposed Project Development
Potential, identifies the maximum development potential that could occur within the Project Area under
the proposed FBC districts.
Table 1-1
Proposed Project Development Potential
FBC District
Acreage
Maximum Development
Potential
Existing Development
Anticipated to Remain
Net New Development
Potential
Residential
(du)
Commercial
(s.f.)
Residential
(du)
Commercial
(s.f.)
Residential
(du)
Commercial
(s.f.)
Gateway Core 106.4 4,331 1,537,799 276 125,091 4,055 1,412,708
Multi-Family
Core 84.7 3,438 0 0 0 3,438 0
Mixed-Use
Core 44 2,203 1,905,262 0 0 2,203 1,905,262
Neighborhood
Core 73.3 461 0 0 0 461 0
Sierra Core 13.6 871 373,802 108 0 763 373,802
Civic Core 41.9 0 500,538 0 199,442 0 301,096
Total 363.9 11,304 4,317,401 384 324,533 10,920 3,992,868
As shown in Table 1-1, based on the maximum development potential and existing (on-the-ground)
development anticipated to remain, implementation of the Downtown Core Project would allow for the
following new development:
● New development of approximately 10,920 dwelling units (8,900 units over existing conditions)
● New development of approximately 3,992,868 square feet of non-residential uses (2,685,404
square feet over existing conditions)
1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The City determined that a Program EIR should be prepared pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines). The environmental issues identified by the City for assessment
in the Program EIR are:
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-7 Executive Summary
• Aesthetics • Hydrology and Water Quality
• Air Quality • Land Use and Planning
• Biological Resources • Noise
• Cultural Resources • Population and Housing
• Energy • Public Services and Recreation
• Geology and Soils • Transportation
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Tribal Cultural Resources
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Utilities and Service Systems
Section 5.0, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR provides a description of potential environmental impacts
of the Downtown Core Project. After implementation of identified mitigation measures, most of the
potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed Downtown Core Project would be reduced
to a less than significant level. However, the impacts listed below could not be feasibly mitigated and
would result in a significant and unavoidable impact with implementation of the Downtown Core Project.
Air Quality
• The Project could result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations
or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or
the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.
• The Project could result in ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 operational emissions that would be
significant and unavoidable.
• Implementation of the proposed Project as a whole would result in a significant and unavoidable
impact concerning Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) during operational activities.
• Project implementation would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant
cumulative air quality impacts during operational activities.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Project implementation would generate greenhouse gas emissions that would not satisfy the
Greenhouse Gas reduction targets established by federal and State law and may have a significant
effect on the environment.
• Project implementation would contribute to global climate change through a cumulatively
considerable contribution of greenhouse gases. The Project would result in a cumulatively
considerable and significant adverse GHG emissions impact.
Noise
• Project implementation would result in substantial permanent increases in existing transportation
noise levels at sensitive receptors.
• Project traffic noise on existing noise-sensitive uses along identified roadway segments within the
Project Area would result in a significant unavoidable cumulative impact.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-8 Executive Summary
1.6 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the identification and evaluation of a range of reasonable
alternatives designed to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. In addition, CEQA requires a comparative
evaluation of the merits of the alternatives.
Pursuant to Section 15126.6(f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, factors that may be taken into account when
addressing the feasibility of alternatives include site suitability, economic viability, availability of
infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plan or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries,
and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative
site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). Although these factors do not present a strict limit
on the scope of reasonable alternatives to be considered, they help establish the context in which “the
rule of reason” is measured against when determining an appropriate range of alternatives sufficient to
establish and foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making.
This EIR includes two alternatives as discussed below.
- Alternative 1 – No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative
- Alternative 2 – Reduced Growth Alternative
Alternative 1: No Project/Existing General Plan
As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e), under Alternative 1, the City would not implement
the Downtown Core Project. The Fontana General Plan and Zoning and Development Code would
continue to be implemented. No changes to the General Plan or Zoning and Development Code, including
General Plan text and Land Use Map amendments, or amendments to the Zoning and Development Code
and Zoning District Map, would occur. This Alternative assumes that ultimate development of the Fontana
General Plan would occur and increased residential development opportunities in the Downtown Core
Project Area in order to meet the goals of the SB 2 Planning Grant and accommodate a portion of the
City’s Low-, Very-Low-, and Above-Moderate-income RHNA allocation as identified in the Fontana 2021-
2029 Housing Element would not occur.
Alternative 2: Reduced Growth
Alternative 2 would implement the Downtown Core Project, but at residential densities and
nonresidential intensities lower than those reflected in the proposed Downtown Core Project. For
comparison, it is assumed that this Alternative would result in a 59 percent decrease in the number of
multifamily units, resulting in a 56 percent decrease in the Project Area’s population by 2040, and a 56
percent decrease in the number of employees by 2040 when compared to the proposed Project; refer to
Table 7-1, Growth Potential By Alternative (2040). This Alternative was developed to reduce the severity
of potential impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and noise, as overall development of
residential and commercial uses within the Downtown Core would be less than what could under the
proposed Project.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-9 Executive Summary
1.7 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, this EIR focuses on the Project’s significant effects on the
environment. The CEQA Guidelines defines a significant effect as a substantial adverse change in the
physical conditions, which exist in the area affected by the proposed project. A less than significant effect
is one in which there is no long or short-term significant adverse change in environmental conditions.
Some impacts are reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of Fontana General
Plan policies and actions, mitigation measures, and/or compliance with regulations.
The environmental impacts of the proposed Project, the impact level of significance prior to mitigation,
the proposed mitigation measures to mitigate an impact, and the impact level of significance after
mitigation are summarized in Table 1-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-10 Executive Summary
This page intentionally left blank.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-11 Executive Summary
Table 1-2
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
5.1 Aesthetics
Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
In an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Would the project create a new
source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Would future development
associated with implementation of
the Downtown Core Project result in
cumulatively considerable aesthetic
and light/glare impacts?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
5.2 Air Quality
Would the project conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
Potentially Significant Impact AQ-1: In the event that any off-site
utility and/or infrastructure
improvements are required as a
direct result of future projects,
construction of such off-site utility
and infrastructure improvements
shall not occur concurrently with the
demolition, site preparation, and
grading phases of project
construction. This requirement shall
be clearly noted on all applicable
Significant Unavoidable Impact
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-12 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
grading and/or building plans.
(General Plan EIR MM-AQ-8)
AQ-2: All construction equipment
shall be maintained in good
operation condition so as to reduce
emissions. The construction
contractor shall ensure that all
construction equipment is being
properly serviced and maintained as
per the manufacturer’s specification.
Maintenance records shall be
available at the construction site for
City of Fontana verification. The
following additional measures, as
determined applicable by the City
Engineer, shall be included as
conditions of the Grading Permit
issuance:
• Provide temporary traffic
controls such as a flag person,
during all phases of construction
to maintain smooth traffic flow.
• Provide dedicated turn lanes for
movement of construction trucks
and equipment on- and off-site.
• Reroute construction trucks
away from congested streets or
sensitive receptor areas.
• Appoint a construction relations
officer to act as a community
liaison concerning on-site
construction activity including
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-13 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
resolution of issues related to
PM10 generation.
• Improve traffic flow by signal
synchronization and ensure that
all vehicles and equipment will
be properly tuned and
maintained according to
manufacturers’ specifications.
• Require the use of 2010 and
newer diesel haul trucks (e.g.,
material delivery trucks and soil
import/export). If the lead
agency determines that 2010
model year or newer diesel
trucks cannot be obtained the
lead agency shall use trucks that
meet EPA 2007 model year NOX
and PM emissions requirements.
• During project construction, the
construction plans and
specifications shall state that off-
road diesel construction
equipment rated at 150
horsepower (hp) or greater,
complies with Environmental
Protection Agency
(EPA)/California Air Resources
Board (CARB) Tier 4 off-road
emissions standards or
equivalent and shall ensure that
all construction equipment is
tuned and maintained in
accordance with the
manufacturer’s specifications.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-14 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
The Lead Agency shall conduct an
on-site inspection to verify
compliance with construction
mitigation and to identify other
opportunities to further reduce
construction impacts. (General
Plan EIR MM-AQ-9, updated)
AQ-3: Prior to the issuance of any
grading permits, all Applicants shall
submit construction plans to the City
of Fontana denoting the proposed
schedule and projected equipment
use. Construction contractors shall
provide evidence that low emission
mobile construction equipment will
be utilized, or that their use was
investigated and found to be
infeasible for the projects.
Contractors shall also conform to any
construction measures imposed by
the SCAQMD as well as City Planning
Staff. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-10)
AQ-4: All asphalt shall meet or exceed
performance standards noted in
SCAQMD Rule 1108. (General Plan EIR
MM-AQ-13)
AQ-5: Prior to the issuance of grading
permits or approval of grading plans
for future development projects
within the project area, future
developments shall include a dust
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-15 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
control plan as part of the
construction contract standard
specifications. The dust control plan
shall include measures to meet the
requirements of SCAQMD Rules 402
and 403. Such measures may include,
but are not limited to:
• Phase and schedule activities to
avoid high-ozone days and first-
stage smog alerts.
• Discontinue operation during
second-stage smog alerts.
• All haul trucks shall be covered
prior to leaving the site to
prevent dust from impacting
the surrounding areas.
• Comply with AQMD Rule 403,
particularly to minimize fugitive
dust and noise to surrounding
areas.
• Moisten soil each day prior to
commencing grading to depth
of soil cut.
• Water exposed surfaces at least
twice a day under calm
conditions, and as often as
needed on windy days or during
very dry weather in order to
maintain a surface crust and
minimize the release of visible
emissions from the construction
site.
• Treat any area that will be
exposed for extended periods
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-16 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
with a soil conditioner to
stabilize soil or temporarily
plant with vegetation.
• Wash mud-covered tired and
under carriages of trucks leaving
construction sites.
• Provide for street sweeping, as
needed, on adjacent roadways
to remove dirt dropped by
construction vehicles or mud,
which would otherwise be
carried off by trucks departing
project sites.
• Securely cover all loads of fill
coming to the site with a tight-
fitting tarp.
• Cease grading during periods
when winds exceed 25 miles per
hour.
• Provide for permanent sealing
of all graded areas, as
applicable, at the earliest
practicable time after soil
disturbance.
• Use low-sulfur diesel fuel in all
equipment.
• Use electric equipment
whenever practicable.
• Shut off engines when not in
use. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-
14)
AQ-6: Future individual projects
within the Project Area shall be
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-17 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
required to comply with South Coast
Air Quality Management District Rule
1113 – Architectural Coatings. No
person shall apply or solicit the
application of any architectural
coating within the SCAQMD with VOC
content in excess of the values
specified in a table incorporated in
the Rule. A list of manufacturers of
low/no-VOC paints is provided at the
following SCAQMD website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/planning/architectural-
coatings/reporting-and-support-
documents/rule-314-
manufacturers.pdf?sfvrsn=4. All
paints will be applied using either
high volume low-pressure spray
equipment or by hand application.
AQ-7: Plans, specifications and
contract documents shall require that
a sign must be posted on-site stating
that construction workers shall not
allow diesel engines to idle in excess
of five minutes.
AQ-8: Future individual projects
within the Project Area shall be
required to use electric or alternative
fueled construction equipment
where technically feasible and/or
commercially available, where the
electric or alternatively fueled
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-18 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
equipment can perform adequately
when compared to gasoline or diesel
fueled equipment.
AQ-9: To reduce energy demand
associated with potable water
conveyance, future projects shall
implement the following, as
applicable:
• Landscaping palette emphasizing
drought tolerant plants.
• Use of water-efficient irrigation
techniques.
• U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Certified
WaterSense equivalent faucets,
high-efficiency toilets, and water
conserving shower heads.
(General Plan EIR MM-AQ-2)
AQ-10: Future projects shall comply
with applicable provisions of state
law, including the California Green
Standards Code (Part 11 of Title 24 of
the California Code of Regulations.
(General Plan EIR MM-AQ-3)
AQ-11: The applicant/developer shall
encourage its tenants to use
alternative-fueled vehicles such as
compressed natural gas vehicles,
electric vehicles, or other alternative
fuels by providing publicly available
information from the Southern
California Air Quality Management
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-19 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
District (SCAQMD), California Air
Resources Board (CARB), and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) on alternative fuel
technologies. (General Plan EIR MM-
AQ-4)
AQ-12: To promote alternative fuels
and help support “clean” truck fleets,
the developer/successor-in-interest
shall provide building occupants and
businesses with information related
to the Southern California Air Quality
Management District’s (SCAQMD)
Carl Moyer Program or other state
programs that restrict operations to
“clean” trucks, such as 2007 or newer
model year or 2010 complaint heavy-
duty vehicles, and information about
the health effects of diesel
particulates, the benefits of reduced
idling time, California Air Resources
Board regulations, and the
importance of not parking in
residential areas. If trucks older than
2007 model year would be used at
the project site, the
developer/successor-in-interest shall
encourage tenants, through contract
specifications, to apply in good-faith
funding for diesel truck
replacement/retrofit through grant
programs such as the Carl Moyer,
Prop 18, VIP [On-Road Heavy Duty
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-20 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
Voucher Incentive Program], HVIP
[Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and
Bus Voucher Incentive Project], and
SOON [Surplus Off-Road Opt-In for
NOX] funding programs, as identified
on SCAQMD’s website
(http://www.aqmd.gov). Tenants
would be required to use those
funds, if awarded. (General Plan EIR
MM-AQ-5)
AQ-13: The applicant/developer shall
encourage its tenants to use water-
based or low volatile organic
compound (VOC) cleaning products
by providing publicly available
information from the Southern
California Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD), California Air
Resources Board (CARB), and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) on such cleaning products.
(General Plan EIR MM-AQ-6)
AQ-14: All on-site forklifts shall be
non-diesel and shall be powered by
electricity, compressed natural gas,
or propane if technically feasible.
(General Plan EIR MM-AQ-7)
AQ-15: All residential and commercial
structures shall be required to
incorporate high efficiency/low
polluting heating, air conditioning,
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-21 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
appliances, and water heaters.
(General Plan EIR MM-AQ-20)
AQ-16: All residential and commercial
structures shall be required to
incorporate thermal pane windows
and weather-stripping. (General Plan
EIR MM-AQ-21)
AQ-17: All residential and commercial
structures shall be required to
incorporate light colored roofing
materials. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-
22, updated)
AQ-18: The minimum number of
automobile electric vehicle (EV)
charging stations required by the
California Code of Regulations (CCR)
Title 24 shall be provided. As agreed
by the Applicant and Lead Agency,
final designs of Project Area buildings
shall include electrical infrastructure
sufficiently sized to accommodate
the potential installation of
additional auto EV charging stations.
AQ-19: Future individual projects
within the Project Area shall not
discharge from any source
whatsoever such quantities of air
contaminants or other material that
cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or
annoyance to any considerable
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-22 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
number of persons or to the public, or
that endanger the comfort, repose,
health, or safety of any such persons
or the public, or that cause, or have a
natural tendency to cause, injury or
damage to business or property.
AQ-20: Future individual projects
within the Project Area shall be
required to comply with South Coast
Air Quality Management District Rule
1301 – General. This rule is intended
to provide that pre-construction
review requirements to ensure that
new or relocated facilities do not
interfere with progress in attainment
of the NAAQS, while future economic
growth within the South Coast Air
Quality Management District is not
unnecessarily restricted. The specific
air quality goal is to achieve no net
increases from new or modified
permitted sources of nonattainment
air contaminants or their precursors.
Rule 1301 also limits emission
increases of ammonia, and Ozone
Depleting Compounds (ODCs) from
new, modified or relocated facilities
by requiring the use of Best Available
Control Technology (BACT).
AQ-21: Building operators will
require (by contract specifications)
that equipment, including heavy-duty
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-23 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
equipment, motor vehicles, and
portable equipment, be turned off
when not in use for more than 5
minutes. Truck idling shall not exceed
5 minutes in time. All facilities will
post signs requiring that trucks shall
not be left idling for more than 5
minutes pursuant to Title 13 of the
California Code of Regulations,
Section 2485, which limits idle times
to not more than five minutes.
Nighttime (after 10:00 PM) truck
idling would not be permitted.
AQ-22: Future individual projects
within the Project Area shall be
required to maximize the planting of
drought resistant trees in landscaping
and parking lots and when/if recycled
water becomes available in the
future, landscaping shall be
supported by this alternative source
of water supply.
AQ-23: Where individual projects
within the Project Area require
permits from SCAQMD to operate
specific types of equipment and
processes, the developers/operators
shall be required to obtain such
permits prior to operation of the
specific equipment and processes
requiring the permit.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-24 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
Would the project result in
cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is in non-
attainment under the applicable
federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
Potentially Significant Impact Refer to Mitigation Measures AQ-1
through AQ-23, above
Significant Unavoidable Impact
Would the project expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Potentially Significant Impact Refer to Mitigation Measures AQ-1
through AQ-23, above
Significant Unavoidable Impact
Would the project result in other
emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required --
Would future development
associated with implementation of
the Downtown Core Project result in
cumulatively considerable impacts
related to air quality?
Potentially Significant Impact Refer to Mitigation Measures AQ-1
through AQ-23, above
Significant Unavoidable Impact
5.3 Biological Resources
Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially Significant Impact BIO-1:
1. Prior to initial grading or clearing
of areas of suitable habitat within
the Project Area (e.g., a vacant
site with a landscape of grassland
or low-growing, arid scrub
vegetation or agricultural use or
vegetation), a qualified biologist
shall conduct a pre-construction
survey, in accordance with the
CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing
Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-25 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
Owl Mitigation, to determine the
presence or absence of
burrowing owl within the
proposed area of impact.
2. Results of surveys, including
mitigation recommendations
(i.e., a Burrowing Owl Mitigation
and Monitoring Report) shall be
incorporated into the project-
level CEQA compliance
documentation.
3. Construction grading/clearing of
areas of suitable habitat should
occur between September 1 and
January 31 to avoid impacts to
breeding owls. If occupied
burrows are discovered, they
shall not be removed during
nesting season (February 1
through August 31), unless a
qualified biologist can determine
that either the owls have not laid
eggs or are incubating eggs, or
that any young from the burrows
are able to forage independently.
If initial grading is scheduled to
occur during nesting season, the
following measures shall be
implemented.
4. If removal of occupied burrows is
necessary, passive relocation
outside of nesting season shall be
implemented under the
supervision of the qualified
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-26 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
biologist. This shall include
covering/excavation of burrows
and installation of one-way doors
as necessary. One-way doors will
allow owls inside the burrow to
exit but not allow them to re-
enter. The biologist shall wait a
minimum of one week before the
burrow may be excavated to
allow the owls time to leave the
area. (General Plan EIR MM-BIO-
1)
BIO-2: To avoid impacts to nesting
birds and to comply with the MBTA,
clearing of vegetation and removal of
trees should occur between non-
nesting (or non-breeding) season for
birds (generally, September 1 to
January 31). If this avoidance
schedule is not feasible, the
alternative is to carry out such
activities under the supervision of a
qualified biologist. This shall entail
the following:
1. A qualified biologist shall conduct
a pre-construction nesting bird
survey no more than 14 days
prior to initiating ground
disturbance activities. The survey
will consist of full coverage of the
proposed disturbance limits and
up to a 500-foot buffer area,
determined by the biologist and
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-27 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
taking into account the species
nesting in the area and the
habitat present.
2. If no active nests are found, no
additional measures are
required.
3. If “occupied” nests are found,
their locations shall be mapped,
species documented, and, to the
degree feasible, the status of the
nest (e.g., incubation of eggs,
feeding of young, near fledging)
recorded. The biologist shall
establish a no-disturbance buffer
around each active nest. The
buffer area will be determined by
the biologist based on the
species present, surrounding
habitat, and type of construction
activities proposed in the area.
4. No construction or ground
disturbance activities shall be
conducted within the buffer until
the biologist has determined the
nest is no longer active and has
informed the construction
supervisor that activities may
resume. (General Plan EIR MM-
BIO-2)
Would the project conflict with any
local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such
as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required --
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-28 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
Would future development
associated with the Downtown Core
Project result in cumulatively
considerable impacts related to
biological resources?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required --
5.4 Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource pursuant to §
15064.5?
Potentially Significant Impact CUL-1: A qualified archaeologist shall
perform the following tasks, prior to
construction activities within project
boundaries:
• Subsequent to a preliminary
City review, if evidence suggests
the potential for historic
resources, a field survey for
historical resources within
portions of the project site not
previously surveyed for cultural
resources shall be conducted.
• Subsequent to a preliminary
City review, if evidence suggests
the potential for historic
resources, the San Bernardino
County Archives shall be
contacted for information on
historical property records.
• Subsequent to a preliminary
City review, if evidence suggests
the potential for sacred land
resources, the Native American
Heritage Commission shall be
contacted for information
regarding sacred lands.
Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-29 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
• All historical resources within
the project site, including
archaeological and historic
resources older than 50 years,
shall be inventoried using
appropriate State record forms
and guidelines followed
according to the California
Office of Historic Preservation’s
handbook “Instructions for
Recording Historical
Resources.” The archaeologist
shall then submit two (2) copies
of the completed forms to the
San Bernardino County
Archaeological Information
Center for the assignment of
trinomials.
• The significance and integrity of
all historical resources within
the project site shall be
evaluated, using criteria
established in the CEQA
Guidelines for important
archaeological resources and/or
36 CFR 60.4 for eligibility for
listing on the National Register
of Historic Places.
• Mitigation measures shall be
proposed and conditions of
approval (if a local government
action) recommended to
eliminate adverse project
effects on significant,
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-30 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
important, and unique historical
resources, following
appropriate CEQA and/or
National Historic Preservation
Act's Section 106 guidelines.
• If there is evidence that a
historical resource exists or
could exist, a technical
resources management report
shall be prepared, documenting
the inventory, evaluation, and
proposed mitigation of
resources within the project
site, following guidelines for
Archaeological Resource
Management Reports prepared
by the California Office of
Historic Preservation,
Preservation Planning Bulletin
4(a), December 1989. One copy
of the completed report, with
original illustrations, shall be
submitted to the San
Bernardino County
Archaeological Information
Center for permanent archiving.
• If human remains or funerary
objects are encountered on the
project site, work in the
immediate vicinity (within a
100-foot buffer of the find) shall
cease and the San Bernardino
County Coroner’s Office shall be
contacted pursuant to Health
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-31 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
and Safety Code Sections
7050.5 to 7055 and PRC Section
5097.98. If the coroner
determines that the remains are
not subject to his or her
authority and if the coroner
recognizes the human remains
to be those of a Native
American, or has reason to
believe that they are those of a
Native American, the Native
American Heritage Commission
shall be contacted within 24
hours.
• All resources and data collected
within the project site shall be
permanently curated at an
appropriate repository within
the County. (General Plan EIR
MM-CUL-1, updated)
Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant
to § 15064.5?
Potentially Significant Impact CUL-2: If any prehistoric
archaeological resources are
encountered before or during
grading, the developer shall retain a
qualified archaeologist to monitor
construction activities and to take
appropriate measures to protect or
preserve them for study. In the event
Native American cultural resources
are discovered, the archaeologist, in
consultation with the applicant and
City of Fontana Planning Department,
shall implement Mitigation Measure
TCR-1. With the assistance of the
Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-32 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
archaeologist, the City of Fontana
shall:
• Enact interim measures to
protect undesignated sites from
demolition or significant
modification without an
opportunity for the City to
establish its archaeological value.
• Consider establishing provisions
to require incorporation of
archaeological sites within new
developments, using their
special qualities at a theme or
focal point.
• Pursue educating the public
about the area's archaeological
heritage.
• Propose mitigation measures
and recommend conditions of
approval (if a local government
action) to eliminate adverse
project effects on significant,
important, and unique
prehistoric resources, following
appropriate CEQA guidelines.
• Prepare a technical resources
management report,
documenting the inventory,
evaluation, and proposed
mitigation of resources within
the project area. Submit one
copy of the completed report,
with original illustrations, to the
San Bernardino County
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-33 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
Archaeological Information
Center for permanent archiving.
(General Plan EIR MM-CUL-2)
Would the project disturb any human
remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required --
Would future development
associated with the Downtown Core
Project result in cumulatively
considerable impacts related to
cultural resources?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required --
5.5 Energy
Would the project result in
potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation; or conflict
with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required
--
Would future development
associated with the Downtown Core
Project result in cumulatively
considerable impacts related to
energy?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required
--
5.6 Geology & Soils
Would the project directly or
indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving strong
seismic ground shaking, or seismic-
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required
--
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-34 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Would the project result in
substantial soil erosion of the loss of
topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required
--
Would the project be located on a
geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required
--
Would the project be located on
expansive soil, as defined in Tables
18-1-D of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required
--
Would the project directly or
indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
Potentially Significant Impact GEO-1: If excavation activities would
occur at a depth of greater than five
feet on any site mapped as middle to
late Pleistocene older alluvium at the
surface, a qualified paleontologist
shall conduct a pre-construction field
survey. The paleontologist shall
submit a report of findings that
provides specific recommendations
regarding further mitigation
measures (i.e., paleontological
monitoring) that may be appropriate
to the City of Fontana Community
Development Department. (General
Plan EIR MM-CUL-4, updated)
Less Than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-35 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
GEO-2: Should mitigation monitoring
of paleontological resources be
recommended for a specific project
within the Project Area, the program
shall include, but not be limited to,
the following measures:
• Assign a paleontological monitor,
trained and equipped to allow
the rapid removal of fossils with
minimal construction delay, to
the site full-time during the
interval of earth-disturbing
activities.
• Should fossils be found within an
area being cleared or graded,
earth-disturbing activities shall
be diverted elsewhere until the
monitor has completed salvage.
If construction personnel make
the discovery, the grading
contractor shalt immediately
divert construction and notify
the monitor of the find.
• All recovered fossils shall be
prepared, identified, and curated
for documentation in the
summary report and transferred
to an appropriate depository
(i.e., San Bernardino County
Museum).
• A summary report shall be
submitted to City of Fontana.
Collected specimens shall be
transferred with copy of report
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-36 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
to San Bernardino County
Museum. (General Plan EIR MM-
CUL-5)
Would future development
associated with the Downtown Core
Project result in cumulatively
considerable impacts related to
geologic resources?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required --
5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project generate
greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment; or conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Potentially Significant Impact GHG-1: Prior to the issuance of
building permits, future development
projects shall demonstrate
compliance with the SCAQMD
threshold for greenhouse gas
emissions in place at the time of
individual project development, or if
exceeding the applicable threshold,
demonstrate the incorporation of
project design features that achieve
compliance with the SCAQMD
threshold for greenhouse emissions
in place at the time of individual
project development to the
maximum extent feasible. With
regard to expansions/modifications
of existing facilities, this mitigation
measure shall be applied to the
resulting incremental net increase in
enclosed floor area. Future projects
that exceed the SCAQMD threshold
for greenhouse gas emissions in place
at the time of individual project
development shall include measures
Significant Unavoidable Impact
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-37 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
to reduce emissions, that may
include, but not be limited to, the
following list of potential design
features (which includes measures
for reducing GHG emissions related
to Transportation and Motor
Vehicles).
Energy Efficiency
• Design buildings to be energy
efficient and exceed Title 24
requirements by at least 5
percent.
• Install efficient lighting and
lighting control systems. Site
and design buildings to take
advantage of daylight.
• Use trees, landscaping and sun
screens on west and south
exterior building walls to reduce
energy use.
• Install light colored “cool” roofs
and cool pavements.
• Provide information on energy
management services for large
energy users.
• Install energy efficient heating
and cooling systems (e.g.,
minimum of Energy Star rated
equipment).
• Implement design features to
increase the efficiency of the
building envelope (i.e., the
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-38 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
barrier between conditioned
and unconditioned spaces).
• Install light emitting diodes
(LEDs) for traffic, street and
other outdoor lighting.
• Limit the hours of operation of
outdoor lighting.
Renewable Energy
• Install solar panels on carports
and over parking areas.
• Use combined heat and power
in appropriate applications.
Water Conservation and Efficiency
• Create water-efficient
landscapes with a preference
for a xeriscape landscape
palette.
• Install water-efficient irrigation
systems and devices, such as
soil moisture-based irrigation
controls.
• Design buildings to be water-
efficient. Install water-efficient
fixtures and appliances (e.g.,
EPA WaterSense labeled
products).
• Restrict watering methods (e.g.,
prohibit systems that apply
water to non-vegetated
surfaces) and control runoff.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-39 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
• Restrict the use of water for
cleaning outdoor surfaces and
vehicles.
• Implement low-impact
development practices that
maintain the existing hydrologic
character of the site to manage
storm water and protect the
environment (retaining storm
water runoff on-site can
drastically reduce the need for
energy-intensive imported
water at the site).
• Devise a comprehensive water
conservation strategy
appropriate for the project and
location. The strategy may
include many of the specific
items listed above, plus other
innovative measures that are
appropriate to the specific
project.
• Provide education about water
conservation and available
programs and incentives.
Solid Waste Measures
• Reuse and recycle construction
and demolition waste
(including, but not limited to,
soil, vegetation, concrete,
lumber, metal, and carboard).
• Provide interior and exterior
storage areas for recyclables
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-40 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
and green waste and adequate
recycling containers located in
public areas.
• Provide education and publicity
about reducing waste and
available recycling services.
Transportation and Motor Vehicles
• Limit idling time for commercial
vehicles, including delivery and
construction vehicles.
• Promote ride sharing programs
(e.g., by designating certain
percentage of parking spaces
for ride sharing vehicles,
designating adequate
passenger loading and
unloading and waiting areas for
ride sharing vehicles, and
providing a web site or message
board for coordinating rides).
• Creating local “light vehicle”
networks, such as
neighborhood electric vehicle
(NEV) systems.
• Provide the necessary facilities
and infrastructure to encourage
the use of low or zero-emission
vehicles (e.g., electric vehicle
charging facilities and
conveniently located alternative
fueling stations).
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-41 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
• Promote “least polluting” ways
to connect people and goods to
their destinations.
• Incorporate bicycle lanes and
routes into street systems, new
subdivisions, and large
developments.
• Incorporate bicycle-friendly
intersections into street design.
• For commercial projects,
provide adequate bicycle
parking near building entrances
to promote cyclist safety,
security, and convenience. For
large employers, provide
facilities that encourage bicycle
commuting (e.g., locked bicycle
storage or covered or indoor
bicycle parking).
• Create bicycle lanes and walking
paths directed to the location of
schools, parks and other
destination points. (General
Plan EIR MM-GHG-1, updated
GHG-2: All future individual projects
with the Project Area shall be
required to construct future buildings
to be solar or other clean energy
technology compatible, and clean
energy ready. Further, for individual
structures proposed within the
Project Area that are greater than
50,000 square feet, the developer
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-42 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
shall ensure that the structure
provides solar photovoltaic panel
system(s) within 2 years of
commencing operations where
feasible.
GHG-3: Prior to issuance of building
permits, future individual project
developers with more than 10
employees or more than 10 company
vehicles shall submit a GHG Emissions
Reduction Plan (ERP) to the City of
Fontana for review and approval. The
objective of the plan shall be to
reduce GHG emissions by a minimum
of 10 percent. The GHG ERP shall
consider and identify GHG emission
reductions from the following
emission source categories as part of
the ERP:
• Energy source reduction from
measure GHG-1
• Implementation of Ride Sharing
Program (Mobile Source)
• Provision of electric vehicle
charging stations (Level 2 or
Level 3, Mobile Source)
• Maintenance of an onsite
bicycle sharing program (Mobile
Source)
• Establishment and support of a
mass transit use program
(including adjusting hours of
operations to complement local
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-43 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
mass transit operations, Mobile
Source)
• Provision of secure bicycle
parking facilities (Mobile
Source)
• Acquisition of a minimum of one
company electric vehicle or low
NOx emission CNG vehicle,
including truck(s) (Mobile
source)
• Install low demand water
consumption systems,
internally and outdoors (Water
Usage source)
• Implement a solid waste
management system that
achieves greater than 50
percent recycling (Waste
Management Source)
• Utilize construction equipment
that can reduce GHG and NOx
emissions a minimum of 5
percent (Construction
Emissions Source).
Would future development
associated with the Downtown Core
Project result in cumulatively
considerable impacts related to
greenhouse gas emissions?
Potentially Significant Impact Refer to Mitigation Measures GHG-1,
GHG-2, and GHG-3, above
Significant Unavoidable Impact
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-44 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
5.8 Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Would the project create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
Potentially Significant Impact HAZ-1: The City shall require that new
proposed facilities involved in the
production, use, storage, transport or
disposal of hazardous materials be
located a safe distance from land
uses that may be adversely impacted
by such activities. Conversely, new
sensitive facilities, such as child-care
centers and senior centers, shall not
to be located near existing sites that
use, store, or generate hazardous
materials. (General Plan EIR MM-
HAZ-1, updated)
HAZ-2: The City shall require all
businesses that handle hazardous
materials above the reportable
quantity to submit an inventory of
the hazardous materials that they
manage to the San Bernardino
County Fire Department - Hazardous
Materials Division in coordination
with the Fontana Fire Protection
District. (General Plan EIR MM-HAZ-
3)
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
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?
Potentially Significant Impact Refer to Mitigation Measures HAZ-1
and HAZ-2, above.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-45 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
Would the project emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Potentially Significant Impact Refer to Mitigation Measures HAZ-1
and HAZ-2, above.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
Would the project be located on a
site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Would the project impair
implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Would future development
associated with the Downtown Core
Project result in cumulatively
considerable impacts related to
hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
5.9 Hydrology & Water Quality
Would the project violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Would the project substantially
decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-46 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
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;
• substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in
a manner which would result
in flooding on- or offsite; or
• create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted
runoff.
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Would the project conflict with or
obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Would future development
associated with the Downtown Core
Project result in cumulatively
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-47 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
considerable impacts related to
hydrology and water quality?
5.10 Land Use & Planning
Would the project physically divide
an established community?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Would the project conflict with any
applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Would future development
associated with the Downtown Core
Project result in cumulatively
considerable impacts related to land
use and population?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
5.11 Noise
Would the project result in the
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?
Potentially Significant Impact NOI-1: Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, a developer shall contract for
a site-specific noise study for a parcel
within 200 feet of a sensitive use as
identified within Goal 8 of the 2015-
2035 General Plan. The noise study
shall be performed by an acoustic
consultant experienced in such
studies and the consultant's
qualifications and methodology to be
used in the study must be presented
to City staff for consideration. The
site-specific acoustic study shall
specifically identify potential noise
impacts upon any proposed sensitive
uses, as well as potential project
Significant Unavoidable Impact
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-48 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
impacts upon off-site sensitive uses
due to construction, stationary and
mobile noise sources. Mitigation shall
be required if noise levels exceed 65
dBA, as identified in Goal 8 of the
2015-2035 General Plan. (General
Plan EIR MM-NOI-1, updated)
NOI-2: To reduce impacts related to
heavy construction equipment
moving and operating on site during
project construction, grading,
demolition, and paving prior to
issuance of grading permits, the
applicant shall ensure that the
following procedures are followed:
• Construction equipment, fixed or
mobile, shall be properly
outfitted and maintained with
feasible noise-reduction devices
to minimize construction
generated noise.
• Laydown and construction
vehicle staging areas shall be
located away from noise
sensitive land uses if feasible.
• Stationary noise sources such as
generators shall be located away
from noise sensitive land uses, if
feasible.
• Construction hours, allowable
workdays, and the phone
number of the job
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-49 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
superintendent shall be clearly
posted at all construction
entrances to allow surrounding
property owners to contact the
job superintendent 24 hours a
day to report noise and other
nuisance-related issues, if
necessary. The point of contact
shall be available 24 hours a day,
7 days a week and have authority
to commit additional assets to
control dust after hours, on
weekends, and on holidays. In
the event that the City of
Fontana receives a pattern of
noise complaints, appropriate
corrective actions shall be
implemented, such as on- site
noise monitoring during
construction activities, and a
report of the action shall be
provided to the reporting party.
(General Plan EIR MM-NOI-2)
Would the project result in the
generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
Potentially Significant Impact Refer to Mitigation Measures NOI-1
and NOI-2, above.
Less Than Significant Impact With
Mitigation Incorporated
Would future development
associated with the Downtown Core
Project result in cumulatively
considerable impacts related to
noise?
Potentially Significant Impact Refer to Mitigation Measures NOI-1
and NOI-2, above.
Significant Unavoidable Impact
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-50 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
5.12 Population & Housing
Would the project induce substantial
unplanned population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads
or other infrastructure?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Would the project displace
substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Would future development
associated with the Downtown Core
Project result in cumulatively
considerable impacts related to
population and housing?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
5.13 Public Services & Recreation
Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services: fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-51 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services: police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services: schools?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-52 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services: libraries and other
facilities?
Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services: parks?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
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; or
include recreational facilities or
require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Would future development
associated with the Downtown Core
Project result in cumulatively
considerable impacts related to
public services and recreational
facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-53 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
5.14 Transportation
Would the project conflict with a
program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadways, bicycle
and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Would the project substantially
increase hazards due to geometric
design features (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Would the project result in
inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Would future development
associated with the Downtown Core
Project result in cumulatively
considerable impacts related to
transportation?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
5.15 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of
a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code section 21074
as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is
Potentially Significant Impact In addition to TCR-1, refer to Cultural
Resources Mitigation Measures CUL-
1 and CUL-2, above.
TCR-1: Site-specific development
projects shall implement the
following:
Less Than Significant Impact
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-54 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
• Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register
of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k); or
• A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1.
In applying the criteria set forth
in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource
to a California Native American
tribe.
• In the event Native American
cultural resources are discovered
during construction for future
development, all work in the
immediate vicinity of the find
(within a 60-foot buffer) shall
cease and a qualified
archaeologist meeting Secretary
of Interior standards shall be
hired to assess the find. Work on
the other portions of the project
site outside of the buffered area
may continue during this
assessment period;
• The archaeologist, in
coordination with the applicant
and City of Fontana Planning
Department, shall contact the
Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel
National Cultural Resources
Department (YSMN), as well as
any other Native American tribal
entity (as determined by a
qualified archaeologist meeting
Secretary of Interior standards)
of any pre-contact and/or
historic-era cultural resources
discovered during project
implementation. The Tribe(s)
shall be provided information
regarding the nature of the find,
so as to provide Tribal input with
regards to significance and
treatment. Should the find be
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-55 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
deemed significant, as defined by
CEQA, a cultural resources
Monitoring and Treatment Plan
shall be created by the
archaeologist, in coordination
with YSMN and any other Tribe
determined to have cultural
affiliation to the area, and all
subsequent finds shall be subject
to this Plan. A copy of the Plan
shall be provided to the City of
Fontana Planning Department.
The Plan shall identify how Tribal
Cultural Resources will be
recovered and retained. This Plan
shall allow for a monitor to be
present that represents YSMN
and/or other Tribe(s) determined
to have cultural affiliation for the
remainder of project activities
associated with ground
disturbance, should YSMN or
another Tribe(s) elect to place a
monitor on‐site;
• Any and all
archaeological/cultural
documents created as part of
the project (isolate records, site
records, survey reports, testing
reports, etc.) shall be supplied
to the applicant and City of
Fontana Planning Department
for dissemination to YSMN and
other Tribe(s) determined to
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-56 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
have cultural affiliation.
(General Plan EIR MM-CUL-3,
updated)
Would future development
associated with the Downtown Core
Project result in cumulatively
considerable impacts related to tribal
cultural resources?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
5.16 Utilities & Service Systems
Would the project require or result in
the relocation or construction of new
or expanded water facilities, the
construction or relocation of which
could cause significant
environmental effects; or have
sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Would the project require or result in
the relocation or construction of new
or expanded wastewater facilities,
the construction or relocation of
which could cause significant
environmental effects; or result in a
determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-57 Executive Summary
Environmental Impact Level of Significance Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance
Would the Project require or result in
the relocation or construction of new
or expanded stormwater facilities,
the construction or relocation of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Would the Project require or result in
the relocation or construction of new
or expanded electrical, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
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; or comply with
federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Would future development
associated with the Downtown Core
Project result in cumulatively
considerable impacts related to
utilities and service systems?
Less Than Significant Impact No mitigation is required. --
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 1-58 Executive Summary
This page intentionally left blank.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 2-1 Introduction and Purpose
2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) specifies that before a public agency decides to approve
a project that could have one or more adverse effects on the physical environment, the agency must
inform itself about the Project’s potential environmental impacts, give the public an opportunity to
comment on the environmental issues, and take feasible measures to avoid or reduce potential harm to
the physical environment. The State CEQA Guidelines are located within the California Code of Regulations
(CCR), Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387, while the CEQA Statute is codified as Public
Resources Code Sections 21000-21189.70.10.
2.1 PURPOSE OF THE EIR
The purpose of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to review the existing conditions, analyze
potential environmental impacts, and identify feasible mitigation measures to avoid or lessen the Project’s
potentially significant effects. This EIR addresses the Project’s environmental effects, in accordance with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, Project EIR. As referenced in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a), as
an information document, the EIR will:
• Inform decision-makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a
project;
• Identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects of a project; and
• Describe reasonable alternatives to a project.
The mitigation measures that are identified may be adopted as “Conditions of Approval” to minimize the
significance of impacts resulting from the Project. In addition, this EIR is the primary reference document
in the formulation and implementation of a mitigation monitoring program for the Project. The City of
Fontana (which is the lead agency and has the principal responsibility of processing and approving the
Project) and other public (i.e., responsible and trustee) agencies that may use this EIR in the decision-
making or permit issuance process will consider the information in this EIR, along with other information
that may be presented during the CEQA process.
Environmental impacts are not always able to be mitigated to a level considered less than significant; in
those cases, impacts are considered significant unavoidable impacts. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15093(b), when the lead agency approves a project that will result in significant effects that cannot
be avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its
action based on the Final EIR and any other information in the public record for the project. CEQA
Guidelines Section 15093 requires a “statement of overriding considerations” to be adopted where the
agency specifies the findings and public benefits for the project that outweigh the significant impacts.
This EIR analyzes the Project’s environmental effects to the degree of specificity appropriate to the
proposed actions, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15146. The analysis considers the activities
associated with the Project to determine the short- and long-term effects associated with their
implementation. This EIR discusses the Project’s direct and indirect impacts, as well as the cumulative
impacts associated with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 2-2 Introduction and Purpose
2.2 COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA
PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIR
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15087 and 15105, this Draft EIR is circulated for a 45-day
public review period. The public is invited to comment in writing on the information contained in this
document. Persons and agencies commenting are encouraged to provide information that they believe is
missing from the Draft EIR within the purview of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. All comment letters
received will be responded to in writing, and the comment letters, together with the responses to those
comments, will be included in the Final EIR.
Comment letters should be sent to:
City of Fontana
Planning Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana CA, 92335
Attention: Alejandro Rico, Associate Planner
Email: arico@fontana.org
FINAL EIR
The Final EIR will consist of the Draft EIR, revisions to the Draft EIR (if any), and responses to all written
comments addressing environmental concerns raised in the comments of responsible and trustee
agencies, the public, and any other reviewing parties. After the Final EIR is completed, and at least ten
days prior to the certification hearing, a copy of the response to comments made by public agencies on
the Draft EIR will be provided to the commenting agencies and parties.
2.3 EIR SCOPING PROCESS
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
In compliance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Fontana provided opportunities for
various agencies and the public to participate in the environmental review process. During preparation of
the Draft EIR, efforts were made to contact various Federal, State, regional, and local government
agencies, and other interested parties to solicit comments on the scope of review in this document. This
included the distribution of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) (State Clearinghouse Number 2022110624) to
various agencies and interested parties. The purpose of the NOP was to formally announce the
preparation of a Draft EIR for the proposed Project and, that, as the Lead Agency, the City was soliciting
input regarding the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR. The
NOP provided preliminary information regarding the anticipated range of impacts to be analyzed within
the EIR. In addition, notice of an EIR Scoping Meeting for the Project was included in the NOP.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City of Fontana circulated the NOP directly to public
agencies (including the State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research and County Clerk),
organizations, and interested parties. An electronic copy of the NOP was also made available on the City’s
website. The NOP and Initial Study were made available on November 30, 2022, with the 30-day public
review period concluding on January 6, 2023.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 2-3 Introduction and Purpose
An EIR Scoping Meeting was held virtually on Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 5:00 pm via Zoom.
Information regarding the scoping meeting was included in the NOP, as described above. The intent of
the meeting was to share information regarding the proposed Project and the environmental review
process and to receive comments regarding the scope and content of the environmental analysis to be
addressed in the EIR. A summary of the proposed Project and the CEQA process was presented at the
meeting. After the presentation, attendees were provided the opportunity to provide comments on the
scope and content of the EIR.
The NOP is provided as Appendix A, Notice of Preparation, and the NOP comment letters are provided as
Appendix B, Notice of Preparation Comment Letters.
A summary of the primary environmental issue areas identified in response to the NOP, and where in the
Draft EIR the issues are addressed, are as follows:
• Transportation/traffic (refer to Section 5.14, Transportation).
• Bicyclists and bicycle facilities (refer to Section 5.14, Transportation).
• Tribal cultural resources (refer to Section 5.15, Tribal Cultural Resources).
2.4 FORMAT OF THE EIR
The Draft EIR is organized into the following sections:
Section 1.0, Executive Summary, provides summaries of the Project description, environmental
impacts, and mitigation measures.
Section 2.0, Introduction and Purpose, provides CEQA compliance information and the organization
of the EIR.
Section 3.0, Project Description, provides a detailed Project description indicating Project location and
setting, Project characteristics, objectives, phasing, and associated discretionary actions required.
Section 4.0, Basis of Cumulative Analysis, describes the approach and methodology for the cumulative
analysis.
Section 5.0, Environmental Analysis, contains a detailed environmental analysis of the existing
conditions, potential Project impacts, recommended mitigation measures, and possible unavoidable
adverse impacts for the following environmental topic areas:
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 2-4 Introduction and Purpose
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services and Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
Section 6.0, Other CEQA Considerations, discusses the potential long-term implications of the
proposed action and irreversible changes on the environment that would be caused by the proposed
Project, should it be implemented. The Project’s growth-inducing impacts, including the potential for
economic or population growth are also discussed.
Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the
Project or its location that could avoid or substantially lessen the Project’s significant impacts and still
feasibly attain the Project’s basic objectives.
Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, provides an explanation of potential impacts that
have been determined not to be significant and are therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR.
Section 9.0, Report Preparers, identifies all individuals involved in preparing the EIR.
Appendices, contains the Project’s technical documentation.
2.5 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
Pertinent documents relating to this EIR have been cited in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section
15150, which encourages incorporation by reference as a means of reducing redundancy and the length
of environmental reports. The following documents are incorporated by reference into this EIR.
Information contained within these documents has been utilized for each section of this EIR. Copies of
these documents are available for review at the City’s website at www.fontana.org. A brief synopsis of
the scope and content of these documents are provided below.
• Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035, adopted November 13, 2018. The Fontana
Forward General Plan update was adopted in 2018 to guide future development and provide a
strategic framework for decision making based both on the community’s vision and goals and on
the State’s goals for California’s long-term development. City officials use the General Plan as the
basis for decision-making and to guide the development of new policies, ordinances, programs,
initiatives and capital expenditures. The General Plan informs and is implemented by the City’s
various ordinances, specific plans, programs, and ongoing activities. The General Plan is
comprised of 16 chapters or “elements” that include a summary of existing conditions and current
trends, the planning process, and goals, policies and actions for different topic areas that will
affect the physical and economic development of the City. The General Plan is comprised of the
following mandatory and optional Chapters (i.e., Elements):
o Vision and Principles
o Trends for Fontana’s Future
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 2-5 Introduction and Purpose
o Engaging the Fontana Community
o Community and Neighborhoods
o Housing
o Building a Healthier Fontana
o Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails
o Public and Community Services
o Community Mobility and Circulation
o Infrastructure and Green Systems
o Noise and Safety
o Sustainability and Resilience
o Economy, Education and Workforce Development
o Downtown Area Plan
o Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design
o Stewardship and Implementation
• Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035: Final Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse #2016021099) (General Plan FEIR). The General Plan FEIR provides a program-level
assessment of the general environmental impacts resulting from the development of land uses
and implementation of policies established within the General Plan as part of the CEQA process.
Potential development capacity was projected for buildout of the General Plan. This buildout
scenario is analyzed throughout the EIR. More specifically, the expected buildout of land uses by
2035 pursuant to the General Plan could result in an increase of 23,492 households and an
additional 40,599 employees over existing conditions. The focus for growth in the General Plan
Update is the Downtown Core of the City and “Livable Corridors” as described in General Plan
Chapter 14. The General Plan FEIR concluded that potential impacts associated with the General
Plan would be less than significant or less than significant with the implementation of mitigation
for all environmental topical areas.
• City of Fontana Municipal Code (Municipal Code). The Municipal Code is a collection of Municipal
Ordinances or laws, that are adopted by the City Council and enacted and enforced by
municipalities. It is the method the City uses to implement control of land uses in accordance with
the General Plan goals and policies. The Zoning and Development Code (Zoning Code or
Development Code) is contained in Chapter 30 of the Municipal Code, and carries out the policies
of the General Plan by classifying and regulating the uses of land and structures within the City.
The Development Code is adopted to protect and to promote health, safety, and general welfare
of the residents and visitors of the City.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 2-6 Introduction and Purpose
This page intentionally left blank.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 3-1 Project Description
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 PROJECT LOCATION
Located in southern San Bernardino County approximately 50 miles east of the City of Los Angeles,
Fontana is a rapidly growing urban community encompassing 52 square miles, including the City’s Sphere
of Influence (SOI). Fontana is in a valley and is adjacent to three major transportation corridors, including
Interstates 10 and 15 and State Route 210. Surrounding communities are the cities of Rancho Cucamonga
and Ontario to the west, the city of Rialto and the unincorporated community of Bloomington to the east,
the city of Jurupa Valley to the south, and the San Gabriel Mountains and San Bernardino National Forest
to the north. Figure 3-1, Regional Vicinity Map, shows the location of Fontana in relation to the region.
The proposed Project Area encompasses approximately 478 acres bounded by Foothill Boulevard on the
north, Randall Avenue on the south, Juniper Avenue on the west, and Mango Avenue on the east, as
shown in Figure 3-2, Downtown Core Project Area.
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Downtown Core Project (Project) proposes amendments to the Fontana Forward General Plan
(General Plan) Chapter 9, Community Mobility and Circulation, Chapter 14, Downtown Area Plan, and
Chapter 15, Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design, including establishing a new land use category and text
and figure modifications, a General Plan Land Use Map amendment to apply the new land use category,
and amendments to the Zoning and Development Code and an amendment to the Zoning District Map to
establish and implement new Form Based Code (FBC) districts within the Project Area, as described in
detail in Section 3.4, Project Characteristics.
3.2.1 GENERAL PLAN
The Fontana General Plan is comprised of 16 chapters or “elements” that include a summary of existing
conditions and current trends, the planning process, and goals, policies and actions for different topic
areas that will affect the physical and economic development of the City.
General Plan Chapter 9, Community Mobility and Circulation, is focused on connecting neighborhoods
and city destinations by expanding transportation choice in Fontana. The element supports continuing
programs to improve travel by cars and trucks, and provides guidance on expanding the options for transit
and “active transportation” (pedestrian and bicycle mobility) for Fontana. The element identifies the
roadway functional classification or Hierarchy of Streets (General Plan Exhibit 9.2) established for the City.
The Hierarchy of Streets within the Project Area are shown in Figure 3-3, Hierarchy of Streets.
General Plan Chapter 14, Downtown Area Plan, focuses on the approximately one square mile area around
the historic Downtown, centered on the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Arrow Boulevard. The intent of
the Downtown Area Plan is to provide a comprehensive vision for the Downtown Area, organized into
specific goals, strategies, and actions to direct and coordinate the implementation of that vision over time.
As shown in Figure 3-4, Downtown Area Plan, a majority of the Project Area is located within the boundary
of the Downtown Area Plan.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 3-2 Project Description
General Plan Chapter 15, Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design, sets forth the policy framework for the
physical development of Fontana. It is the guide for decision makers on the pattern, distribution, density,
and intensity of land uses that, over time, will help the city achieve the Fontana vision for the future. The
land use map provides the foundation for zoning and determines the distribution of land uses in the City.
The General Plan Land Use categories for properties within the Project Area are shown in Figure 3-5,
Existing General Plan Land Use Categories.
3.2.2 ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT CODE
Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 30, Zoning and Development Code, establishes official land use zoning
regulations and design guidelines. The zoning districts and regulations are consistent with the goals and
policies of the General Plan.
Chapter 30, Article III, Form-Based Code, establishes the requirements for all property, including
structures, land uses and physical improvements within the boundaries of the Form-Based Code (FBC)
area, including that all property subject to the FBC comply with the relevant requirements of the
applicable district. Division 4, Development Standards by Zoning District, establishes the specific
development standards for the 11 zoning districts. As shown in Figure 3-6, Existing FBC Zoning Districts,
the Project Area is located within the FBC area and specifically within the Retail, Civic, Station Area,
Downtown Gateway, Transitional, Multi-Family, Neighborhood, and Sierra Gateway districts.
3.2.3 EXISTING ON-SITE DEVELOPMENT
The Project Area contains a mix of existing on-site development, as shown in Table 3-1, Summary of
Existing On-Site Development. As indicated in Table 3-1, the Project Area is currently developed with
approximately 1.3 million square feet of non-residential uses and 2,020 dwelling units.
Table 3-1
Summary of Existing On-Site Development
Land Use Development
Dwelling Units Building Square Feet Land Area (acres)
Single-Family Residential1 896
Multi-Family Residential2 1,124
Commercial3 642,458
Office 293,579
Industrial4 46,894
Public Facilities5 324,533
Public Parks 2.08
Public Right of Way 114.00
Vacant (Land) 12.07
Grand Total 2,020 1,307,464
Source: CoStar Group, Esri, Google Earth, ParcelQuest, San Bernardino County Assessor
Notes:
1. Includes attached and detached single-family homes
2. Includes apartments, condos, and retirement homes
3. Includes retail properties as designated by CoStar Group
4. Industrial uses as designated by CoStar Group based on type of building
5. Includes civic centers and educational and government facilities
DOWNTOWN CORE PROJECT
Figure 3-1. Regional Vicinity Map
Legend
Project Location
County Boundary
Incorporated Area 0 2 4
Miles\
Sources: California State Geoportal. Map date: November 15, 2022.
UV38
UV142
UV330
UV261
UV133
UV66
UV91
UV241
UV2
UV138
UV83
UV71
UV66UV210
UV60
UV79
UV189
UV30
UV30
UV60
UV31
UV74
UV18
UV173
UV60
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
£¤66
£¤138
£¤66
L O S
A N G E L E S
C O U N T Y
L O S
A N G E L E S
C O U N T Y
O R A N G E
C O U N T Y
O R A N G E
C O U N T Y
R I V E R S I D E
C O U N T Y
R I V E R S I D E
C O U N T Y
S A N
B E R N A R D I N O
C O U N T Y
S A N
B E R N A R D I N O
C O U N T Y
S A N GABRIEL
R
SA N J ACINTOR
MOJAVE
R
SAN T AANA
R
SANT
A A N A R
Hesperia
YucaipaGrand
Terrace
HighlandFontana
Rancho
Cucamonga
Chino Hills
Upland
Ontario
Chino
Montclair
Diamond Bar
Pomona
La Verne
Calimesa
Moreno Valley
Riverside
Jurupa Valley
Eastvale
Norco
Corona
Perris
Menifee
Canyon Lake
Anaheim
Villa Park
Irvine
San
Bernardino
Loma
Linda
Colton Redlands
Rialto
Claremont
San Dimas
Lake
Elsinore
Yorba Linda
Brea
Orange
Tustin
LakeArrowhead
Lake
Mathews
Silverwood
Lake
Merrill Ave
Pe
p
p
e
r
A
v
e
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
A
v
e
Randall Ave
Upland Ave
Ma
n
g
o
A
v
e
Orange Way
Ivy Ave
Arrow Blvd
Se
w
e
l
l
A
v
e
Ch
a
n
t
r
y
A
v
e
Si
e
r
r
a
A
v
e
Si
e
r
r
a
A
v
e
Valencia Ave
Ceres Ave
Arrow Blvd
Ol
i
v
e
S
t
Ceres Ave
Lerner Ln
Spring St
Ivy Ave
Seville Ave
Nu
e
v
o
A
v
e
Bl
a
n
c
h
a
r
d
A
v
e
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
C
t
Terrace Ln
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
A
v
e
Ro
se
na
A
v
e
Em
er
ald
A
ve
New
port
Ave
Pinedale Ct
Be
n
n
e
t
t
A
v
e
Bl
a
n
c
h
a
r
d
A
v
e
Ke
m
p
s
t
e
r
A
v
e
Athol St
Hibiscus St
Pine Ave
Ac
a
c
i
a
A
v
e
Foothill Blvd
Athol St
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
A
v
e
Owen St
Upland Ave
Be
n
n
e
t
t
A
v
e
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
A
v
e
Pe
p
p
e
r
A
v
e
Se
w
e
l
l
A
v
e
Martin Ave
Ch
a
n
t
r
y
A
v
e
DOWNTOWN CORE PROJECT
Figure 3-2.
Downtown Core
Project Area
Legend
Project Area
0 500 1,000
Feet
\
Sources: ArcGIS Online World Imagery map service; USGS National Map Roads. Map date: November 14, 2022.
DOWNTOWN COREPROJECT
Figure 3-3.
Hierarchy of Streets
Legend
Project Area
Major Highway up to 6
Lanes and up to 132' CrossSections
Primary Highway up to 4
Lanes and up to 104' CrossSections
Collector Street up to 2Lanes and up to 80' Cross
Sections
Other Roads
Railroad
0 500 1,000
Feet
\
Sources: City of Fontana; USGS National Map Roads. Map date: November 14, 2022.
Foothill Blvd
Si
e
r
r
a
A
v
e
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
A
v
e
Randall Ave
Merrill Ave
Arrow BlvdArrow Blvd
Ma
n
g
o
A
v
e
Orange Way
Ceres Ave
Cy
p
r
e
s
s
A
v
e
Pa
l
m
e
t
t
o
A
v
e
Cy
p
r
e
s
s
A
v
e
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
A
v
e
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
A
v
e
Ma
n
g
o
A
v
e
Ma
n
g
o
A
v
e
DOWNTOWN CORE PROJECT
Figure 3-4.
Downtown Area Plan
Legend
Project Area
Downtown Area Plan
Boundary
0 500 1,000
Feet
\
Sources: ArcGIS Online World Imagery map service; USGS National Map Roads. Map date: November 14, 2022.
Harvey Dr
Merrill Ave
Cy
p
r
e
s
s
A
v
e
Pe
p
p
e
r
A
v
e
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
A
v
e
Upland Ave
Ma
n
g
o
A
v
e
Ma
n
g
o
A
v
e
Pa
l
m
e
t
t
o
A
v
e
Pa
l
m
e
t
t
o
A
v
e
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
A
v
e
Ivy Ave
Foothill Blvd
Da
t
e
S
t
Cy
p
r
e
s
s
A
v
e
Ch
a
n
t
r
y
A
v
e
Se
w
e
l
l
A
v
e
Si
e
r
r
a
A
v
e
Randall Ave
Si
e
r
r
a
A
v
e
Ma
n
g
o
A
v
e
Filbert St
Valencia Ave
Fontlee Ln
Arrow Blvd
Orange Way
Pine Ave
Holly Dr
Br
i
a
r
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
Oli
v
e
S
t
Kempst
e
r
A
v
e
Blanc
har
d
Av
e
Barbee St
Anastasia Ave
Arrow Blvd
Ceres Ave
Hawthorne Ave
Bl
a
n
c
h
a
r
d
A
v
e
Be
n
n
e
t
t
A
v
e
Da
t
e
S
t
Holly Dr
Spring St
Sequoia Ave
Village Ln
Seville Ave
Nu
e
v
o
A
v
e
Filbert St
Orchid Dr
Malaga Ct
Terrace Ln
Hibiscus St
Ceres Dr
Em
e
r
a
l
d
A
v
e
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
A
v
e
Owen St
Be
n
n
e
t
t
A
v
e
Ro
se
na
A
v
e
Em
e
r
a
l
d
A
v
e
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
A
v
e
Reed St
Pinedale
C
t
Ka
i
s
e
r
A
v
e
Bl
a
n
c
h
a
r
d
A
v
e
Ke
m
p
s
t
e
r
A
v
e
Barbee St
Paine St
Paine St
Reed St
Manzanita Dr
Athol St
Ivy Ave
To
y
o
n
A
v
e
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
A
v
e
Ma
d
r
o
n
a
Ka
i
s
e
r
A
v
e
Ke
m
p
s
t
e
r
A
v
e
Ac
a
c
i
a
A
v
e
Pe
p
p
e
r
A
v
e
Se
w
e
l
l
A
v
e
Martin Ave
Ch
a
n
t
r
y
A
v
e
Malaga St
Project Area
P-PF
P-R
R-MFH
WMXU-1
R-SF
0 500 1,000
Feet
\
Sources: City of Fontana; San Bernardino County; USGS National Map Roads. Map date: November 14, 2022.
Merrill Ave
Pe
p
p
e
r
A
v
e
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
A
v
e
Ceres Ave
Ma
n
g
o
A
v
e
Upland Ave
Ivy Ave
Se
w
e
l
l
A
v
e
Pine Ave
Randall Ave
Si
e
r
r
a
A
v
e
Si
e
r
r
a
A
v
e
Pinedale Ave
Ol
i
v
e
S
t
Valencia Ave
Arrow Blvd
Orange Way
Arrow Blvd
Ceres Ave
Lerner Ln
Spring St
Ivy Ave
Seville Ave
Nu
e
v
o
A
v
e
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
C
t
Terrace Ln
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
A
v
e
Ro
se
na
A
v
e
Em
e
rald
A
v
e
Anastasia Ave
Newp
ort
A
v
e
Pinedale Ct
Be
n
n
e
t
t
A
v
e
Bl
a
n
c
h
a
r
d
A
v
e
Ke
m
p
s
t
e
r
A
v
e
Athol St
Hibiscus St
Ac
a
c
i
a
A
v
e
Foothill Blvd
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
A
v
e
Be
n
n
e
t
t
A
v
e
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
A
v
e
Athol St
Pe
p
p
e
r
A
v
e
Owen St
Upland Ave
Se
w
e
l
l
A
v
e
Martin Ave
DOWNTOWN COREPROJECT
Figure 3-5.
General Plan
Land Use Categories
Legend
Legend
Project Area
Retail
Civic
Station Area
Downtown Gateway
Transitional
Multi-Family
Neighborhood
Sierra Gateway
0 500 1,000
Feet
\
Sources: City of Fontana; San Bernardino County; USGS National Map Roads. Map date: November 14, 2022.
DOWNTOWN CORE PROJECT
Figure 3-6.
FBC Zoning Districts
Upland Ave
Merrill Ave
Pe
p
p
e
r
A
v
e
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
A
v
e
Ma
n
g
o
A
v
e
Ceres Ave
Ivy Ave
Se
w
e
l
l
A
v
e
Pine Ave
Randall Ave
Sie
r
r
a
A
v
e
Sie
r
r
a
A
v
e
Pinedale Ave
Ol
i
v
e
S
t
Valencia Ave
Arrow Blvd
Orange Way
Arrow Blvd
Ceres Ave
Lerner Ln
Spring St
Ivy Ave
Seville Ave
Nu
e
v
o
A
v
e
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
C
t
Terrace Ln
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
A
v
e
Anastasia Ave
Ro
se
na
A
v
e
Em
e
r
ald
A
v
e
Ne
w
p
ort
A
v
e
Pinedale Ct
Be
n
n
e
t
t
A
v
e
Bl
a
n
c
h
a
r
d
A
v
e
Ke
m
p
s
t
e
r
A
v
e
Athol St
Hibiscus St
Ac
a
c
i
a
A
v
e
Foothill Blvd
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
A
v
e
Be
n
n
e
t
t
A
v
e
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
A
v
e
Athol St
Pe
p
p
e
r
A
v
e
Owen St
Upland AveSe
w
e
l
l
A
v
e
Martin Ave
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 3-9 Project Description
3.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The City of Fontana adopted the "Fontana Forward" 2015-2035 General Plan update in 2018. As part of
that update, the City Council approved a Downtown Area Plan (General Plan Chapter 14). The goal of the
Downtown Area Plan is to create a vibrant, walkable, mixed-use area with high quality housing and retail
options. The FBC (Municipal Code Chapter 30, Article III) was created and adopted in 2019 as part of the
Zoning and Development Code to implement the Downtown Area Plan. The City is seeking to improve the
FBC in the Project Area with straightforward development guidelines, a stronger residential presence,
more support for mixed-uses, a streamlined development process, and development incentives exclusive
to the Project Area.
To realize their vision of making Downtown Fontana a lively mixed-used destination, the City has also
identified the opportunity to reduce constraints associated with the development of housing in the
Project Area as a primary opportunity to initiate redevelopment of Downtown Fontana. To help provide
additional housing opportunities within the Project Area, the City applied for and was awarded a Senate
Bill 2 (SB 2) Planning Grant in 2020. The scope of work for the SB 2 grant is focused on the Project Area
with the primary goals to:
● Identify opportunity areas for housing density increases.
● Streamline review and approval for housing.
● Identify and eliminate constraints to building housing.
● Create clear and concise development and design standards.
The Downtown Fontana Development Guide (one of the deliverables associated with the SB 2 Planning
Grant) is being developed to provide recommended changes to the FBC, objective development
standards, expedited review guidelines, and development impact fee incentives. The recommended
changes to the FBC and their implementation, described further below, is the subject of this EIR.
3.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The City is proposing to create a new focused area in the Downtown Core (Project Area) by creating and
implementing a new General Plan land use category and six new FBC districts specific to the Project Area.
The Project would involve amending General Plan Chapter 9, Community Mobility and Circulation,
including Exhibit 9.2, Hierarchy of Streets in Fontana, Chapter 14, Downtown Area Plan, and Chapter 15,
Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design, including establishing a new General Plan land use category,
amending the General Plan Land Use Map to apply the new land use category, and amending the Zoning
and Development Code, including the Zoning District Map, as described below. The proposed Project,
would in part, provide increased residential development opportunities, consistent with the goals of the
SB 2 Planning Grant received by the City.
3.4.1 GENERAL PLAN TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENTS
Chapter 9: Community Mobility and Circulation
The Project proposes to modify the existing circulation within the Project Area specific to Nuevo Avenue,
Wheeler Avenue, and Sierra Avenue; refer to the Project Area Circulation and Parking discussion below.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 3-10 Project Description
General Plan Chapter 9, Exhibit 9.2 would be amended to modify the roadway functional class for Nuevo
Avenue and Wheeler Avenue to downtown corridor, and to remove the roadway functional class for Sierra
Avenue between Arrow Boulevard and Orange Way; related text modifications would also occur for
consistency.
Chapter 14: Downtown Area Plan
Modifications to text and graphics would occur within Chapter 14 to be consistent with the proposed
modifications to Chapter 9 and 15.
Chapter 15: Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design
The Project proposes to amend General Plan Chapter 15, Exhibit 15.10 to include the addition of a new
WMXU-3: Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core (0.2-2.0 Commercial FAR, 2.1-70 du/ac) land use
category. Text modifications would also occur within other areas of Chapter 15 as needed to incorporate
the WMXU-3 land use category.
General Plan Land Use Map
The General Plan Land Use Map would be amended to apply the WMXU-3: Walkable Mixed-Use
Downtown Core (0.2-2.0 Commercial FAR, 2.1-70 du/ac) land use category within the Project Area, as
shown on Figure 3-7, Proposed Land Use Categories.
3.4.2 ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS
Zoning and Development Code Chapter 30, Article III, Form-Based Code, would be amended to
incorporate six new FBC districts, described below, including permitted land uses, increased densities and
development standards by zoning district, building types, frontage types, general regulations, design and
architectural regulations, private open space types, and public open space standards specific to each new
FBC District. Article IV, Zoning Districts, Section 30-405, Section 30-406, and Table No. 30-408 would also
be amended to incorporate the Downtown Core and associated land use districts. The Fontana Zoning
District Map would be amended to incorporate the Downtown Core.
The Project proposes the following six new FBC districts as shown on Figure 3-8, Proposed FBC Districts:
Civic Core. The Civic Core district would involve a mix of existing and new public uses, including the existing
City Hall, Library, and Park spaces. Building heights would be a maximum of 70 feet.
Gateway Core. The Gateway Core district would develop strong gateways along Sierra Avenue and serve
as a primary gateway to Downtown Fontana from the north and south. This area would contain a mix of
existing and new buildings and would support Downtown commercial uses by encouraging the
development of residential units near transit and along major corridors. Building heights would be a
maximum of 70 feet with a 55-foot maximum adjacent to street corners, and a 35-foot maximum mid-
block adjacent to Sierra Avenue. First floor commercial uses would be allowed anywhere in the district,
and density bonuses would be provided as an incentive for including optional commercial uses.
Project Area
P-R
R-MFH
WMXU-3
P-PF
0 500 1,000
Feet
\
Sources: City of Fontana; San Bernardino County; USGS National Map Roads. Map date: November 15, 2022.
DOWNTOWN CORE PROJECT
Figure 3-7.
Proposed
Land Use Categories
Legend
Merrill Ave
Pe
p
p
e
r
A
v
e
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
A
v
e
Upland Ave
Ma
n
g
o
A
v
e
Ceres Ave
Ivy Ave
Pine Ave
Se
w
e
l
l
A
v
e
Randall Ave
Si
e
r
r
a
A
v
e
Si
e
r
r
a
A
v
e
Ol
i
v
e
S
t
Pinedale Ave
Valencia Ave
Arrow Blvd
Orange Way
Arrow Blvd
Ceres Ave
Lerner Ln
Spring St
Ivy Ave
Seville Ave
Nu
e
v
o
A
v
e
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
C
t
Terrace Ln
Anastasia Ave
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
A
v
e
Ro
se
na
A
v
e
Em
e
r
ald
A
v
e
Ne
w
p
ort
A
v
e
Pinedale Ct
Be
n
n
e
t
t
A
v
e
Bl
a
n
c
h
a
r
d
A
v
e
Ke
m
p
s
t
e
r
A
v
e
Athol St
Hibiscus St
Ac
a
c
i
a
A
v
e
Foothill Blvd
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
A
v
e
Ch
a
n
t
r
y
A
v
e
Be
n
n
e
t
t
A
v
e
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
A
v
e
Athol St
Pe
p
p
e
r
A
v
e
Owen St
Upland Ave
Se
w
e
l
l
A
v
e
Martin Ave
Legend
Project Area
Civic
Gateway Core
Mixed-Use Core
Multi-Family Core
Neighborhood Core
Sierra Core
0 500 1,000
Feet
\
Sources: City of Fontana; San Bernardino County; USGS National Map Roads. Map date: November 15, 2022.
DOWNTOWN COREPROJECT
Figure 3-8.
Proposed FBC Districts
Merrill Ave
Pe
p
p
e
r
A
v
e
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
A
v
e
Upland Ave
Pine Ave
Ma
n
g
o
A
v
e
Ivy Ave
Ch
a
n
t
r
y
A
v
e
Se
w
e
l
l
A
v
e
Ceres Ave
Randall Ave
Sie
r
r
a
A
v
e
Sie
r
r
a
A
v
e
Orange Way
Arrow Blvd
Pinedale Ave
Ol
i
v
e
S
t
Valencia Ave
Arrow Blvd
Ceres Ave
Lerner Ln
Spring St
Ivy Ave
Seville Ave
Nu
e
v
o
A
v
e
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
C
t
Terrace Ln
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
A
v
e
Ro
se
na
A
v
e
Em
erald
A
v
e
Ne
w
p
ort
A
ve
Pinedale Ct
Be
n
n
e
t
t
A
v
e
Bl
a
n
c
h
a
r
d
A
v
e
Ke
m
p
s
t
e
r
A
v
e
Athol St
Hibiscus St
Ac
a
c
i
a
A
v
e
Foothill Blvd
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
A
v
e
Be
n
n
e
t
t
A
v
e
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
A
v
e
Athol St
Owen St
Upland AvePe
p
p
e
r
A
v
e
Se
w
e
l
l
A
v
e
Martin Ave
Ch
a
n
t
r
y
A
v
e
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 3-13 Project Description
Multi-Family Core. The Multi-Family Core district would strengthen the opportunity for higher density
multi-family development within the Downtown Core. It would support Downtown commercial uses by
encouraging the development of residential units within walking distance. Building heights would be a
maximum of 55 feet. Density bonuses would be provided as an incentive for lot assemblages of at least
one acre.
Mixed-Use Core. The Mixed-Use Core district would involve a mix of existing and new commercial and
residential uses. Buildings built along major corridors would be built to the sidewalk to reinforce the street
as a pedestrian-friendly area. Building heights would be a maximum of 55 feet. First floor commercial uses
would be allowed anywhere in the district and required on Nuevo Avenue between Orange Avenue and
Arrow Boulevard, on Wheeler Avenue between Orange Avenue and Arrow Boulevard, and Arrow
Boulevard between Juniper Avenue and Wheeler Avenue. Density bonuses would be provided as an
incentive for including optional commercial uses.
Neighborhood Core. The Neighborhood Core district would be largely composed of single-family homes
and would allow the development of extra units. This area would provide a transition between the
Downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods. Building heights would be a maximum of 40 feet. Density
bonuses would be provided as an incentive for lot assemblages of at least one acre.
Sierra Core. The Sierra Core district would reinforce Sierra Avenue between Arrow Boulevard and Orange
Way as the core of Downtown Fontana. This area would be enhanced with a pedestrian promenade and
public plazas, and provide a variety of entertainment, retail, service, and residential uses within existing
and new buildings. Building heights would be a maximum of 70 feet, with a 55-foot maximum adjacent to
street corners, and a 35-foot maximum adjacent to Sierra Avenue. First floor commercial uses would be
required.
3.4.3 PROJECT AREA CIRCULATION AND PARKING
The Project Area planned circulation would provide a more “walkable” environment, designed to
incorporate traffic calming measures to reduce traffic speeds, enhance pedestrian safety, and promote
walkability of the area, specifically along Sierra Avenue. Traffic-calming methods could include corner
bump-outs, parallel parking areas, sidewalk expansion, bike lanes and enhanced intersection paving areas.
To enhance the pedestrian experience and promote walkability, the Project proposes to ultimately close
a quarter-mile portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic. This would occur in two phases. Phase I
(interim condition) would reduce the number of travel lanes on Sierra Avenue from two lanes in each
direction to one lane in each direction, convert Wheeler Avenue to a one-way northbound street, and
convert Nuevo Avenue to a one-way southbound street. Phase II (the ultimate condition) would close
Sierra Avenue between Arrow Boulevard and Orange Way to vehicular traffic, diverting traffic to parallel
streets.
The Project Area would include parking opportunities through incorporation of various design solutions,
including on-street parking, public surface lots, on-site commercial and residential parking opportunities,
parking structures, and tuck under parking.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 3-14 Project Description
3.4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURAL REGULATIONS
The Downtown Fontana Development Guide summarizes development standards and design and
architectural regulations for all new development projects within the Project Area. Individual
development projects would be required to comply with the new FBC district development standards as
they define the minimum or baseline standards for urban design. The design guidelines further define the
desired character and image of development in the Project Area. Development standards, and the design
and architectural regulations, address a variety of development regulations including, but not limited to,
building facades, roofs, signs, mechanical equipment, landscaping, lighting, plazas, pedestrian walkways
and courtyards, and parking.
3.4.5 DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
The proposed General Plan, General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning District Map, and Zoning and
Development Code amendments would apply the new General Plan WMXU-3 land use category and new
Zoning and Development Code FBC districts to the Project Area. Table 3-2, Proposed Project Development
Potential, identifies the maximum development potential that could occur within the Project Area under
the proposed FBC districts.
Table 3-2
Proposed Project Development Potential
FBC District
Acreage
Maximum Development
Potential
Existing Development
Anticipated to Remain
Net New Development
Potential
Residential
(du)
Commercial
(s.f.)
Residential
(du)
Commercial
(s.f.)
Residential
(du)
Commercial
(s.f.)
Gateway Core 106.4 4,331 1,537,799 276 125,091 4,055 1,412,708
Multi-Family
Core 84.7 3,438 0 0 0 3,438 0
Mixed-Use
Core 44 2,203 1,905,262 0 0 2,203 1,905,262
Neighborhood
Core 73.3 461 0 0 0 461 0
Sierra Core 13.6 871 373,802 108 0 763 373,802
Civic Core 41.9 0 500,538 0 199,442 0 301,096
Total 363.9 11,304 4,317,401 384 324,533 10,920 3,992,868
As shown in Table 3-2, based on the maximum development potential and existing (on-the-ground)
development anticipated to remain, implementation of the Downtown Core Project would allow for the
following new development:
● New development of approximately 10,920 dwelling units (8,900 units over existing conditions)
● New development of approximately 3,992,868 square feet of non-residential uses (2,685,404
square feet over existing conditions)
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 3-15 Project Description
3.5 APPROACH TO THE ANALYSIS
As site-specific development proposals are not currently proposed, a programmatic analysis of the
potential environmental impacts associated with development consistent with implementation of the
proposed Project has been prepared in this EIR. Although the proposed Project does not involve site-
specific development, the intent is to promote additional residential development and supportive
commercial uses and amenities. The assumptions used in this EIR consider the highest residential
development and commercial potential that could be built and the complete closure of Sierra Avenue to
vehicular traffic between Arrow Boulevard and Orange Way; therefore, impacts of less intense
development and reduced travel lanes on Sierra Avenue are within the scope of the analysis. It is
anticipated that the proposed Downtown Core Project would occur over several years based upon market
conditions. For analysis purposes, a buildout year of 2040 is utilized.
3.6 STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), the EIR project description must include a statement of
objectives sought by the proposed Project. The statement of objectives should include the underlying
purpose of the Project and may discuss the Project benefits. The City has identified that the primary
purpose of the proposed Project is to increase the number of high-quality housing development approvals
in the Project Area and allowing for commercial uses to create a dynamic Downtown. Additionally, the
City has identified the following Project objectives:
● Provide for new residential development opportunities in order to meet the goals of the SB 2
Planning Grant.
● Establish FBC districts that encourage housing and supporting commercial development.
● Create and apply a new land use category for the Project Area to provide consistency and allow
for development at the densities and intensities needed to implement the FBC districts.
● Enhance the pedestrian experience and promote walkability, by ultimately closing a quarter-mile
portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic.
● Provide objective development standards that would facilitate permitting of housing projects.
● Create a Downtown Fontana Development Guide to serve as a "how-to" guide for the
development community so that the City can realize its vision for the Downtown.
● Implement the following goals, policies, and/or actions from the General Plan:
o Support regulations that promote creation of compact and walkable urban village-style
design in new developments (Chapter 4: Community and Neighborhoods).
o Support revitalization of the central area of the city with an integrated approach,
including mixed-use development, infill housing, infrastructure improvements,
interconnections and placemaking programs that create great public amenities (Chapter
4: Community and Neighborhoods).
o Continue to ensure excellent management of non-single-family housing (Chapter 4:
Community and Neighborhoods).
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 3-16 Project Description
o Make land use decisions that support walking, bicycling, and public transit use, in
alignment with the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable
Communities Strategy (Chapter 9: Community, Mobility and Circulation).
o Encourage a mix of uses in the downtown core, appealing to a wide range of customer
types, with a focus on families (Chapter 14: Downtown Area Plan).
o Encourage mixed-use development within the Downtown and along major corridors
(Chapter 14: Downtown Area Plan).
o Encourage new “in-town” housing types targeted to young people and young families to
help attract and retain the next generation of Fontanans (Chapter 14: Downtown Area
Plan).
o Ensure that future street improvements to Foothill and Arrow Boulevards and Sierra
Avenue improve the appearance and pedestrian environment while accommodating
traffic flows (Chapter 14: Downtown Area Plan).
o Locate multi-family development in mixed-use centers, preferably where there is nearby
access to retail, services, and public transportation (Chapter 15: Land Use, Zoning, and
Urban Design).
o Promote interconnected neighborhoods with appropriate transitions between lower-
intensity and higher-intensity land uses (Chapter 15: Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design).
o Promote revitalization and redevelopment of downtown and older neighborhoods in the
central area of the city (Chapter 15: Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design).
o Transform downtown into a vibrant local and regional destination (Chapter 15: Land Use,
Zoning, and Urban Design).
o Promote a land use pattern that provides connections among land uses and a mixture of
land uses (Chapter 15: Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design).
o Support high-quality development in design standards and in land use decisions (Chapter
15: Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design).
3.7 REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS AND USE OF THE EIR
3.7.1 AGENCY APPROVALS
The City of Fontana, as the Lead Agency for future development and improvements within the Project
Area, has discretionary authority over the proposed Project that includes, but is not limited to, the
following:
General Plan Amendment. Recommendation by the City Planning Commission and approval by the City
Council to revise Exhibit 9.2, Hierarchy of Streets, to reflect new roadway classifications for Sierra, Nuevo,
and Wheeler and add related text to Chapter 9, Community Mobility and Circulation Element; create and
incorporate the WMXU-3 land use category into Chapter 15, Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design Element
and associated text, table, and exhibit revisions and change the land use categories of specific parcels
within the Project Area; and to make additional text and graphic amendments to Chapter 14, Downtown
Area Plan and throughout the General Plan for consistency.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 3-17 Project Description
Zoning Code Amendment. Recommendation by the City Planning Commission and approval by the City
Council to amend Zoning and Development Code Chapter 30, Article III, Form-Based Code, to incorporate
six new FBC districts and updated development standards; and amend Article IV, Zoning Districts, Table
No. 30-408 to add the new Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core land use category.
The following approvals would be considered as subsequent actions associated with future development
and improvements are proposed within the Project Area:
Design Review/Administrative Site Plan Review. Individual site plans within the Project Area would be
subject to review of plans and approval by the City.
Conditional Use Permits/Minor Use Permit. Development of certain uses within the Project Area require
approval of a conditional use permit by the City Planning Commission and Minor Use Permit approved by
the Director of Planning.
Tentative Parcel or Tract Maps. Individual tentative parcel or tract maps and master plans may also be
processed at a future time for smaller parcels with particular development characteristics or needs within
the Project Area.
Grading Permits. Future grading for development within the Project Area would be subject to the review
of grading plans and issuance of grading permits by the City.
Building Permits. Future construction of structures within the Project Area would be subject to the review
of architectural plans and approval of building permits by the City.
3.7.2 SUBSEQUENT USES OF THE EIR
This EIR provides a review of environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed
General Plan and Zoning Code amendments. When considering approval of subsequent development
within the Project Area, the City of Fontana would utilize this EIR as the basis for determining potential
environmental effects and the appropriate level of environmental review, if any, of subsequent
discretionary activity, in accordance with Section 15168(c) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 3-18 Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 4-1 Basis of Cumulative Analysis
4.0 BASIS OF CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This section analyzes potential impacts resulting from reasonably foreseeable growth, including the
Downtown Core Project.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects which,
when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental
impacts…” The following elements are necessary in an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts, as
noted in Sections 15130(b) through 15130(e) of the CEQA Guidelines:
(b) The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of
occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects
attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by standards of practicality and
reasonableness, and should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects
contribute rather than the attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative
impact. The following elements are necessary to an adequate discussion of significant cumulative
impacts:
(1) Either:
(A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative
impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or,
(B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide plan,
or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to
the cumulative effect. Such plans may include: a general plan, regional transportation
plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. A summary of
projections may also be contained in an adopted or certified prior environmental
document for such a plan. Such projections may be supplemented with additional
information such as a regional modeling program. Any such document shall be
referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency.
(2) When utilizing a list, as suggested in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), factors to consider when
determining whether to include a related project should include the nature of each
environmental resource being examined, the location of the project and its type. Location may
be important, for example, when water quality impacts are at issue since projects outside the
watershed would probably not contribute to a cumulative effect. Project type may be
important, for example, when the impact is specialized, such as a particular air pollutant or
mode of traffic.
(3) Lead agencies should define the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect
and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic limitation used.
(4) A summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects with
specific reference to additional information stating where that information is available; and
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 4-2 Basis of Cumulative Analysis
(5) A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. An EIR shall examine
reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project's contribution to any
significant cumulative effects.
(c) With some projects, the only feasible mitigation for cumulative impacts may involve the adoption of
ordinances or regulations rather than the imposition of conditions on a project-by-project basis.
(d) Previously approved land use documents such as general plans, specific plans, and regional
transportation plans may be used in cumulative impact analysis. A pertinent discussion of cumulative
impacts contained in one or more previously certified EIRs may be incorporated by reference pursuant
to the provisions for tiering and program EIRs. No further cumulative impacts analysis is required when
a project is consistent with a general, specific, master or comparable programmatic plan where the
lead agency determines that the regional or areawide cumulative impacts of the proposed project
have already been adequately addressed, as defined in section 15152(f), in a certified EIR for that plan.
(e) If a cumulative impact was adequately addressed in a prior EIR for a community plan, zoning action,
or general plan, and the project is consistent with that plan or action, then an EIR for such a project
should not further analyze that cumulative impact, as provided in Section 15183(j).
4.2 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS IN THIS EIR
Cumulative impacts may be discussed in terms of impacts resulting from the proposed Project, in
combination with impacts anticipated for future development (including approved and planned
development within the Project Area and surrounding affected area), and impacts associated with growth
within the greater region. The geographic area for each impact varies, depending on the nature of the
impact, whether it is regional, such as air quality or greenhouse gas emissions, or local, such as noise or
aesthetics.
Quantification can pose a challenge for cumulative impacts, as it requires speculative estimates of impacts
including, but not limited to the following: the geographic diversity of impacts (impacts of future
development may affect different areas); variations in time of impacts; and data for buildout projections
may change following subsequent approvals. However, every attempt has been made herein to make
sound qualitative judgments of the combined effects of, and relationship between, land uses and
potential environmental impacts.
This EIR assesses the overall environmental effects of the Downtown Core Project at a program level of
detail. This EIR evaluates the overall (cumulative) effects of development in accordance with
implementation of the proposed General Plan WMXU-3 land use category and new Zoning and
Development Code FBC districts to the Project Area. The environmental analyses in Sections 5.1 through
5.16 of this EIR consider Project impacts in combination with regional impacts, where applicable, that
could be expected as other cities within San Bernardino County approach 2040.
In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(1)(b), this section of the EIR describes the
environmental effects of the Project in combination with the effects of growth in the City and region, as
forecasted in the Fontana Forward General Plan and Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, adopted by SCAG’s Regional
Council on September 3, 2020. It is important to note that the SCAG projections, which are compiled using
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 4-3 Basis of Cumulative Analysis
a number of sources including adopted plans, historical trends, and interviews with local jurisdictions,
tend to be more accurate on a regional level than on a local or city level. It is likely that through a
combination of market changes, catalytic projects, updated land use direction in the City, and other
factors, Fontana could capture either more or less of expected regional growth than forecasted by SCAG.
Table 4-1, San Bernardino County Growth Projections, summarizes household, population, and
employment growth forecasts for the County. While the Project considers growth patterns for the year
2040, SCAG forecasts growth for the year 2045. Despite the slightly different end dates, using SCAG’s 2045
growth projections is helpful because it demonstrates the overall direction of growth the region is moving
towards. As shown in Table 4-1, SCAG forecasts San Bernardino County’s population will grow to
2,815,000 persons by 2045, an increase of approximately 28.6 percent over the existing 2022 population
estimate of 2,187,665 persons. The number of total housing units in the San Bernardino County region is
projected to increase from approximately 740,654 units in 2022 to 960,483 units in 2045. Employment
numbers are forecasted to increase from approximately 775,176 jobs in 2017 to 1,064,000 jobs in 2045
within the County. Section 5.12, Population and Housing, further elaborates on projected growth
assumptions within the Project Area as well as within the region.
Table 4-1
San Bernardino County Growth Projections
Description Population Total Housing
Units
Jobs
(Employment)
Existing Conditions 2,187,6651 740,6541 775,1762
SCAG 2045 Forecasts 2,815,0003 960,4831,3 1,064,0003
2045 SCAG: Existing Conditions Difference 627,335 219,829 288,824
2045 SCAG: Existing Conditions % Difference 28.6% 29.7% 37.3%
Source:
1. Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2022, May 2022.
2. Southern California Council of Governments, Local Profiles Report 2019: Profile of the City of Fontana, May 2019.
3. Southern California Council of Governments, Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, adopted September 3,
2020. Total housing units based on 2045 occupied housing units of 875,000 and a vacancy rate of 8.9%.
Table 4-2, City of Fontana Growth Projections, summarizes household, population, and employment
growth forecasts for the City. As shown in Table 4-2, SCAG forecasts the City of Fontana’s population will
grow to 286,700 persons by 2045, an increase of approximately 34.7 percent over the existing 2022
population estimate of 212,809 persons. The number of total housing units in the City is projected to
increase from approximately 57,483 units in 2022 to 79,795 units in 2045. Employment numbers are
forecasted to increase from approximately 55,448 jobs in 2017 to 75,100 jobs in 2045 within the City.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 4-4 Basis of Cumulative Analysis
Table 4-2
City of Fontana Growth Projections
Description Population Housing Units Jobs
(Employment)
Existing Conditions 212,8091 57,4831 55,4482
SCAG 2045 Forecasts 286,7003 79,7951,3 75,1003
2045 SCAG: Existing Conditions Difference 73,891 22,312 19,652
2045 SCAG: Existing Conditions % Difference 34.7% 38.8% 35.4%
Source:
1. Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2022, May 2022.
2. Southern California Council of Governments, Local Profiles Report 2019: Profile of the City of Fontana, May 2019.
3. Southern California Council of Governments, Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, adopted September 3,
2020. Total housing units based on 2045 occupied housing units of 77,800 and a vacancy rate of 2.5%.
As indicated in Section 3.0, Project Description, the proposed Downtown Core Project would facilitate the
addition of 8,900 housing units and 2,685,404 square feet of non-residential uses over existing conditions
through 2040. This new growth may increase the City’s population by approximately 33,731 residents
(based on the 2022 California Department of Finance estimated household size of 3.79 persons per
household) and provide approximately 6,852 additional employment opportunities.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.0-1 Environmental Analysis
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The City of Fontana (City) determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required for
the Project. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared and circulated for the proposed Project on
November 30, 2022; refer to Appendix A, Notice of Preparation. Agency and public input received during
the NOP comment period and the EIR Scoping Meeting were used to inform the scope of the evaluation
for the EIR.
This EIR focuses on the potentially significant and significant effects of the Project and documents the
reasons for concluding that other effects will be less than significant. The following subsections of the EIR
contains a detailed environmental analysis of the existing conditions, Project impacts (including direct and
indirect, short-term, long-term, and cumulative impacts), recommended mitigation measures and
unavoidable significant impacts for the following environmental issue areas:
5.1 Aesthetics 5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
5.2 Air Quality 5.10 Land Use and Planning
5.3 Biological Resources 5.11 Noise
5.4 Cultural Resources 5.12 Population and Housing
5.5 Energy 5.13 Public Services and Recreation
5.6 Geology and Soils 5.14 Transportation
5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 5.15 Tribal Cultural Resources
5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 5.16 Utilities and Service Systems
Each potentially significant environmental issue area is addressed in a separate section of the EIR and is
organized into the following subsections:
• “Environmental Setting” describes the physical conditions that exist at the present time (typically
the time of the NOP) and that may influence or affect the issue under investigation.
• “Regulatory Setting” discusses the laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards that apply to the
Project.
• “Significance Criteria and Thresholds” provides the thresholds that are the basis of conclusions of
significance, which are primarily the criteria in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 California
Code of Regulations Sections 15000 – 15387).
Primary sources used in identifying the criteria include the CEQA Guidelines; local, State, Federal,
or other standards applicable to an impact category; and officially established significance
thresholds. “... An ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the
significance of any activity may vary with the setting” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[b]).
Principally, “... a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical
conditions within an area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna,
ambient noise, and objects of historic and aesthetic significance” constitutes a significant impact
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15382). The standards used to evaluate the significance of impacts are
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.0-2 Environmental Analysis
sometimes qualitative rather than quantitative because appropriate quantitative standards are
either not available for many types of impacts or are not applicable for some types of projects.
• “Impacts and Mitigation Measures” describes potential environmental changes to the existing
physical conditions that may occur if the proposed Project is implemented. Evidence, based on
factual and scientific data, is presented to show the cause and effect relationship between the
proposed Project and the potential changes in the environment. The exact magnitude, duration,
extent, frequency, range or other parameters of a potential impact are ascertained, to the extent
possible, to determine whether impacts may be significant; all the potential direct and reasonably
foreseeable indirect effects are considered.
Mitigation Measures are measures that would be required of the Project to avoid a significant
adverse impact; to minimize a significant adverse impact; to rectify a significant adverse impact
by restoration; to reduce or eliminate a significant adverse impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations; or to compensate for the impact by replacing or providing substitute
resources or environment.
• “Cumulative Impacts” describes potential environmental changes to the existing physical
conditions that may occur as a result of the proposed Project together with all other reasonably
foreseeable, planned, and approved future projects producing related or cumulative impacts.
• “Significant Unavoidable Impacts” describes impacts that would be significant and cannot be
feasibly mitigated to less than significant, and thus would be unavoidable. To approve a project
with unavoidable significant impacts, the lead agency must adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations. In adopting such a statement, the lead agency is required to balance the benefits
of a project against its unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve
the project. If the benefits of a project are found to outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered “acceptable” (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15093[a]).
• “References” identifies the sources used in and throughout the subsection.
CEQA provides that an EIR shall focus on the significant effects on the environment and discuss potential
environmental effects with emphasis in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence. During
preparation of this EIR, the City conducted an analysis of the proposed Project’s effect on specific
environmental topic areas, included as part of the Environmental Checklist form presented in CEQA
Guidelines Appendix G. During this evaluation, certain impacts of the Project were found to have no
impact or have a less than significant impact due to the inability of a project of this scope to create such
impacts or the absence of Project characteristics producing effects of this type. These effects are not
required to be included in the EIR’s primary environmental analysis sections (Section 5.1 through 5.16). In
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, provides
a brief description of potential impacts found to have no impact or a less than significant impact.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.1-1 Aesthetics
5.1 AESTHETICS
5.1.1 PURPOSE
This section identifies the existing aesthetic and light/glare conditions within the Project Area and
provides an analysis of potential impacts associated with Project implementation. Potential impacts are
identified and mitigation measures to address potentially significant impacts are recommended, as
necessary.
CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY
When viewing the same landscape, people may have different responses to that landscape and any
proposed visual changes, based upon their values, familiarity, concern, or expectations for that landscape
and its scenic quality. Since each person’s attachment to and value for a particular landscape is unique,
visual changes to that landscape inherently affect viewers differently. However, generalizations can be
made about viewer sensitivity to scenic quality and visual changes. The visual sensitivity of a landscape is
affected by the viewing distances at which it is seen, such as close-up or far away. The visual sensitivity of
a landscape is also affected by the travel speed at which a person is viewing the landscape (high speeds
on a highway, low speeds on a hiking trail, or stationary at a residence).
The same feature of a project can be perceived differently by people depending on the distance between
the observer and the viewed object. When a viewer is closer to a viewed object in the landscape, more
detail can be seen, and there is greater potential influence of the object on visual quality because of its
form or scale (relative size of the object in relation to the viewer). When the same object is viewed at
background distances, details may be imperceptible but overall forms of terrain and vegetation are
evident, and the horizon and skyline are dominant. In the middle-ground, some detail is evident (e.g., the
foreground), and landscape elements are seen in context with landforms and vegetation patterns (e.g.,
the background).
The following terms and concepts are used in this EIR section:
• Scenic vista. An area that is designated, signed, and accessible to the public for the express
purposes of viewing and sightseeing. This includes any such areas designated by a federal, State,
or local agency.
• Scenic highway. Any stretch of public roadway that is designated as a scenic corridor by a federal,
State, or local agency.
• Visual character typically consists of the landforms, vegetation, water features, and cultural
modifications that impart an overall visual impression of an area’s landscape. Scenic areas
typically include open space, landscaped corridors, and viewsheds. Visual character is influenced
by many different landscape attributes including color contrasts, landform prominence, repetition
of geometric forms, and uniqueness of textures among other characteristics.
• Light and Glare. Lighting effects are associated with the use of artificial light during the evening
and nighttime hours. There are two primary sources of light: light emanating from building
interiors passing through windows and light from exterior sources (i.e., street lighting, building
illumination, security lighting, parking lot lighting, landscape lighting, and signage). Light
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.1-2 Aesthetics
introduction can be a nuisance. Uses such as residences and hotels are considered light sensitive,
since occupants have expectations of privacy during evening hours and may be subject to
disturbance by bright light sources. Light spill is typically defined as the presence of unwanted
light on properties adjacent to the property being illuminated. With respect to lighting, the degree
of illumination may vary widely depending on the amount of light generated, height of the light
source, presence of barriers or obstructions, type of light source, and weather conditions.
Glare is primarily a daytime occurrence caused by the reflection of sunlight or artificial light on
highly polished surfaces such as window glass or reflective materials and, to a lesser degree, from
broad expanses of light-colored surfaces. Perceived glare is the unwanted and potentially
objectionable sensation as observed by a person as they look directly into the light source of a
luminaire. Daytime glare generation is common in urban areas and is typically associated with
buildings with exterior facades largely or entirely comprised of highly reflective glass. Glare can
also be produced during evening and nighttime hours by the reflection of artificial light sources
such as automobile headlights. Glare generation is typically related to either moving vehicles or
sun angles, although glare resulting from reflected sunlight can occur regularly at certain times of
the year. Glare-sensitive uses include residences, hotels, transportation corridors, and aircraft
landing corridors.
5.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Fontana is located on a desert valley floor between the San Gabriel Mountains to the north
and the Jurupa Hills to the south. Panoramic scenic view corridors towards the mountains and views of
the City from the mountains dominate the City’s visual landscape character. Elevations range from
approximately 1,700 feet above mean sea level in the northern portion of the valley and 1,000 feet in the
southern portion. Surrounding communities are the cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario to the west,
the city of Rialto and the unincorporated community of Bloomington to the east, and the city of Jurupa
Valley to the south.
The Project Area is located within the center of the City, bounded by Foothill Boulevard on the north,
Randall Avenue on the south, Juniper Avenue on the west, and Mango Avenue on the east. Elevations
within the Project Area range from approximately 1,300 feet above mean sea level in the north and 1,200
in the south.
SCENIC VISTAS
Scenic views within the Project Area include long-range views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north
and the Jurupa Hills to the south. Views of these scenic resources (as identified by the General Plan) are
intermittent from within the Project Area due to existing development within the Project Area and
surrounding area. Long-range views are primarily provided along the north-south corridors and at the
northern- and southern-most Project boundaries.
SCENIC HIGHWAYS
There are no Eligible or Designated State Scenic Highways within the Project Area (Caltrans, 2022). The
nearest officially designated State Scenic Highway is State Route 2, located approximately 22 miles
northwest of the Project Area. The nearest Eligible State Route Scenic Highway is State Route 330, located
approximately 14 miles northeast of the Project Area.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.1-3 Aesthetics
The San Bernardino County Natural Resources Element designates several roadways as County Scenic
Routes (San Bernardino County, 2020). These are not officially Designated County Scenic Highways
according to the State of California Department of Transportation. There are no County Scenic Routes
within the Project Area. The nearest County Scenic Route is Lytle Creek Canyon Drive, approximately six
miles north of the Project Area.
VISUAL CHARACTER
The Project Area is primarily urbanized with a mix of lower density residential, commercial, office,
industrial, and public facilities. Sierra Avenue between Arrow Boulevard and Orange Way serves as the
City’s historic commercial core, developed primarily with one- and two-story commercial uses. The
gateways into the Project Area – Sierra Avenue at Foothill Boulevard and the southern portion of Sierra
Avenue – are comprised of vacant and underutilized commercial properties. North of the Sierra Avenue
retail core is the Civic Area, which includes City Hall, Fontana Police Department, Lewis Library &
Technology Center, and San Bernardino County Fire Station. South of the Sierra Avenue retail core is the
Metrolink Station. Residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Retail Core are characterized by single-
family homes with interconnected blocks and coordinated streetscapes. Neighborhoods surrounding the
gateways are more fragmented with larger parcels of former farmland. Park and open space resources
include Miller Park, within the Civic Area, Santa Fe Park, adjacent to the Metrolink Station, and a portion
of the Pacific Electric Trail (PET), an east-west multi-use regional trail, located south of Seville Avenue.
LIGHT/GLARE
Urban land uses in the Project Area are the main source of daytime and nighttime light and glare. These
uses are primarily comprised of lower density single- and multi-family residences, civic, commercial, and
office structures, parks, and roadways. Lighting associated with these uses include interior light emanating
from structures, exterior decorative and landscape lighting, and security lighting within parking lots,
park/open space areas, and around buildings and walkways. Street lights and traffic signals also contribute
to lighting within the area. The majority of structures within the Project Area do not exhibit highly
reflective materials (i.e., taller buildings with extensive glazing). Buildings containing reflective materials
are minimal and are low-rise and partially obstructed with trees and other vegetation. Therefore,
potential glare effects are minimal under existing conditions.
5.1.3 REGULATORY SETTING
STATE
California Scenic Highways and Historic Parkways Program
The California Scenic Highways and Historic Parkways Program was created in 1963 to preserve and
protect highway corridors located in areas of outstanding natural beauty from changes that would
diminish the aesthetic value of the adjacent lands. Caltrans maintains its State Scenic Highways and
Historic Parkways Program, through which segments of the State highway system are designated as being
of particular scenic value or interest. A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how much of
the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to
which development intrudes upon the traveler’s enjoyment of the view. Interstates, State highways,
byways, and parkways are eligible for designation or for recognition as eligible for designation. The
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.1-4 Aesthetics
Program is governed by the regulations found in the California Streets and Highways Code, Section 260 et
seq.
California Streets and Highway Code Section 261 requires local government agencies to take the following
actions to protect the scenic appearance of the scenic corridor:
• Regulate land use and density of development;
• Provide detailed land and site planning;
• Prohibit offsite outdoor advertising and control of on-site outdoor advertising;
• Pay careful attention to and control of earthmoving and landscaping; and
• Scrutinize the design and appearance of structures and equipment.
California Streets and Highway Code Section 263 allows the California State Legislature the authority to
identify highways as eligible for designation as a scenic highway. The government with jurisdiction over
land abutting a highway considered to be scenic is required to adopt a “scenic corridor protection
program” that restricts development, outdoor advertising, and earthmoving activities along the affected
segment or corridor (“Corridor Protection Program”). Caltrans must also indicate that the highway
segment meets established criteria for the roadway or segment to be designated as scenic.
California Building Standards Code
Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code serves as the basis for the design and construction of
buildings in California. In addition to safety, sustainability, new technology and reliability, the California
Building Standards Code addresses light pollution and glare hazards through the establishment of
maximum allowable backlight, up light, and glare (BUG) ratings.
LOCAL
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce potential impacts to aesthetics
and light/glare. Chapter 4, Community and Neighborhoods Element contains the following goals and
policies potentially relevant to the proposed Project:
Chapter 4 - Community and Neighborhoods
• Goal 5: New housing developments promote walkable neighborhoods with mixed-use amenities
and connections to city destinations.
o Policy: Support regulations that promote creation of compact and walkable urban village-
style design in new developments.
• Goal 6: The safe, attractive, and lively central area of the city has new infill development and
public improvements.
o Policy: Support revitalization of the central area of the city with an integrated approach,
including mixed-use development, infill housing, infrastructure improvements,
interconnections and placemaking programs that create great public amenities.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.1-5 Aesthetics
City of Fontana Municipal Code
Chapter 30 of the City of Fontana Municipal Code, also known as the City of Fontana Zoning and
Development Code (Development Code), provides specific development standards that influence the
City’s scenic views, visual character, and restrict lighting. The Development Code implements the Fontana
General Plan goals and policies by classifying and regulating the specific uses of land and structures within
the City. Article II, Administrative Procedures, contains the processes and procedures used by the City for
the governing of the zoning ordinance. Article II, Division 10, Administrative Site Plan Major, Minor,
Amendment, and Modification, outlines the administrative site plan process. The reviewing body reviews
the location, design, site plan configuration and the effect of the proposed development on adjacent
properties by comparing the project plans to established development standards, and consistency with
design guidelines/standards, the General Plan, or any other applicable specific plan. Article II, Division 11,
Design Review, Amendment, and Modification, outlines the design review process for applicable projects.
The reviewing body considers the following criteria: the project’s consistency with the Fontana General
Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plan; the project’s consistency with criteria
contained in the Development Code, resulting in an appropriate, safe and desirable development
promoting the public health, safety, and welfare of the community; that the project’s design and
appearance is aesthetically and architecturally pleasing resulting in a safe, well-designed facility while
enhancing the character of the surrounding neighborhood; and that the project’s site improvements are
appropriate and will result in a safe, well-designed facility. Development Code Article III, Form-Based
Code, establishes development standards within the City’s FBC zoning districts that include, but are not
limited to:
• Minimum/maximum lot size;
• Minimum/maximum building height;
• Building setbacks;
• Parking and garage/carport design and placement;
• Landscaping and screening requirements;
• Design and architectural regulations; and
• Lighting requirements.
5.1.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Initial Study
Environmental Checklist, which includes questions related to aesthetics and light/glare. A project would
result in a significant impact related to aesthetics and light/glare if it would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (refer to Impact Statement 5.1-1);
• Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway (refer to Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be
Significant);
• In an urbanized area, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic
quality (refer to Impact Statement 5.1-2);
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.1-6 Aesthetics
• Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area (refer to Impact Statement 5.1-3).
Pursuant to SB 743 (Public Resources Code Section 21099(d)), “aesthetic and parking impacts of a
residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority
area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.”
PRC Section 21099 defines a “transit priority area” as an area within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop that
is “existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon
included in a Transportation Improvement Program or applicable regional transportation plan.”
PRC Section 21064.3 defines “major transit stop” as a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry
terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes
with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute
periods.
PRC Section 21099 defines an infill site as a lot located within an “urban area that has been previously
developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is
separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban
uses.”
The Fontana Metrolink Station is located within the Project Area and most of the Project Area is located
within a SCAG-designated Transit Priority Area (TPA); refer to Figure 5.1-1, Project Area and Transit Priority
Areas. Therefore, individual development projects under the proposed Downtown Core Project within the
portions of the Project Area that are within a TPA are exempt from aesthetic impacts under CEQA. For
purposes of this EIR, the following analysis is provided to assess potential impacts to aesthetics from
future development within the Project Area that are located inside and outside of the TPA.
Based on these standards and significance thresholds and criteria, the Project’s effects have been
categorized as either “no impact,” a “less than significant impact,” or a “potentially significant impact.”
Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant
impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant impact through the application of mitigation, it is
categorized as a “significant unavoidable impact.”
Pine Ave
Merrill Ave
Pe
p
p
e
r
A
v
e
Upland Ave
Ma
n
g
o
A
v
e
Anastasia Ave
Ivy Ave
Orange Way
Ch
a
n
t
r
y
A
v
e
Se
w
e
l
l
A
v
e
Arrow Blvd
Ceres Ave
Randall Ave
Si
e
r
r
a
A
v
e
Sie
r
r
a
A
v
e
Pinedale Ave
Valencia Ave
Arrow Blvd
Ol
i
v
e
S
t
Fontlee Ln
Ceres Ave
Lerner Ln
Spring St
Ivy Ave
Seville Ave
Nu
e
v
o
A
v
e
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
C
t
Terrace Ln
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
A
v
e
Rosena
Ave
Em
e
r
a
l
d
A
v
e
Newport
Ave
Pinedale Ct
Be
n
n
e
t
t
A
v
e
Ka
i
s
e
r
A
v
e
Bla
n
c
h
a
r
d
A
v
e
Ke
m
p
s
t
e
r
A
v
e
Paine St
Athol St
Hibiscus St
Ac
a
c
i
a
A
v
e
Foothill Blvd
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
A
v
e
Be
n
n
e
t
t
A
v
e
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
A
v
e
Athol St
Pe
p
p
e
r
A
v
e
Se
w
e
l
l
A
v
e
Martin Ave
Ch
a
n
t
r
y
A
v
e
Owen St
Upland Ave
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
A
v
e
FONTANADOWNTOWN CORE PROJECT
Figure 5.1-1.
Legend
Project Area
Transit Priority Area
0 500 1,000
Feet
\
Sources: ArcGIS Online World Imagery map service; USGS National Map Roads; SCAG 2045 Transit Priority Areas. Map date: January 13, 2023.
Project Area and
Transit Priority Areas
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.1-8 Aesthetics
5.1.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 5.1-1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Impact Analysis: The Project Area contains a mix of urban development primarily consisting of one- and
two-story buildings. Scenic views within the Project Area include views of the San Gabriel Mountains to
the north and the Jurupa Hills to the south, which are intermittently visible from the Project Area due to
intervening development within the Project Area and surrounding area. Major north-south trending
streets, including Sierra Avenue, Juniper Avenue, and Mango Avenue, generally function as view corridors
to the San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills. However, the Project Area does not extend into the San
Gabriel Mountains or Jurupa Hills and would not result in direct changes to these scenic resources.
The Downtown Core Project would create and implement a new General Plan land use category and six
new FBC districts specific to the Project Area. The FBC districts would provide for a mix of residential,
commercial, and civic uses that support increased activity and interaction within the Project Area through
interconnected neighborhoods, an enhanced pedestrian environment, and a variety of housing options
with access to retail, services, and public transportation.
Implementation of the Downtown Core Project would result in new development and intensification of
existing urban uses that may interfere with existing scenic views of the San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa
Hills. Zoning and Development Code Chapter 30, Article III, Form-Based Code, would be amended to
incorporate the six new FBC districts, including permitted land uses, increased densities and development
standards by zoning district, building types, frontage types, general regulations, design and architectural
regulations, private open space types, and public open space standards specific to each new FBC District.
Within the Project Area, maximum building heights would range from 40 feet in the Neighborhood Core,
55 feet in the Multi-Family Core and Mixed-Use Core, and 70 feet within the Civic Core, Gateway Core,
and Sierra Core. However, a 35-foot maximum height would be maintained adjacent to Sierra Avenue and
a 55-foot maximum height would be maintained adjacent to street corners within the Gateway Core and
Sierra Core. The Gateway Core and Sierra Core comprise the areas wherein views of the San Gabriel
Mountains and Jurupa Hills are primarily provided. Height limitations along Sierra Avenue and at the street
corners will assist in maintaining these long-range views from the Project Area. Thus, the Project would
not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Impact 5.1-2: In an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
Impact Analysis: Public Resources Code Section 21071 defines an “Urbanized area” as:
(a) An incorporated city that meets either of the following criteria:
(1) Has a population of at least 100,000 persons.
(2) Has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more
than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.1-9 Aesthetics
According to the California Department of Finance, the City of Fontana has a current (2022) population of
212,809; thus, the City qualifies as being within an “Urbanized Area”. Therefore, a significant impact would
occur if a future development project associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project
conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
The Downtown Core Project would support and guide future infill development and redevelopment within
the Project Area by encouraging a mix of new residential development at varying densities that provide
for a mix of housing opportunities within the Project Area. The Project would also support and provide for
new non-residential development to support existing and future residential uses.
General Plan
The Project Area is currently designated P-PF (Public Facilities), P-R (Recreational Facilities), R-MFH (Multi-
Family High 39.1-50 du/ac), WMXU-1 (Walkable Mixed Use Corridor & Downtown 0.2-2 FAR, 3-39 du/ac),
and R-SF (Single Family Residential 2.1-5 du/ac); refer to Figure 3-5. The Project proposes a General Plan
Amendment to introduce the WMXU-3: Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core land use category, which
supports a density of 2.1-70 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and 0.2-2.0 commercial FAR, and to apply the
new land use category to a majority of the Project Area; refer to Figure 3-7. The new WMXU-3 land use
designation would encourage residential development within the Project Area by providing opportunities
for higher density residential development to meet the goals of the SB 2 Planning Grant and to implement
the General Plan goals, policies, and actions that include, but are not limited to, encouraging a mix of uses
in the downtown core, appealing to a wide range of customer types, with a focus on families; encouraging
mixed-use development within the Downtown and along major corridors; encouraging new “in-town”
housing types targeted to young people and young families to help attract and retain the next generation
of Fontanans; locating multi-family development in mixed-use centers, preferably where there is nearby
access to retail, services, and public transportation; promoting interconnected neighborhoods with
appropriate transitions between lower-intensity and higher-intensity land uses; promoting revitalization
and redevelopment of downtown and older neighborhoods in the central area of the city; and
transforming downtown into a vibrant local and regional destination.
The proposed Project would facilitate General Plan goals, policies, and actions related to infill
development, providing mixed and supportive land uses, revitalizing the Downtown Area, supporting
increased activity, increasing connectivity and providing improved amenities and design that encourages
walking, bicycling, transit, and other opportunities that reduce motor vehicle trips. Future development
associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would be guided by the FBC district
development standards and the Downtown Fontana Development Guide, described further below, which
define the desired character and image of development in the Project Area. As demonstrated throughout
this Draft EIR, the proposed Project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan goals and policies.
Development Code
Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 30, Zoning and Development Code, establishes official land use zoning
regulations and design guidelines. The zoning districts and regulations are consistent with the goals and
policies of the General Plan.
Chapter 30, Article III, Form-Based Code, establishes the requirements for all property, including
structures, land uses and physical improvements within the boundaries of the Form-Based Code (FBC)
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.1-10 Aesthetics
area, including that all property subject to the FBC comply with the relevant requirements of the
applicable district. Division 4, Development Standards by Zoning District, establishes the specific
development standards for the 11 zoning districts. As shown in Figure 3-6, FBC Zoning Districts, the Project
Area is located within the FBC area and specifically within the Retail, Civic, Station Area, Downtown
Gateway, Transitional, Multi-Family, Neighborhood, and Sierra Gateway districts.
The Project proposes to amend Zoning and Development Code Chapter 30, Article III, Form-Based Code,
to incorporate six new FBC districts, including permitted land uses, increased densities and development
standards by zoning district, building types, frontage types, general regulations, design and architectural
regulations, private open space types, and public open space standards specific to each new FBC District.
A detailed description of each FBC District is provided in Section 3.0, Project Description. Article IV, Zoning
Districts, Section 30-405, Section 30-406, and Table No. 30-408 would also be amended to incorporate
the Downtown Core and associated land use districts. The Fontana Zoning District Map would be amended
to incorporate the Downtown Core; refer to Figure 3-8. The Downtown Fontana Development Guide
summarizes development standards and design and architectural regulations for all new development
projects within the Project Area.
As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, the Downtown Core Project provides for buildout of the
Project Area with up to 11,304 dwelling units and 4.3 million square feet of nonresidential development.
Individual development projects would be required to comply with the new FBC district development
standards as they define the minimum or baseline standards for urban design. The design guidelines
further define the desired character and image of development in the Project Area. Development
standards, and the design and architectural regulations, address a variety of development regulations
including, but not limited to, building facades, roofs, signs, mechanical equipment, landscaping, lighting,
plazas, pedestrian walkways and courtyards, and parking.
The Fontana Development Code provides for project-specific design review of future development
proposals within the City, including the Project Area, which would ensure that development is consistent
with the General Plan goals, policies, and actions; the FBC district development standards; and the
Downtown Fontana Development Guide regulations. Overall, the Downtown Core Project would not
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts would be less than
significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Impact 5.1-3: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Impact Analysis: Future development accommodated through implementation of the Downtown Core
Project could introduce new sources of light or glare with the potential to adversely affect day or nighttime
views. Light and glare impacts could result from new light sources such as street lighting, interior and
exterior building lighting (including for safety purposes), vehicle headlights, illuminated signage, traffic
signals, and new glare sources such as reflective building materials, roofing materials, and windows. These
new sources of light and glare would be most visible from development along adjacent roadways, and to
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.1-11 Aesthetics
receptors such as residents and traveling motorists. Light pollution can also interfere with nocturnal
wildlife, particularly night-hunting or foraging animals, such as owls, rodents, and others, or lead to
skyglow, which interferes with the operation of astronomical observatories.
All lighting installed in future development projects as a result of Project implementation would be subject
to conformance with the Fontana General Plan and applicable Development Code requirements. Pursuant
to Article II of the Development Code, all future land use and development review applications would
undergo site plan and architectural review by the decision-making authority on a project-by-project basis
prior to approval. Applicable projects would also undergo CEQA review. If necessary, mitigation would be
recommended to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, implementation of
the Project would not result in adverse light and glare impacts. Impacts would be less than significant in
this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.1.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Analysis: As described above, the Project Area contains a mix of existing on-site development. The
Downtown Core Project would support additional infill development beyond existing conditions and could
increase residential densities and non-residential land use intensities throughout the Project Area. This
new development may result in changes to the skyline throughout the Project Area, which may obstruct
or interfere with views of surrounding visual features, including the San Gabriel Mountains to the north
and the Jurupa Hills to the south. Scenic views within the Project Area include views of the San Gabriel
Mountains to the north and the Jurupa Hills to the south, which are intermittently visible from the Project
Area due to intervening development within the Project Area and surrounding area. Major north-south
trending streets, including Sierra Avenue, Juniper Avenue, and Mango Avenue, generally function as view
corridors to the San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills. As previously discussed, although a maximum
building height of 70 feet would be allowed within the Civic Core, Gateway Core, and Sierra Core, a 35-
foot maximum height would be maintained adjacent to Sierra Avenue and a 55-foot maximum height
would be maintained adjacent to street corners within the Gateway Core and Sierra Core. The Gateway
Core and Sierra Core comprise the areas wherein views of the San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills are
primarily provided. Height limitations along Sierra Avenue and at the street corners will assist in
maintaining these long-range views from the Project Area.
Regional growth has and will continue to result in a cumulative aesthetic effect by converting undeveloped
land into developed and occupied areas, intensifying existing development, and increasing overall levels
of nighttime lighting. In general, the Project would accommodate an increase in building density and
intensity, and height which could increase the number and distribution of dwelling units and other
buildings, as well as supporting infrastructure. This is considered a potentially significant cumulative
impact. Subsequent projects implemented within the Project Area would be required to be consistent
with the General Plan and adopted regulations pertaining to aesthetics and lighting in the City. With
implementation of the adopted policies and regulations described above, the proposed Project would not
considerably contribute to permanent changes in visual character, such as obstruction of scenic views,
conversion of existing visual character, and increased lighting resulting in a substantial degradation.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.1-12 Aesthetics
Compliance with the General Plan policies, goals, and actions, as well as the Fontana Development Code,
would reduce the cumulative effect of the Project on visual character to a less-than-significant level.
Therefore, the Project’s incremental contribution to aesthetic impacts would be less than cumulatively
considerable.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.1.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts associated with aesthetics would occur with the proposed Project.
5.1.8 REFERENCES
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California State Scenic Highway System Map,
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805
7116f1aacaa, accessed November 11, 2022.
San Bernardino County, Countywide Plan: County Policy Plan, October 2020.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-1 Air Quality
5.2 AIR QUALITY
5.2.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing air quality characteristics and to identify the
emissions generated by the construction and operation of the proposed Project and address their
potential impacts to air quality, including toxic air contaminants. The analysis also addresses the potential
for the Project to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Management Plan.
This section is primarily based upon the air quality emissions analysis and modeling prepared by De Novo
Planning Group, and included as Appendix C, Air Quality, Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling
Data.
5.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
REGIONAL TOPOGRAPHY
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) divides the State of California (State) into 15 air basins that
share similar meteorological and topographical features. The City is located within the South Coast Air
Basin (Basin), a 6,600-square mile area bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San
Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The Basin includes the non-desert portions
of San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Riverside Counties, as well as all of Orange County, in addition to the
San Gorgonio Pass area of Riverside County.
The extent and severity of the air pollution problem in the Basin is a function of the area’s natural physical
characteristics (weather and topography), as well as man-made influences (development patterns and
lifestyle). Factors, such as wind, sunlight, temperature, humidity, rainfall, and topography, all affect the
accumulation and dispersion of air pollutants throughout the Basin.
LOCAL CLIMATE AND METEOROLOGY
Dominant airflows provide the driving mechanism for transport and dispersion of air pollution. The
mountains surrounding the region form natural horizontal barriers to the dispersion of air contaminants.
Air pollution created in the coastal areas and around the Los Angeles area is transported inland until it
reaches the mountains where the combination of mountains and inversion layers generally prevent
further dispersion. This poor ventilation results in a gradual degradation of air quality from the coastal
areas to inland areas. Air stagnation may occur during the early evening and early morning periods of
transition between day and nighttime flows. The region also experiences periods of hot, dry winds from
the desert, known as Santa Ana winds. If the Santa Ana winds are strong, they can surpass the sea breeze,
which blows from the ocean to the land, and carry the suspended dust and pollutants out to the ocean.
If the winds are weak, they are opposed by the sea breeze and cause stagnation, resulting in high pollution
events.
The temperature and precipitation levels for the City of Fontana (Kaiser), the closest station with data,
are in Table 5.2-1, Metrological Summary. Table 5.2-1 shows that July is typically the warmest month and
January is typically the coolest month. Rainfall in the Project Area varies considerably in both time and
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-2 Air Quality
space. Almost all the annual rainfall comes from the fringes of mid-latitude storms from late November
to early April, with summers being almost completely dry.
Table 5.2-1
Meteorological Summary
Month Temperature (˚F) Average Precipitation
(inches) Average High Average Low
January 66.8 44.0 3.65
February 69.4 45.0 2.85
March 70.1 46.3 2.80
April 74.5 48.4 1.13
May 79.9 52.6 0.26
June 86.7 56.6 0.04
July 95.0 62.2 0.01
August 94.4 62.9 0.11
September 91.3 61.3 0.34
October 83.0 55.4 0.34
November 73.6 48.5 1.72
December 73.6 44.4 2.07
Annual Average 79.4 52.3 15.32
Source: Western Regional Climate Center, Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary,
https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3120, accessed on November 11, 2022.
CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS
The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by state
and federal laws. These regulated air pollutants are known as “criteria air pollutants” and are categorized
into primary and secondary pollutants.
Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases
(ROG), nitrogen oxide (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter
(PM2.5), and lead are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, NOX, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are criteria pollutants.
ROG and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical
and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. For example, the criteria pollutant O3 is formed by a
chemical reaction between ROG and NOX in the presence of sunlight. O3 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are
the principal secondary pollutants.
Carbon Monoxide (CO). CO is an odorless, colorless toxic gas that is emitted by mobile and stationary
sources as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. In cities,
automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions. CO replaces oxygen in the body’s
red blood cells. Individuals with a deficient blood supply to the heart, patients with diseases involving
heart and blood vessels, fetuses (unborn babies), and patients with chronic hypoxemia (oxygen deficiency)
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-3 Air Quality
as seen in high altitudes are most susceptible to the adverse effects of CO exposure. People with heart
disease are also more susceptible to developing chest pains when exposed to low levels of carbon
monoxide.
Ozone (O3). O3 occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the earth’s surface is the
troposphere. The troposphere extends approximately 10 miles above ground level, where it meets the
second layer, the stratosphere. The stratospheric (the “good” O3 layer) extends upward from about 10 to
30 miles and protects life on earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. “Bad” O3 is a photochemical
pollutant, and needs volatile organic compounds (VOCs), NOX, and sunlight to form; therefore, VOCs and
NOX are O3 precursors. To reduce O3 concentrations, it is necessary to control the emissions of these O3
precursors. Significant O3 formation generally requires an adequate amount of precursors in the
atmosphere and a period of several hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. High O3
concentrations can form over large regions when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources
are carried hundreds of miles from their origins.
While O3 in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation,
high concentrations of ground-level O3 (in the troposphere) can adversely affect the human respiratory
system and other tissues. O3 is a strong irritant that can constrict the airways, forcing the respiratory
system to work hard to deliver oxygen. Individuals exercising outdoors, children, and people with pre-
existing lung disease such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease are considered to be the most
susceptible to the health effects of O3. Short-term exposure (lasting for a few hours) to O3 at elevated
levels can result in aggravated respiratory diseases such as emphysema, bronchitis and asthma, shortness
of breath, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, increased fatigue, as well
as chest pain, dry throat, headache, and nausea.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). NOX are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the
formation of ground-level O3 and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. NO2 (often used
interchangeably with NOX) is a reddish-brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at elevated levels.
Peak readings of NO2 occur in areas that have a high concentration of combustion sources (e.g., motor
vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations). NO2 can irritate and damage
the lungs and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza. The health effects of short-term
exposure are still unclear. However, continued or frequent exposure to NO2 concentrations that are
typically much higher than those normally found in the ambient air may increase acute respiratory
illnesses in children and increase the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure
to NO2 may aggravate eyes and mucus membranes and cause pulmonary dysfunction.
Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10). PM10 refers to suspended particulate matter, which is smaller than 10
microns or ten one-millionths of a meter. PM10 arises from sources such as road dust, diesel soot,
combustion products, construction operations, and dust storms. PM10 scatters light and significantly
reduces visibility. In addition, these particulates penetrate into lungs and can potentially damage the
respiratory tract. On June 19, 2003, CARB adopted amendments to the Statewide 24-hour particulate
matter standards based upon requirements set forth in the Children’s Environmental Health Protection
Act (Senate Bill 25).
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5). Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts related to fine
particulate matter (particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less), both State and federal PM2.5
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-4 Air Quality
standards have been created. Particulate matter impacts primarily affect infants, children, the elderly,
and those with pre-existing cardiopulmonary disease. In 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) announced new PM2.5 standards. Industry groups challenged the new standard in court and the
implementation of the standard was blocked. However, upon appeal by the EPA, the United States
Supreme Court reversed this decision and upheld the EPA’s new standards.
On January 5, 2005, the EPA published a Final Rule in the Federal Register that designates the Basin as a
nonattainment area for Federal PM2.5 standards. On June 20, 2002, CARB adopted amendments for
statewide annual ambient particulate matter air quality standards. These standards were
revised/established due to increasing concerns by CARB that previous standards were inadequate, as
almost everyone in California is exposed to levels at or above the current State standards during some
parts of the year, and the statewide potential for significant health impacts associated with particulate
matter exposure was determined to be large and wide-ranging. On July 8, 2016, EPA made a finding that
the South Coast has attained the 1997 24-hour and annual PM2.5 standards based on 2011-2013 data.
However, the Basin remains in nonattainment as the EPA has not determined that California has met the
Federal Clean Air Act requirements for redesignating the Basin nonattainment area to attainment.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). SO2 is a colorless, irritating gas with a rotten egg smell; it is formed primarily by the
combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. Sulfur dioxide is often used interchangeably with SOX.
Exposure of a few minutes to low levels of SO2 can result in airway constriction in some asthmatics.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). VOCs are hydrocarbon compounds (any compound containing various
combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the ambient air. VOCs contribute to the
formation of smog through atmospheric photochemical reactions and/or may be toxic. Compounds of
carbon (also known as organic compounds) have different levels of reactivity; that is, they do not react at
the same speed or do not form O3 to the same extent when exposed to photochemical processes. VOCs
often have an odor, and some examples include gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints.
Exceptions to the VOC designation include carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic
carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate. VOCs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor
to O3, which is a criteria pollutant. The terms VOC and reactive organic gases (ROG), discussed below, are
often used interchangeably.
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Similar to VOCs, ROGs are also precursors in forming O3 and consist of
compounds containing methane, ethane, propane, butane, and longer chain hydrocarbons, which are
typically the result of some type of combustion/decomposition process. Smog is formed when ROG and
nitrogen oxides react in the presence of sunlight. ROGs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor
to O3, which is a criteria pollutant.
TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are airborne substances capable of causing short-term (acute) and/or long-
term (chronic) or carcinogenic (i.e., cancer causing) adverse human health effects (i.e., injury or illness).
TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances. They may be emitted from a variety of
common sources including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, and
painting operations. The current California list of TACs includes approximately 200 compounds, including
particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-5 Air Quality
Hazardous air pollutant (HAP) is a term used in the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and includes a variety of
pollutants generated or emitted by industrial production activities. Identified as TACs under the California
Clean Air Act (CCAA), ten pollutants have been singled out through ambient air quality data as being the
most substantial health risks in California. Direct exposure to these pollutants has been shown to cause
cancer, birth defects, brain and nervous system damage, and respiratory disorders.
TACs do not have ambient air quality standards because no safe levels of TACs can be determined.
Instead, TAC impacts are evaluated by calculating the health risks associated with a given exposure. The
requirements of the Air Toxic “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 2588) apply
to facilities that use, produce, or emit toxic chemicals. Facilities subject to the toxic emission inventory
requirements of AB 2588 must prepare, submit, and periodically update their toxic emission inventory
plans and reports.
Toxic contaminants often result from fugitive emissions during fuel storage and transfer activities, and
from leaking valves and pipes. For example, the electronics industry, including semiconductor
manufacturing, uses highly toxic chlorinated solvents in semiconductor production processes.
Automobile exhaust also contains toxic air pollutants such as benzene and 1,3-butadiene.
Diesel Particulate Matter
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) is emitted from both mobile and stationary sources. In California, on-road
diesel-fueled engines contribute approximately 24 percent of the Statewide total, with an additional 71
percent attributed to other mobile sources, such as construction and mining equipment, agricultural
equipment, and transport refrigeration units. Stationary sources contribute approximately five percent of
total DPM in the State. It should be noted that CARB has developed several plans and programs to reduce
diesel emissions such as the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, the Statewide Portable Equipment Registration
Program (PERP), and the Diesel Off-Road Online Reporting System (DOORS). PERP and DOORS allow
owners or operators of portable engines and certain other types of equipment to register their equipment
in order to operate them in the State without having to obtain individual permits from local air districts.
Diesel exhaust and many individual substances contained in it (e.g., arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, and
nickel) have the potential to contribute to mutations in cells that can lead to cancer. Long-term exposure
to diesel exhaust particles poses the highest cancer risk of any TAC evaluated by OEHHA. CARB estimates
that about 70 percent of the cancer risk that the average Californian faces from breathing toxic air
pollutants stems from diesel exhaust particles.
In its comprehensive assessment of diesel exhaust, OEHHA analyzed more than 30 studies of people who
worked around diesel equipment, including truck drivers, railroad workers, and equipment operators. The
studies showed these workers were more likely to develop lung cancer than workers who were not
exposed to diesel emissions. These studies provide strong evidence that long-term occupational exposure
to diesel exhaust increases the risk of lung cancer. Using information from OEHHA’s assessment, CARB
estimates that diesel particle levels measured in California’s air in 2000 could cause 540 “excess” cancers
in a population of one million people over a 70-year lifetime. Other researchers and scientific
organizations, including the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, have calculated cancer
risks from diesel exhaust similar to those developed by OEHHA and CARB.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-6 Air Quality
Exposure to diesel exhaust can also have immediate health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes,
nose, throat, and lungs, and can cause coughing, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. In studies with
human volunteers, diesel exhaust particles made people with allergies more susceptible to the materials
to which they are allergic, such as dust and pollen. Exposure to diesel exhaust also causes inflammation
in the lungs, which may aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or intensity
of asthma attacks.
Diesel engines are a major source of fine particulate pollution. The elderly and people with emphysema,
asthma, and chronic heart and lung disease are especially sensitive to fine-particle pollution. Numerous
studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room
visits, asthma attacks, and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems. Because
children’s lungs and respiratory systems are still developing, they are also more susceptible than healthy
adults to fine particles. Exposure to fine particles is associated with increased frequency of childhood
illnesses and can also reduce lung function in children. In California, diesel exhaust particles have been
identified as a carcinogen.
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
Attainment Status
The EPA and CARB designate air basins where ambient air quality standards are exceeded as
“nonattainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated as an “attainment” area. If there is
inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered
“unclassified.” National nonattainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious,
severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards. Each standard has a different definition, or
‘form’ of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics. For example, the federal 8-
hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of
the CO standard if no more than one 8-hour ambient air monitoring values exceeds the threshold per
year. In contrast, the federal annual PM2.5 standard is met if the three-year average of the annual average
PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard. Table 5.2-2, South Coast Air Basin Attainment
Status, lists the attainment status for the criteria pollutants in the basin.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-7 Air Quality
Table 5.2-2
South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutant Standard1 Averaging Time Designation2 Attainment Deadline Date3
1-Hour
Ozone
NAAQS 1979 1-Hour
(0.12 ppm) Nonattainment (Extreme) 2/6/2023 (not attained)4
CAAQS 1-Hour
(0.09 ppm) Nonattainment N/A
8-Hour
Ozone5
NAAQS 1997 8-Hour
(0.08 ppm) Nonattainment (Extreme) 6/15/2024
NAAQS 2008 8-Hour
(0.075 ppm) Nonattainment (Extreme) 7/20/2032
NAAQS 2015 8-Hour
(0.070 ppm) Nonattainment (Extreme) 8/3/2038
CAAQS 8-Hour
(0.070 ppm) Nonattainment Beyond 2032
CO
NAAQS 1-Hour
(35 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 6/11/2007 (attained)
CAAQS 8-Hour
(9 ppm) Attainment 6/11/2007 (attained)
NO26
NAAQS 1-Hour
(0.1 ppm) Unclassifiable/Attainment N/A (attained)
NAAQS Annual
(0.053 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 9/22/1998 (attained)
CAAQS 1-hour (0.18 ppm)
Annual (0.030 ppm) Attainment --
SO27
NAAQS 1-Hour (75 ppb) Designations Pending
(expect Uncl./Attainment) N/A (attained)
NAAQS 24-Hour (0.14 ppm)
Annual (0.03 ppm) Unclassifiable/Attainment 3/19/1979 (attained)
PM10
NAAQS 1987 24-Hour
(150 µg/m3) Attainment (Maintenance)8 7/26/2013 (attained)
CAAQS 24-Hour (50 µg/m3)
Annual (20 µg/m3) Nonattainment N/A
PM2.59
NAAQS 2006 24-Hour
(35 µg/m3) Nonattainment (Serious) 12/31/2019
NAAQS 1997 Annual
(15.0 µg/m3) Attainment 8/24/2016
NAAQS 2021 Annual
(12.0 µg/m3) Nonattainment (Serious) 12/31/2025
CAAQS Annual
(12.0 µg/m3) Nonattainment N/A
Lead NAAQS 3-Months Rolling
(0.15 µg/m3)
Nonattainment
(Partial)10 12/31/2015
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-8 Air Quality
Table 5.2-3 (continued)
South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutant Standard1 Averaging Time Designation2 Attainment Deadline Date3
Hydrogen
Sulfide
(H2S)
CAAQS
1-Hour
(0.03 ppm/42
µg/m3)
Attainment --
Sulfates CAAQS 24-Hour
(25 µg/m3) Attainment --
Vinyl
Chloride CAAQS
24-Hour
(0.01 ppm/26
µg/m3)
Attainment --
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin, September 2018.
Notes:
1 NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards, CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards
2 U.S. EPA often only declares Nonattainment areas; everywhere else is listed as Unclassifiable/Attainment or
Unclassifiable.
3 A design value below the NAAQS for data through the full year or smog season prior to the attainment date is
typically required for attainment demonstration.
4 1-hour O3 standard (0.12 ppm) was revoked, effective June 15, 2005 ; however, the Basin has not attained this
standard based on 2008-2010 data and is still subject to anti-backsliding requirements.
5 1997 8-hour O3 standard (0.08 ppm) was reduced (0.075 ppm), effective May 27, 2008; the revoked 1997 O3 standard
is still subject to anti-backsliding requirements.
6 New NO2 1-hour standard, effective August 2, 2010; attainment designations January 20, 2012; annual NO2 standard
retained.
7 The 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards were revoked, effective August 23, 2010; however, these 1971 standards
will remain in effect until one year after U.S. EPA promulgates area designations for the 2010 SO2 1-hour standard. Area
designations are still pending, with Basin expected to be designated Unclassifiable /Attainment.
8 Annual PM10 standard was revoked, effective December 18, 2006; 24-hour PM10 NAAQS deadline was 12/31/2006;
SCAQMD request for attainment redesignation and PM10 maintenance plan was approved by U.S. EPA on June 26,
2013, effective July 26, 2013.
9 Attainment deadline for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS (designation effective December 14, 2009) is December 31,
2019 (end of the 10th calendar year after effective date of designations for Serious nonattainment areas). Annual PM2.5
standard was revised on January 15, 2013, effective March 18, 2013, from 15 to 12 µg/m3. Designations effective April
15, 2015, so Serious area attainment deadline is December 31, 2025.
10 Partial Nonattainment designation – Los Angeles County portion of Basin only for near-source monitors. Expect
redesignation to attainment based on current monitoring data.
San Bernardino County Monitoring
The SCAQMD is divided into 38 air-monitoring areas with a designated ambient air monitoring station
representative of each area. The City of Fontana is in the Central San Bernardino Valley 1 (Area 34). The
nearest air monitoring station is the Fontana Station, located at 14360 Arrow Highway, approximately
three miles west of the Project Area. Table 5.2-3, Local Air Quality Levels, presents the monitored
pollutant levels within the vicinity.
The monitoring data presented in Table 5.2-3 shows that ozone and particulate matter (PM10) are the air
pollutants of primary concern in the Project Area, which are detailed below.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-9 Air Quality
Ozone
During the 2019 to 2021 monitoring period, the State 1-hour concentration standard for ozone has been
exceeded between 41 and 56 days each year at the Fontana Station. The federal and State 8-hour ozone
standard has been exceeded between 67 and 89 days each year over the past three years at the Fontana
Station.
Ozone is a secondary pollutant as it is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of chemical reactions
between other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and NO2, which occur only in the presence of
bright sunlight. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport downwind to produce the
oxidant concentrations experienced in the area. Many areas of the SCAQMD contribute to the ozone levels
experienced at the monitoring station, with the more significant areas being those directly upwind.
Carbon Monoxide
CO is another important pollutant that is due mainly to motor vehicles. The Central San Bernardino Valley
did not record an exceedance of the State or federal 1-hour or 8-hour CO standards for the last three
years.
Nitrogen Dioxide
The Fontana Station did not record an exceedance of the State or federal NO2 standards for the last three
years.
Sulfur Dioxide
The Central San Bernardino Valley did not record an exceedance of the State SO2 standards for the last
three years.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-10 Air Quality
Table 5.2-3
Local Area Air Quality Levels
Pollutant (Standard)1 Year
2019 2020 2021
Ozone:
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.124 0.151 0.125
Days > CAAQS (0.09 ppm) 41 56 44
Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.109 0.111 0.103
Days > NAAQS (0.07 ppm) 67 89 81
Days > CAAQS (0.07 ppm) 67 89 83
Carbon Monoxide:
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 2.7 1.7 1.9
Days > NAAQS (20 ppm) 0 0 0
Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 1.0 1.2 1.4
Days > NAAQS (9 ppm) 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide:
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.076 0.066 0.067
Days > NAAQS (0.25 ppm) 0 0 0
Sulfur Dioxide:
Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.002 0.003 0.005
Days > CAAQS (0.25 ppm) 0 0 0
Inhalable Particulates (PM10):
Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (ug/m3) 88.0 61.0 73.0
Days > NAAQS (150 ug/m3) 0 0 0
Days > CAAQS (50 ug/m3) 12 (20%) 6 (15%) 4 (8%)
Annual Average (ug/m3) 34.8 35.8 32.1
Annual > NAAQS (50 ug/m3) No No No
Annual > CAAQS (20 ug/m3) Yes Yes Yes
Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM2.5):
Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (ug/m3) 46.5 46.1 55.1
Days > NAAQS (35 ug/m3) 2 (1.8%) 1 (1%) 2 (2%)
Annual Average (ug/m3) 10.84 11.95 12.07
Annual > NAAQS (15 ug/m3) No No No
Annual > CAAQS (12 ug/m3) No No Yes
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Historical Air Quality Data by Year,
https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/historical-air-quality-data/historical-data-by-year, accessed January 3, 2023.
Notes:
1 CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard; ppm = parts per
million
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-11 Air Quality
Particulate Matter
During the 2019 to 2021 monitoring period, the State 24-hour concentration standard for PM10 was
exceeded for 12 days (20 percent of sampled days) in 2019, six days (15 percent of sampled days) in 2020,
and four days (eight percent of sampled days) in 2020 at the Fontana Station. Over the same time period,
the federal 24-hour and annual standards for PM10 have not been exceeded at the Fontana Station.
During the 2019 to 2021 monitoring period, the federal 24-hour standard for PM2.5 was exceeded for two
days (1.8 percent of sampled days) in 2019, one day (one percent of sampled days) in 2020, and two days
(two percent of sampled days) in 2021 at the Fontana Station.
According to the EPA, some people are much more sensitive than others to breathing fine particles (PM10
and PM2.5). People with influenza, chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may
suffer worsening illness and premature death due to breathing these fine particles. People with bronchitis
can expect aggravated symptoms from breathing in fine particles. Children may experience decline in lung
function due to breathing in PM10 and PM2.5. Other groups considered sensitive are smokers and people
who cannot breathe well through their noses. Exercising athletes are also considered sensitive, because
many breathe through their mouths during exercise.
5.2.3 REGULATORY SETTING
FEDERAL
Clean Air Act
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) was first signed into law in 1970. In 1977, and again in 1990, the law was
substantially amended. The FCAA is the foundation for a national air pollution control effort, and it is
composed of the following basic elements: NAAQS for criteria air pollutants, hazardous air pollutant
standards, state attainment plans, motor vehicle emissions standards, stationary source emissions
standards and permits, acid rain control measures, stratospheric ozone protection, and enforcement
provisions.
The EPA is responsible for administering the FCAA. The FCAA requires the EPA to set NAAQS for several
problem air pollutants based on human health and welfare criteria. Two types of NAAQS were established:
primary standards, which protect public health (with an adequate margin of safety, including for sensitive
populations such as children, the elderly, and individuals suffering from respiratory diseases), and
secondary standards, which protect the public welfare from non-health-related adverse effects such as
visibility reduction.
NAAQS standards define clean air and represent the maximum amount of pollution that can be present
in outdoor air without any harmful effects on people and the environment. Existing violations of the ozone
and PM2.5 ambient air quality standards indicate that certain individuals exposed to these pollutants may
experience certain health effects, including increased incidence of cardiovascular and respiratory
ailments.
NAAQS standards have been designed to accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge and are
reviewed every five years by a Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), consisting of seven
members appointed by the EPA administrator. Reviewing NAAQS is a lengthy undertaking and includes
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-12 Air Quality
the following major phases: Planning, Integrated Science Assessment (ISA), Risk/Exposure Assessment
(REA), Policy Assessment (PA), and Rulemaking. The process starts with a comprehensive review of the
relevant scientific literature. The literature is summarized and conclusions are presented in the ISA. Based
on the ISA, EPA staff perform a risk and exposure assessment, which is summarized in the REA document.
The third document, the PA, integrates the findings and conclusions of the ISA and REA into a policy
context, and provides lines of reasoning that could be used to support retention or revision of the existing
NAAQS, as well as several alternative standards that could be supported by the review findings. Each of
these three documents is released for public comment and public peer review by CASAC. Members of
CASAC are appointed by the EPA Administrator for their expertise in one or more of the subject areas
covered in the ISA. The committee’s role is to peer review the NAAQS documents, ensure that they reflect
the thinking of the scientific community, and advise the Administrator on the technical and scientific
aspects of standard setting. Each document goes through two to three drafts before CASAC deems it to
be final.
Although there is some variability among the health effects of the NAAQS pollutants, each has been linked
to multiple adverse health effects including, among others, premature death, hospitalizations, and
emergency department visits for exacerbated chronic disease, and increased symptoms such as coughing
and wheezing. NAAQS standards were last revised for each of the six criteria pollutants as listed below,
with detail on what aspects of NAAQS changed during the most recent update:
• Ozone: On October 1, 2015, the EPA lowered the national eight-hour standard from 0.075 ppm to
0.070 ppm, providing for a more stringent standard consistent with the current California state
standard.
• CO: In 2011, the primary standards were retained from the original 1971 level, without revision.
The secondary standards were revoked in 1985.
• NO2: The national NO2 standard was most recently revised in 2010 following an exhaustive review
of new literature pointed to evidence for adverse effects in asthmatics at lower
NO2 concentrations than the existing national standard.
• SO2: On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and
annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site
must not exceed 75 ppb.
• PM: the national annual average PM2.5 standard was most recently revised in 2012 following an
exhaustive review of new literature pointed to evidence for increased risk of premature mortality
at lower PM2.5 concentrations than the existing standard.
• Lead: The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month
average. In 2016, the primary and secondary standards were retained.
The law recognizes the importance for each state to locally carry out the requirements of the FCAA, as
special consideration of local industries, geography, housing patterns, etc. are needed to have full
comprehension of the local pollution control problems. As a result, the EPA requires each state to develop
a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that explains how each state will implement the FCAA within their
jurisdiction. A SIP is a collection of rules and regulations that a particular state will implement to control
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-13 Air Quality
air quality within their jurisdiction. The CARB is the state agency that is responsible for preparing and
implementing the California SIP.
Transportation Conformity
Transportation conformity requirements were added to the FCAA in the 1990 amendments, and the EPA
adopted implementing regulations in 1997. See Section 176 of the FCAA (42 U.S.C. Section 7506) and 40
CFR Part 93, Subpart A. Transportation conformity serves much the same purpose as general conformity:
it ensures that transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects that are
developed, funded, or approved by the United States Department of Transportation or that are recipients
of funds under the Federal Transit Act or from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), conform to
the SIP as approved or promulgated by EPA.
Currently, transportation conformity applies in nonattainment areas and maintenance areas
(maintenance areas are those areas that were in nonattainment that have been redesignated to
attainment, under the FCCA). Under transportation conformity, a determination of conformity with the
applicable SIP must be made by the agency responsible for the project, such as the Metropolitan Planning
Organization, the Council of Governments, or a federal agency. The agency making the determination is
also responsible for all the requirements relating to public participation. Generally, a project will be
considered in conformance if it is in the transportation improvement plan and the transportation
improvement plan is incorporated in the SIP. If an action is covered under transportation conformity, it
does not need to be separately evaluated under general conformity.
Transportation Control Measures
One particular aspect of the SIP development process is the consideration of potential control measures
as a part of making progress towards clean air goals. While most SIP control measures are aimed at
reducing emissions from stationary sources, some are typically also created to address mobile or
transportation sources. These are known as transportation control measures (TCMs). TCM strategies are
designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled and trips, or vehicle idling and associated air pollution. These
goals are achieved by developing attractive and convenient alternatives to single-occupant vehicle use.
Examples of TCMs include ridesharing programs, transportation infrastructure improvements such as
adding bicycle and carpool lanes, and expansion of public transit.
STATE
California Clean Air Act
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) was first signed into law in 1988. The CCAA provides a comprehensive
framework for air quality planning and regulation, and spells out, in statute, the state’s air quality goals,
planning and regulatory strategies, and performance. CARB is the agency responsible for administering
the CCAA. CARB established ambient air quality standards pursuant to the California Health and Safety
Code (CH&SC) [Section 39606(b)], which are similar to the federal standards.
California Air Quality Standards
Although NAAQS are determined by the EPA, states have the ability to set standards that are more
stringent than the federal standards. As such, California established more stringent ambient air quality
standards. Federal and State ambient air quality standards have been established for ozone, carbon
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-14 Air Quality
monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, suspended particulates (PM10), and lead. In addition, California
has created standards for pollutants that are not covered by federal standards. Although there is some
variability among the health effects of the CAAQS pollutants, each has been linked to multiple adverse
health effects including, among others, premature death, hospitalizations, and emergency department
visits for exacerbated chronic disease, and increased symptoms such as coughing and wheezing. The
existing State and federal primary standards for major pollutants are shown in Table 5.2-2.
Air quality standard setting in California commences with a critical review of all relevant peer reviewed
scientific literature. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) uses the review of
health literature to develop a recommendation for the standard. The recommendation can be for no
change, or can recommend a new standard. The review, including the OEHHA recommendation, is
summarized in a document called the draft Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR), which is released for
comment by the public, and also for public peer review by the Air Quality Advisory Committee
(AQAC). AQAC members are appointed by the President of the University of California for their expertise
in the range of subjects covered in the ISOR, including health, exposure, air quality monitoring,
atmospheric chemistry and physics, and effects on plants, trees, materials, and ecosystems. The
Committee provides written comments on the draft ISOR. CARB staff next revises the ISOR based on
comments from AQAC and the public. The revised ISOR is then released for a 45-day public comment
period prior to consideration by the Board at a regularly scheduled Board hearing.
In June of 2002, CARB adopted revisions to the PM10 standard and established a new PM2.5 annual
standard. The new standards became effective in June 2003. Subsequently, staff reviewed the published
scientific literature on ground-level ozone and nitrogen dioxide and CARB adopted revisions to the
standards for these two pollutants. Revised standards for ozone and nitrogen dioxide went into effect on
May 17, 2006 and March 20, 2008, respectively. These revisions reflect the most recent changes to the
CAAQS.
CARB Mobile-Source Regulation
The State of California is responsible for controlling emissions from the operation of motor vehicles in the
state. Rather than mandating the use of specific technology or the reliance on a specific fuel, CARB’s motor
vehicle standards specify the allowable grams of pollution per mile driven. In other words, the regulations
focus on the reductions needed rather than on the manner in which they are achieved. Towards this end,
CARB has adopted regulations which required auto manufacturers to phase in less polluting vehicles.
CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook
CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective addresses the importance
of considering health risk issues when siting sensitive land uses, including residential development, in the
vicinity of intensive air pollutant emission sources including freeways or high-traffic roads, distribution
centers, ports, petroleum refineries, chrome plating operations, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing
facilities. The CARB Handbook draws upon studies evaluating the health effects of traffic traveling on
major interstate highways in metropolitan California centers within Los Angeles (Interstate [I] 405 and I-
710), the San Francisco Bay, and San Diego areas. The recommendations identified by CARB, including
siting residential uses a minimum distance of 500 feet from freeways or other high-traffic roadways, are
consistent with those adopted by the State of California for location of new schools. Specifically, the CARB
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-15 Air Quality
Handbook recommends, “Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads
with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.”
Tanner Air Toxics Act
California regulates TACs primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot
Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588). The Tanner Act sets forth a formal procedure
for CARB to designate substances as TACs. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer
review before CARB can designate a substance as a TAC. To date, CARB has identified more than 21 TACs
and has adopted EPA’s list of HAPs as TACs. Most recently, diesel PM was added to the CARB list of TACs.
Once a TAC is identified, CARB then adopts an Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for sources that
emit that particular TAC. If there is a safe threshold for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the
control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure
must incorporate Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to minimize emissions.
AB 2588 requires that existing facilities that emit toxic substances above a specified level prepare a toxic-
emission inventory, prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant, notify the public of significant
risk levels, and prepare and implement risk reduction measures. CARB has adopted diesel exhaust control
measures and more stringent emission standards for various on-road mobile sources of emissions,
including transit buses and off-road diesel equipment (e.g., tractors, generators). In February 2000, CARB
adopted a new public-transit bus-fleet rule and emission standards for new urban buses. These rules and
standards provide for (1) more stringent emission standards for some new urban bus engines, beginning
with 2002 model year engines; (2) zero-emission bus demonstration and purchase requirements
applicable to transit agencies; and (3) reporting requirements under which transit agencies must
demonstrate compliance with the urban transit bus fleet rule. Other recent milestones include the low-
sulfur diesel-fuel requirement, and tighter emission standards for heavy-duty diesel trucks (2007) and off-
road diesel equipment (2011) nationwide.
LOCAL
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
The SCAQMD shares responsibility with CARB for ensuring that all state and federal ambient air quality
standards are achieved and maintained over an area of approximately 10,743 square miles. This area
includes all of Orange County and Los Angeles County except for the Antelope Valley, the non-desert
portion of western San Bernardino County, and the western and Coachella Valley portions of Riverside
County.
The SCAQMD reviews projects to ensure that they do not (1) cause or contribute to any new violation of
any air quality standard; (2) increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any air quality
standard; or (3) delay the timely attainment of any air quality standard or any required interim emission
reductions or other milestones of any federal attainment plan.
The SCAQMD is responsible for controlling emissions primarily from stationary sources. The SCAQMD
maintains air quality monitoring stations throughout SCAB. In coordination with the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG), SCAQMD is also responsible for developing, updating, and
implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for SCAB. An AQMP is a plan prepared and
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-16 Air Quality
implemented by an air pollution district for a county or region designated as nonattainment of the
national and/or California ambient air quality standards.
In 2003, an AQMP was prepared by SCAQMD to bring SCAB, as well as portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin
under the SCAQMD jurisdiction, into compliance with the 1-hour ozone and PM10 national standards. The
2003 AQMP also replaced the 1997 attainment demonstration for the federal CO standard and provided
a basis for a maintenance plan for CO for the future. It also updated the maintenance plan for the federal
NO2 standard, which SCAB has met since 1992.
A subsequent AQMP for the Basin was adopted by the SCAQMD on June 1, 2007. The goal of the 2007
AQMP was to lead SCAB into compliance with the national 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards. The 2007
AQMP outlined a detailed strategy for meeting the national health-based standards for PM2.5 by 2015 and
8-hour ozone by 2024 while accounting for and accommodating future expected growth. The 2007 AQMP
incorporated significant new emissions inventories, ambient measurements, scientific data, control
strategies, and air quality modeling. Most of the reductions were to be from mobile sources, which are
currently responsible for about 75 percent of all smog and particulate-forming emissions.
SCAQMD approved the 2012 AQMP on December 7, 2012. The 2012 AQMP incorporated the latest
scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2012–2035 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and updated emission inventory
methodologies for various source categories. The 2012 AQMP outlines a comprehensive control strategy
that meets the requirement for expeditious progress toward attainment with the 24-hour PM2.5 federal
ambient air quality standard with all feasible control measures and demonstrates attainment of the
standard by 2014. The 2012 AQMP also updates the 8-hour ozone control plan with new emission
reduction commitments from a set of new control measures that implement the 2007 AQMP’s Section
182 (e)(5) commitments. The goal of the Final 2012 AQMP is to lead the Basin into compliance with the
national 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards.
SCAQMD approved the Final 2016 AQMP on March 3, 2017. The 2016 AQMP includes transportation
control measures developed by SCAG from the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS, as well as the integrated strategies
and measures needed to meet the NAAQS. The 2016 AQMP demonstrates attainment of the 1-hour and
8-hour ozone NAAQS as well as the latest 24-hour and annual PM2.5 standards.
SCAQMD approved the Final 2022 AQMP on December 2, 2022. The Final 2022 AQMP builds upon
measures already in place from previous AQMPs to reduce air pollution and meet the federal ozone
standard established by the U.S. EPA in 2015. It includes a variety of additional actions and strategies such
as regulation, accelerated deployment of available cleaner technologies (e.g., zero emission emissions
technologies, when cost-effective and feasible, and low NOx technologies in other applications), best
management practices, co-benefits from existing programs (e.g., climate and energy efficiency),
incentives, and other Clean Air Act measures to achieve the 2015 8-hour ozone standard.
SCAQMD has also prepared the 2010 Clean Communities Plan (Formerly the Air Toxics Control Plan), the
Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan, the Vision for Air: A Framework for Air Quality and Climate Plan.
The SCAQMD is responsible for limiting the amount of emissions that can be generated throughout the
basin by various stationary, area, and mobile sources. Specific rules and regulations have been adopted
by the SCAQMD Governing Board that (1) limit the emissions that can be generated by various uses and
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-17 Air Quality
activities; and (2) identify specific pollution reduction measures, which must be implemented in
association with various uses and activities. These rules regulate the emissions of not only the federal and
state criteria pollutants, but also TACs and acutely hazardous materials. The rules are also subject to
ongoing refinement by the SCAQMD.
Among the SCAQMD rules that may be applicable to future development projects within the City are Rule
401 (Visible Emissions), Rule 402 (Nuisance), Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings),
Rule 1138 (Control of Emissions from Restaurant Operations), Rule 1146.2 (Emissions of Oxides of
Nitrogen from Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers and Process Heaters), and Rule 1403 (Asbestos
Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities). Rule 401 restricts the emissions of air contaminants
that significantly reduce air opacity. Rule 402 restricts discharges that cause nuisance to the public. Rule
403 requires the use of stringent best available control measures (BACMs) to minimize PM10 emissions
during grading and construction activities. Rule 1113 requires reductions in the VOC content of coatings.
Rule 1138 specifies PM and VOC emissions and odor control requirements for some kinds of commercial
cooking operations. Rule 1146.2 restricts the NOx emissions from natural gas-fired water heaters, boilers,
and process heaters as defined by this rule. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403 requires the owner or
operator of any demolition or renovation activity to have an asbestos survey performed prior to
demolition and to provide notification to the SCAQMD prior to commencing demolition activities.
SCAQMD’s CEQA guidelines are voluntary initiatives recommended for consideration by local planning
agencies. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Handbook) published by SCAQMD provides local governments
with guidance for analyzing and mitigating project-specific air quality impacts. SCAQMD is currently
updating some of the information and methods in the Handbook, such as the screening tables for
determining the air quality significance of a project and the on-road mobile source emission factors. While
this process is underway, the SCAQMD recommends using other approved models to calculate emissions
from land use projects, such as CalEEMod.
The SCAQMD’s Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning
considers impacts on air quality sensitive receptors from TAC-emitting facilities. The SCAQMD’s siting
distance recommendations are the same as those provided by the CARB (e.g., a 500-foot siting distance
for air quality sensitive receptors proposed in proximity to freeways and high-traffic roads, and the same
siting criteria for distribution centers and dry-cleaning facilities).
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)
SCAG is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the region in which the City is located. In 2020,
SCAG adopted Connect SoCal, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, which is an update to the previous 2016 RTP/SCS.
The 2020 RTP/SCS considers the role of transportation in the broader context of economic,
environmental, and quality-of-life goals for the future, identifying regional transportation strategies to
address mobility needs. The 2020 RTP/SCS describes how the region can attain the GHG emission-
reduction targets set by CARB by achieving a 19 percent reduction by 2035 compared to the 2005 level.
Although the focus of the 2020 RTP/SCS is on GHG emission-reduction, compliance with and
implementation of 2020 RTP/SCS policies and strategies would also have co-benefits of reducing per
capita criteria air pollutant and TAC emissions associated with reduced per capita vehicle miles traveled
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-18 Air Quality
(VMT). Improved air quality with implementation of the 2020 RTP/SCS policies would decrease reactive
organic gases (ROG) (similar to VOCs), CO, NOX, and PM2.5.
SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS builds on the land use policies that were incorporated into the 2016 RTP/SCS, and
provides specific strategies for successful implementation. These strategies include implementing the
Sustainable Communities Program (SCP) – Housing and Sustainable Development (HSD) which will both
accelerate housing production as well as enable implementation of the Sustainable Communities Strategy
of Connect SoCal; encouraging use of active transportation, or human powered transportation such as
bicycles, tricycles, wheelchairs, electric wheelchairs/scooters, skates, and skateboards; and supporting
alternative fueled vehicles. The 2020 RTP/SCS overall land use pattern reinforces the trend of focusing
new housing and employment in infill areas well served by transit.
In addition, the 2020 RTP/SCS includes goals and strategies to promote active transportation and improve
transportation demand management (TDM). The 2020 RTP/SCS strategies support local planning and
projects that serve short trips, increase access to transit, expand understanding and consideration of
public health in the development of local plans and projects, and support improvements in sidewalk
quality, local bike networks, and neighborhood mobility areas. The 2020 RTP/SCS proposes to better align
active transportation investments with land use and transportation strategies, increase competitiveness
of local agencies for federal and state funding, and to expand the potential for all people to use active
transportation.
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce potential air quality impacts.
Chapter 4, Community and Neighborhoods, Chapter 6, Building a Healthier Fontana, and Chapter 9,
Community Mobility and Circulation, contain the following goal and policies potentially relevant to the
proposed Project:
Chapter 4 – Community and Neighborhoods
• Goal 5: New housing developments provide walkable neighborhoods with mixed-use amenities
and connections to citywide destinations.
o Policy: Support regulations that promote creation of compact and walkable urban village-
style design in new developments.
• Goal 6: The safe, attractive, and lively central area of the city has new infill development and
infrastructure and public improvements.
o Policy: Support revitalization of the central area of the city with an integrated approach
including mixed-use development, infill housing, infrastructure improvements,
interconnections, and placemaking programs.
Chapter 6 – Building a Healthier Fontana
• Goal 1: The average lifespan in Fontana is consistently within the top ten of all southern California
cities.
o Policy: Support local and regional initiatives to improve air quality in order to reduce
asthma while actively discouraging development that may exacerbate asthma rates.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-19 Air Quality
Chapter 9 – Community Mobility and Circulation
• Goal 1: The City of Fontana has a comprehensive and balanced transportation system with safety
and multimodal accessibility the top priority of citywide transportation planning, as well as
accommodating freight movement.
o Policy: Make land use decisions that support walking, bicycling, and public transit use, in
alignment with the 2014-2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable
Communities Strategy.
• Goal 3: Local transit within the City of Fontana is a viable choice for residents, easily accessible
and serving destinations throughout the city.
o Policy: Maximize the accessibility, safety, convenience, and appeal of transit service and
transit stops.
o Policy: Promote concentrated development patterns in coordination with transit
planning to maximize service efficiency and ridership.
• Goal 5: Fontana’s commercial and mixed-use areas include a multifunctional street network that
ensures a safe, comfortable, and efficient movement of people, goods, and services to support a
high quality of life and economic vitality.
o Policy: Provide a transportation network that is compatible with the needs of commerce
and those who live, work and shop in mixed-use areas.
o Policy: Encourage mixed use and commercial developments that support walking,
bicycling, and public transit use while balancing the needs of motorized traffic to serve
such developments.
• Goal 7: The city of Fontana participates in shaping regional transportation policies to reduce traffic
congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.
o Policy: Lead and participate in initiatives to manage regional traffic.
o Policy: Coordinate with regional agencies and Caltrans to participate in regional efforts to
maintain transportation infrastructure in Fontana.
o Policy: Participate in the efforts of the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) to coordinate transportation planning and services that support greenhouse gas
reductions.
o Policy: Participate in the efforts by Caltrans to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow
on area freeways.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 24, Solid Waste and Recycling, includes provisions on solid waste
management, including waste storage and collection. Chapter 30 contains the City’s Zoning and
Development Code. Chapter 30, Article III, Form-Based Code, includes development standards for FBC
districts, including placement and/or requirements for trash and refuse receptacles.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-20 Air Quality
5.2.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Initial Study
Environmental Checklist, which includes questions related to air quality. A project would result in a
significant impact related to air quality if it would:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (refer to Impact
Statement 5.2-1);
• 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 (refer
to Impact Statement 5.2-2);
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (refer to Impact Statement 5.2-
3); and/or
• Result in other emissions such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number
of people (refer to Impact Statement 5.2-4).
Based on these standards and significance thresholds and criteria, the Project’s effects have been
categorized as either “no impact,” a “less than significant impact,” or a “potentially significant impact.”
Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant
impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant impact through the application of mitigation, it is
categorized as a “significant unavoidable impact.”
MASS EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
The SCAQMD significance criteria may be relied upon to make the above determinations. According to
the SCAQMD, an air quality impact is considered significant if a proposed project would violate any
ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or
expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The SCAQMD has established
thresholds of significance for air quality during project construction and operations, as shown in Table 5.2-
4, South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds.
Table 5.2-4
South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds
Criteria Air Pollutants and
Precursors (Regional)
Construction-Related Operational-Related
Average Daily Emissions
(pounds/day)
Average Daily Emissions
(pounds/day)
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 55
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 55
Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 150 150
Coarse Particulates (PM10) 150 150
Fine Particulates (PM2.5) 55 55
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993 (PM2.5 threshold adopted June 1,
2007).
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-21 Air Quality
LOCALIZED CARBON MONOXIDE
In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, the proposed Project would be subject to the ambient air
quality standards. These are addressed through an analysis of localized Carbon Monoxide (CO) impacts.
The California 1-hour and 8-hour CO standards are:
• 1-hour = 20 parts per million (ppm)
• 8-hour = 9 ppm
The significance of localized impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels near a project site exceed
State and federal CO standards. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) has been designated as attainment
under the 1-hour and 8-hour standards.
LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
In addition to the CO hotspot analysis, the SCAQMD developed Local Significance Thresholds (“LSTs”) for
emissions of Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), CO, Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10), and Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5) generated at new development sites (off-site mobile source emissions are not included in the LST
analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions that can be generated at a project site without expecting
to cause or substantially contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent national or state ambient air
quality standards. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the project
source receptor area (SRA), as demarcated by the SCAQMD, and the distance to the nearest sensitive
receptor. LST analysis for construction is applicable for all projects that disturb 5.0 acres or less on a single
day. The appropriate SRA for the LSTs is the Central San Bernardino Valley area (SRA 34), since SRA 34
includes the Project Area. LSTs apply to CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD produced look-up tables
for projects that disturb areas less than or equal to 5.0 acres. Table 5.2-5, Local Significance Thresholds
(Construction/Operations), shows the LSTs for a 1.0-acre, 2.0-acre, and 5.0-acre project site in SRA 34 with
sensitive receptors located within 25 meters of the Project Area.
Table 5.2-5
Local Significance Thresholds (Construction/Operations)
Project Size Nitrogen Oxide
(NOx) – lbs/day
Carbon Monoxide
(CO) – lbs/day
Coarse Particulates
(PM10) – lbs/day
Fine Particulates
(PM2.5) – lbs/day
1.0 acres 118/118 667/667 4/1 3/1
2.0 acres 148/148 972/972 7/2 4/1
5.0 acres 270/270 1,746/1,746 14/4 8/2
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Localized Significance Threshold Methodology – Appendix C, revised
October 21, 2009.
CO HOTSPOTS
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots. These pockets
have the potential to exceed the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm.
Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into
the atmosphere, adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis
of localized CO concentrations. Hotspots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic congestion
is highest because vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds. With the turnover
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-22 Air Quality
of older vehicles and introduction of cleaner fuels as well as implementation of control technology on
industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the South Coast Air Basin and the state have steadily declined.
The analysis of CO hotspots compares the volume of traffic that has the potential to generate a CO hotspot
and the volume of traffic with implementation of the proposed Project.
5.2.5 METHODOLOGY
The City is proposing to create a new focused area in the Downtown Core (Project Area) by creating and
implementing a new General Plan land use category and six new Form-Based Code (FBC) districts specific
to the Project Area. The proposed Project would involve amending General Plan Chapter 9, Community
Mobility and Circulation, including Exhibit 9.2, Hierarchy of Streets in Fontana, Chapter 14, Downtown
Area Plan, and Chapter 15, Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design, including establishing a new General Plan
land use category, amending the General Plan Land Use Map to apply the new land use category, and
amending the Zoning and Development Code, including the Zoning District Map. The proposed Project,
would in part, provide increased residential development opportunities, consistent with the goals of the
SB 2 Planning Grant received by the City.
Although development of the site is not currently proposed, for purposes of this analysis, development of
the net new development (i.e. development over existing conditions) is considered as part of the
proposed Project. This analysis focuses on the nature and magnitude of the change in the air quality
environment due to potential development associated with implementation of the proposed Project,
based on the maximum development assumptions that are outlined in Section 3.0, Project Description.
Air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed Project would result from construction equipment
usage and from construction-related traffic. Additionally, emissions would be generated from operations
of the future land uses that would be developed, and from traffic volumes generated by these new uses.
The net increase in emissions generated by these activities and other secondary sources have been
quantitatively estimated and compared to the applicable thresholds of significance recommended by
SCAQMD.
AQMP Consistency
SCAQMD’s CEQA Handbook suggests an evaluation of the following two criteria to determine whether a
project involving a legislative land use action (such as the proposed General Plan land use and zoning
designation changes) would be consistent or in conflict with the AQMP:
1. The Project would not generate population and employment growth that would be inconsistent
with SCAG’s growth forecasts.
2. The Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality
violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality
standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.
Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to the SCAG’s growth forecast and associated assumptions included in
the AQMP. The future air quality levels projected in the AQMP are based on SCAG’s growth projections,
which are based, in part, on the general plans of cities and counties located within the SCAG region, and,
in part, on SCAG’s three Land Development Categories. Therefore, if the level of housing or employment
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-23 Air Quality
related to the proposed Project are consistent with the applicable assumptions used in the development
of the AQMP, the Project would not jeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP.
Consistency Criterion No. 2 refers to the California Ambient Air Quality Standards. An impact would occur
if the long-term emissions associated with the proposed Project would exceed SCAQMD’s regional
significance thresholds for operation-phase emissions.
Construction
Short-term construction-generated emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors from
implementation of the Project were assessed in accordance with methods recommended by SCAQMD.
The Project’s regional emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model
(CalEEMod), as recommended by SCAQMD. CalEEMod was used to determine whether short-term
construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants associated with the proposed Project would
exceed applicable regional thresholds and where mitigation would be required. Modeling was based on
Project-specific data and predicted short-term construction-generated emissions associated with the
proposed Project were compared with applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds for determination of
significance.
In addition, to determine whether or not construction activities associated with implementation of the
Project would create significant adverse localized air quality impacts on nearby sensitive receptors, the
worst-case daily emissions contribution from the proposed Project was compared to SCAQMD’s LSTs that
are based on the pounds of emissions per day that can be generated by a project without causing or
contributing to adverse localized air quality impacts. The daily total on-site combustion, mobile, and
fugitive dust emissions associated with construction was combined and evaluated against SCAQMD’s LSTs
for a 5-acre site. The use of the 5-acre threshold provides a conservative evaluation because it estimates
the area undergoing construction activities that could impact a nearby sensitive receptor, which is not
anticipated to be greater than 5-acres, in a given day, for an individual sensitive receptor.
Operations
Long-term (i.e., operational) regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors, including mobile-
and area-source emissions from future development associated with implementation of the proposed
Project, were also quantified using the CalEEMod (v. 2020.4.0) computer model. Area-source emissions
were modeled according to the size and type of the land uses proposed. Mass mobile-source emissions
were modeled based on the increase in daily vehicle trips that would result from the proposed Project.
Predicted long-term operational emissions were compared with applicable SCAQMD thresholds for
determination of significance.
Trips and Trip Length
To determine emissions from passenger car vehicles, daily trips and average trip lengths were determined
based on the traffic data provided by the traffic consultant, Kittelson & Associates; refer to Appendix E.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-24 Air Quality
5.2.6 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 5.2-1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
Impact Analysis: The following analysis addresses the Downtown Core Project’s consistency with
applicable plans and policies that govern air quality. In particular, the analysis addresses consistency with
the SCAQMD’s AQMP, which is an air quality plan that includes strategies for achieving attainment of
applicable ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards.
As discussed above, SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMPs to lead the Air Basin into compliance with
several criteria air pollutant standards and other federal requirements, while taking into account
construction and operational emissions associated with population and economic growth projections
provided by SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS. The SCAQMD recommends that, when determining whether a project
is consistent with the relevant AQMPs, the lead agency should assess whether the project would directly
obstruct implementation of the plans by impeding SCAQMD’s efforts to achieve attainment with respect
to any criteria air pollutant for which it is currently not in attainment of the NAAQS and CAAQS (e.g.,
ozone, PM10, and PM2.5) and whether it is consistent with the demographic and economic assumptions
(typically land use related, such as employment and population/residential units) upon which the plan is
based. The SCAQMD guidance indicates that projects whose growth is included in the projections used in
the formulation of the AQMP are considered to be consistent with the plan and would not interfere with
its attainment.
The SCAQMD thresholds for construction and operational emissions are designed for the analysis of
individual projects and not for long-term planning documents, such as the Downtown Core Project, which
would be implemented over time. Emissions are dependent on the exact size, nature, and location of an
individual land use type, combined with reductions in localized impacts from the removal of existing land
use types, as applicable (i.e., conversion of light industrial uses). Emissions associated with the operation
of individual projects, could exceed project-specific thresholds established by SCAQMD.
CEQA requires that general plans be evaluated for consistency with the AQMP. Because the AQMP
strategy is based on projections from local general plans, only new or amended general plan elements,
specific plans, or individual projects under the general plan need to undergo a consistency review. Projects
considered consistent with the local general plan are consistent with the air quality-related regional plan.
Indicators of consistency include:
• Control Strategies: Whether implementation of a project would increase the frequency or severity
of existing air quality violations; would cause or contribute to new violations; or would delay the
timely attainment of AAQS or interim emissions reductions within the AQMP.
• Growth Projections: Whether implementation of the project would exceed growth assumptions
within the AQMP, which in part, bases its strategy on growth forecasts from local general plans.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-25 Air Quality
CONSTRUCTION
Control Strategies
The Air Basin is designated nonattainment for ozone and PM2.5 under the CAAQS and NAAQS, and
nonattainment for PM10 under the CAAQS. The proposed Project would support higher-density residential
and mixed-use development within the Project Area. The emissions of criteria pollutants associated with
future development accommodated through implementation of the proposed Project could exceed the
SCAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants. Future development of individual projects under the
Downtown Core Project would be required to comply with CARB’s requirements to minimize short-term
emissions from on-road and off-road diesel equipment, including the ATCM to limit heavy-duty diesel
motor vehicle idling to no more than five minutes at any given time, and with SCAQMD’s regulations such
as Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust and Rule 1113 for controlling VOC emissions from architectural
coatings. Furthermore, as applicable to the type of growth, individual projects under the proposed
Downtown Core Project would comply with fleet rules to reduce on-road truck emissions (i.e., 13 CCR,
Section 2025 [CARB Truck and Bus regulation]). Compliance with these measures and requirements would
be consistent with and meet or exceed the AQMP requirements for control strategies intended to reduce
emissions from construction equipment and activities. Therefore, the construction anticipated by the
Project would be consistent with the AQMP under the first indicator.
Growth Projections
Future development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would result in an
increase in short-term employment compared to existing conditions. Future development accommodated
by the Downtown Core Project would involve construction, but Project implementation would not
necessarily create new construction jobs, since construction-related jobs generated by future
development would likely be filled by employees within the construction industry within the City and
greater San Bernardino County region. Construction industry jobs generally have no regular place of
business, as construction workers commute to job sites throughout a given region, which may change
several times a year. Moreover, these jobs would be temporary in nature. Therefore, the construction
jobs generated by future development accommodated by the Downtown Core Project would not conflict
with the long-term employment or population projections upon which the AQMPs are based.
OPERATION
Control Strategies
Future development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would be required
to comply with CARB motor vehicle standards, SCAQMD regulations for stationary sources and
architectural coatings, Title 24 energy efficiency standards, and, to the extent applicable, the 2020
RTP/SCS.
As discussed above, the 2022 AQMP includes land use and transportation strategies from the 2020
RTP/SCS that are intended to reduce VMT and resulting regional mobile source emissions. The applicable
land use strategies include: planning for growth around livable corridors; providing more options for short
trips/neighborhood mobility areas; supporting zero emission vehicles and expanding vehicle charging
stations; and supporting local sustainability planning. The applicable transportation strategies include:
managing through the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program and the Transportation
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-26 Air Quality
System Management (TSM) Plan including advanced ramp metering, and expansion and integration of the
traffic synchronization network; promoting active transportation. The majority of the transportation
strategies are to be implemented by cities, counties, and other regional agencies such as SCAG and
SCAQMD, although some can be furthered by individual development projects.
The Downtown Core Project would implement land use and transportation strategies related to reducing
vehicle trips for Fontana residents and employees by creating and implementing the new WMXU-3:
Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core land use category and six new FBC districts within the Project Area,
which would support higher-density residential and mixed-use development within the Project Area. The
City of Fontana is served primarily by Omnitrans and Metrolink. Omnitrans provides bus service in the San
Bernardino Valley. It connects Fontana with several nearby cities (including Rancho Cucamonga, Upland,
Chino, Redlands, and San Bernardino). Omnitrans also provides paratransit service. Metrolink provides
rail passenger service between San Bernardino and the Los Angeles metropolitan region. The Fontana
Metrolink station is located within the Project Area and accessible through Sierra Avenue and Orange
Way. The availability of public transportation and the focus on increasing density relative to the existing
public transportation, enables Project implementation to potentially reduce vehicle trips, VMT, and
associated transportation-related emissions per capita, compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the
Downtown Core Project would result in a less than significant impact associated with air quality. The
proposed Project would be consistent with the AQMP under the first indicator.
Growth Projections
The emissions inventory for SCAB is formed, in part, by existing city and county general plans. The AQMP
is based on population, employment and VMT forecasts by SCAG. A project might be in conflict with the
AQMP if the development is greater than that anticipated in the local general plan and SCAG’s growth
projections. As discussed in Section 5.12, Population and Housing, Project implementation could yield a
net change over existing conditions of an additional 8,900 dwelling units and 2,685,404 square feet of
non-residential uses. This new growth may increase the City’s population by approximately 33,731
residents (based on the 2022 California Department of Finance estimated household size of 3.79 persons
per household). Implementation of the proposed Project would also provide additional employment
opportunities for approximately 6,852 employees. The General Plan EIR anticipates the General Plan to
accommodate 70,560 households, a population of 315,852, and total employment of 99,129 throughout
the planning horizon. More specifically, the focus for growth in the General Plan is in the Downtown Core
and “Livable Corridors” as described in General Plan Chapter 14 - Downtown Area Plan. Thus, growth
within the Downtown Core Project has been anticipated by the General Plan. The City currently has 57,483
dwelling units, 212,809 residents, and 55,448 jobs. Therefore, the forecasted 8,900 new dwelling units,
33,731 new residents, and 6,852 new employees associated with Project implementation is within the
buildout projections anticipated by the General Plan. The proposed Project is intended to implement the
goals and policies of the General Plan and accommodate the City’s fair share of statewide housing needs,
which are allocated by SCAG, based on regional numbers provided by the HCD on a regular basis (every
five to eight years). As described above, the City of Fontana 2021-2029 Housing Element was adopted
February 8, 2022 and accommodates the City’s share of the regional housing need for the 2021-2029
RHNA period of 17,519 units. The City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element identifies the existing Project Area,
as accommodating a portion of City’s Low-, Very-Low-, and Above-Moderate-income RHNA allocation.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-27 Air Quality
The population and employment growth anticipated as a result of Project implementation is within the
City’s growth projections of the Fontana Forward General Plan and SCAG’s RHNA allocation.
Although future development in the Project Area that is consistent with the Downtown Core Project
would increase total vehicle trips and VMT, which would result in emissions of ozone precursors and
particulate matter, overall, the VMT per service population with the proposed Project would be four
percent lower than 2040 Without Project Conditions. Further, individual projects within the Project Area
would be reviewed pursuant to CEQA, and would be required to demonstrate compliance with the AQMP.
Individual projects would also be required to demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations
governing air quality.
The City of Fontana continues to coordinate with SCAQMD and SCAG to ensure Citywide growth
projections, land use planning efforts, and local development patterns are accounted for in the regional
planning and air quality planning processes. Additionally, the Downtown Core Project would implement
land use and transportation strategies related to reducing vehicle trips for Fontana residents and
employees, including creating six new FBC districts within the Project Area to support higher-density
residential and mixed-use development within the Project Area, which would minimize potential impacts
to air quality in support of the AQMP and 2020 Connect SoCal. Therefore, the Downtown Core Project
would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan and impacts
would be less than significant.
CONCLUSION
While the proposed Project is anticipated to comply with the control strategies and be consistent with the
growth projections contained within the 2022 AQMP, the proposed Project would exceed SCAQMD’s
regional significance thresholds for operation-phase emissions (as provided in greater detail under Impact
AQ-2, below). Therefore, the proposed Project could result in an increase in the frequency or severity of
existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air
quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-23, below. No additional mitigation
measures are feasible.
Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
Impact 5.2-2: Would the project result in a cumulative considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
Impact Analysis:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would result in emissions of CO, VOCs, NOx,
SOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Pollutant emissions associated with construction would be generated from the
following construction activities: (1) demolition, grading, and excavation; (2) construction workers
traveling to and from the Project Area; (3) delivery and hauling of construction supplies to, and debris
from, the Project Area; (4) fuel combustion by onsite construction equipment; (5) building construction;
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-28 Air Quality
application of architectural coatings; and paving. These construction activities would temporarily create
emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants.
Construction emissions are short-term and temporary. The maximum daily construction emissions for the
proposed Project were estimated using CalEEMod; and the modeling includes compliance with SCAQMD
Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Rule), which would reduce air contaminants during construction. Construction was
assumed to occur starting in year 2023 and ending in year 2040. Since specific development projects are
not currently proposed, default parameters were used for construction activities except for the building
and architectural phases, which were adjusted for the buildout year of 2040. CalEEMod defaults were
used for the type and duration of off-road construction equipment, which are determined by the model
based on the overall size and land uses associated with the Project. Refer to Appendix C, Air Quality,
Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Data, for additional information regarding the
construction assumptions used in this analysis. Table 5.2-6, Unmitigated Construction-Related Emissions
(Maximum Pounds Per Day) provides the unmitigated maximum daily emissions of each of the criteria air
pollutants from construction.
Table 5.2-6
Unmitigated Construction-Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
Construction Year
Reactive
Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxides
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Oxides
(SOx)
Coarse
Particulates
(PM10)
Fine
Particulates
(PM2.5)
Various 57.2 106.5 380.6 1.2 114.5 34.0
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed Threshold? No Yes No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0
Notes: SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain
mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three
times daily; cover stockpiles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per
hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied. No mitigation
was applied to construction equipment; refer to Appendix C for model outputs.
As shown in Table 5.2-6, emissions resulting from construction would exceed criteria pollutant thresholds
for NOX. The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce air quality emissions. In
addition, future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be required
to implement General Plan EIR mitigation measures MM-AQ-8 and MM-AQ-9, which have been updated
to meet current SCAQMD standards, and MM-AQ-10, MM-AQ-13, and MM-AQ-14 (incorporated herein
as Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5), which would require best practices for reducing air quality
emissions during construction. The update to Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-9 (incorporated herein as
Mitigation Measure AQ-2) requires all construction equipment greater than 150 horsepower (>150 HP) to
be CARB certified tier 4 or higher. Additionally, Mitigation Measures AQ-6 through AQ-8 require additional
measures to reduce potential construction air quality emissions, including compliance with SCAQMD’s
Rule 1113. With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-8, emissions of NOX from
construction activities would be reduced to below the SCAQMD significance thresholds in all three
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-29 Air Quality
scenarios, and impacts would be less than significant, as shown in Table 5.2-7, Mitigated Construction-
Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day).
Table 5.2-7
Mitigated Construction-Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
Construction Year
Reactive
Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxides
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Oxides
(SOx)
Coarse
Particulates
(PM10)
Fine
Particulates
(PM2.5)
Various 55.4 89.8 384.7 1.2 113.6 33.2
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0
Notes: SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain
mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three
times daily; cover stockpiles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per
hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied. No mitigation
was applied to construction equipment; refer to Appendix C for model outputs.
OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
The Project’s operational emissions would be associated with motor vehicle use and area sources. Area
sources include natural gas for space and water heating, gasoline-powered landscaping and maintenance
equipment, consumer products (such as household-type cleaners). Mobile sources emissions are
generated from vehicle operations associated with Project operations. Typically, area sources are small
sources that contribute very minor emissions individually, but when combined may generate substantial
amounts of pollutants. Area specific defaults in CalEEMod were used to calculate area source emissions.
CalEEMod was also used to calculate pollutants emissions from vehicular trips generated from future
development associated with implementation of the proposed Project. CalEEMod estimated emissions
from Project operations are summarized in Table 5.2-8, Operational-Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds
Per Day). Note that emissions rates differ from summer to winter because weather factors are dependent
on the season and these factors affect pollutant mixing, dispersion, ozone formation, and other factors.
As shown in Table 5.2-8, emission calculations generated from CalEEMod demonstrate that Project
operations would exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for
emissions of all ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-30 Air Quality
Table 5.2-8
Operational-Related Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
Source
Reactive
Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxides
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Oxides
(SOx)
Coarse
Particulates
(PM10)
Fine
Particulates
(PM2.5)
Summer Emissions
Area Source 280.0 8.5 731.3 <0.1 4.1 4.1
Energy 4.1 35.3 15.7 0.2 2.8 2.8
Mobile 148.9 138.5 1,105.6 2.3 300.1 80.8
Total 432.8 182.2 1,852.6 2.5 307.0 87.8
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Winter Emissions
Area Source 279.8 8.4 731.3 0 4.1 4.1
Energy 4.1 35.3 15.7 0.2 2.8 2.8
Mobile 122.0 148.0 1,050.4 2.1 300.1 80.8
Total 405.9 191.8 1,797.4 2.4 307.0 87.8
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Source: CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0; refer to Appendix C for model outputs.
It is important to note that the majority of ROG emissions are derived from consumer products. For
analytical purposes, consumer products include cleaning supplies, aerosols, and other consumer products.
As such, future project applicants cannot meaningfully control the use of consumer products by future
building users via mitigation. On this basis, it is concluded that Project operational-source ROG emissions
cannot be definitively reduced below applicable SCAQMD thresholds.
Additionally, it should be noted that the majority of the Project’s NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions
are derived from vehicle usage. Since neither project applicants nor the City have regulatory authority to
control tailpipe emissions, only limited, feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce these
emissions. The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce air quality emissions.
In addition, future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be
required to implement General Plan EIR mitigation measures MM-AQ-2 through MM-AQ-7, as well as
MM-AQ-20 through MM-AQ-22 (incorporated herein as Mitigation Measures AQ-9 through AQ-17) in
order to reduce potential air quality emissions from operations.
Although the Project would implement the mitigation measures listed below (Mitigation Measures AQ-9
through AQ-23), it should be noted that these reductions cannot be quantified in CalEEMod. Moreover,
no additional feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would further reduce these
emissions to levels that are less than significant. As noted, the majority of emissions would be generated
from the mobile activities by vehicles that cannot be completely mitigated at the project level. The Lead
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-31 Air Quality
Agency cannot substantively or materially affect reductions in Project mobile-source emissions beyond
the regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified herein.
With compliance with existing rules and implementation of the mitigation measures, emissions would
continue to exceed regional thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for emissions of ROG,
NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Therefore, the proposed Project could result in ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5
emissions that would be significant and unavoidable.
CUMULATIVE SHORT-TERM EMISSIONS
SCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards and nonattainment for O3
and PM2.5 for federal standards. As discussed above, the Project’s mitigated construction-related
emissions by themselves would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants.
Since these thresholds indicate whether individual Project emissions have the potential to affect
cumulative regional air quality, it can be expected that the Project-related construction emissions would
not be cumulatively considerable. The SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant
emissions outlined in the AQMP pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act mandates. The analysis assumed
fugitive dust controls would be utilized during construction, including frequent water applications.
SCAQMD rules, mandates, and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures would also
be imposed on construction projects throughout the SCAB, which would include related cumulative
projects. As concluded above, the Project’s construction-related impacts would be less than significant.
Compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would further minimize the proposed Project’s
construction-related emissions. Therefore, Project-related construction emissions, in combination with
those from other projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate the local air quality. The
Project’s construction-related emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to
significant cumulative air quality impacts.
CUMULATIVE LONG-TERM IMPACTS
The SCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions.
The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size
to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, individual project emissions
contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The SCAQMD developed the
operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which individual project emissions would
result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to SCAB’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a
project that exceeds the SCAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative impact.
As shown in Table 5.2-8, the Project’s operational emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG,
NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. As a result, the Project’s operational emissions would result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. While adherence to SCAQMD rules
and regulations and compliance with identified Mitigation Measures would alleviate potential impacts
related to cumulative conditions on a project-by-project basis, since the Project would exceed SCAQMD
thresholds, this is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. Project operations could contribute a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-32 Air Quality
Mitigation Measures:
AQ-1: In the event that any off-site utility and/or infrastructure improvements are required as a direct
result of future projects, construction of such off-site utility and infrastructure improvements shall
not occur concurrently with the demolition, site preparation, and grading phases of project
construction. This requirement shall be clearly noted on all applicable grading and/or building
plans. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-8)
AQ-2: All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operation condition so as to reduce
emissions. The construction contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being
properly serviced and maintained as per the manufacturer’s specification. Maintenance records
shall be available at the construction site for City of Fontana verification. The following additional
measures, as determined applicable by the City Engineer, shall be included as conditions of the
Grading Permit issuance:
• Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all phases of construction
to maintain smooth traffic flow.
• Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on-
and off-site.
• Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas.
• Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site
construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM10 generation.
• Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization and ensure that all vehicles and equipment
will be properly tuned and maintained according to manufacturers’ specifications.
• Require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and
soil import/export). If the lead agency determines that 2010 model year or newer diesel
trucks cannot be obtained the lead agency shall use trucks that meet EPA 2007 model
year NOX and PM emissions requirements.
• During project construction, the construction plans and specifications shall state that off-
road diesel construction equipment rated at 150 horsepower (hp) or greater, complies
with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4
off-road emissions standards or equivalent and shall ensure that all construction
equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.
The Lead Agency shall conduct an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction
mitigation and to identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts.
(General Plan EIR MM-AQ-9, updated)
AQ-3: Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, all Applicants shall submit construction plans to the
City of Fontana denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction
contractors shall provide evidence that low emission mobile construction equipment will be
utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the projects. Contractors
shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the SCAQMD as well as City Planning
Staff. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-10)
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-33 Air Quality
AQ-4: All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. (General
Plan EIR MM-AQ-13)
AQ-5: Prior to the issuance of grading permits or approval of grading plans for future development
projects within the project area, future developments shall include a dust control plan as part of
the construction contract standard specifications. The dust control plan shall include measures to
meet the requirements of SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Such measures may include, but are not
limited to:
• Phase and schedule activities to avoid high-ozone days and first-stage smog alerts.
• Discontinue operation during second-stage smog alerts.
• All haul trucks shall be covered prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting
the surrounding areas.
• Comply with AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to
surrounding areas.
• Moisten soil each day prior to commencing grading to depth of soil cut.
• Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions, and as often as
needed on windy days or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and
minimize the release of visible emissions from the construction site.
• Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods with a soil conditioner to
stabilize soil or temporarily plant with vegetation.
• Wash mud-covered tired and under carriages of trucks leaving construction sites.
• Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by
construction vehicles or mud, which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing
project sites.
• Securely cover all loads of fill coming to the site with a tight-fitting tarp.
• Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
• Provide for permanent sealing of all graded areas, as applicable, at the earliest practicable
time after soil disturbance.
• Use low-sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment.
• Use electric equipment whenever practicable.
• Shut off engines when not in use. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-14)
AQ-6: Future individual projects within the Project Area shall be required to comply with South Coast
Air Quality Management District Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings. No person shall apply or
solicit the application of any architectural coating within the SCAQMD with VOC content in excess
of the values specified in a table incorporated in the Rule. A list of manufacturers of low/no-VOC
paints is provided at the following SCAQMD website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/planning/architectural-coatings/reporting-and-support-documents/rule-314-
manufacturers.pdf?sfvrsn=4. All paints will be applied using either high volume low-pressure
spray equipment or by hand application.
AQ-7: Plans, specifications and contract documents shall require that a sign must be posted on-site
stating that construction workers shall not allow diesel engines to idle in excess of five minutes.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-34 Air Quality
AQ-8: Future individual projects within the Project Area shall be required to use electric or alternative
fueled construction equipment where technically feasible and/or commercially available, where
the electric or alternatively fueled equipment can perform adequately when compared to
gasoline or diesel fueled equipment.
AQ-9: To reduce energy demand associated with potable water conveyance, future projects shall
implement the following, as applicable:
• Landscaping palette emphasizing drought tolerant plants.
• Use of water-efficient irrigation techniques.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Certified WaterSense equivalent faucets,
high-efficiency toilets, and water conserving shower heads. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-2)
AQ-10: Future projects shall comply with applicable provisions of state law, including the California Green
Standards Code (Part 11 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. (General Plan EIR MM-
AQ-3)
AQ-11: The applicant/developer shall encourage its tenants to use alternative-fueled vehicles such as
compressed natural gas vehicles, electric vehicles, or other alternative fuels by providing publicly
available information from the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD),
California Air Resources Board (CARB), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on
alternative fuel technologies. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-4)
AQ-12: To promote alternative fuels and help support “clean” truck fleets, the developer/successor-in-
interest shall provide building occupants and businesses with information related to the Southern
California Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Carl Moyer Program or other state
programs that restrict operations to “clean” trucks, such as 2007 or newer model year or 2010
complaint heavy-duty vehicles, and information about the health effects of diesel particulates,
the benefits of reduced idling time, California Air Resources Board regulations, and the
importance of not parking in residential areas. If trucks older than 2007 model year would be used
at the project site, the developer/successor-in-interest shall encourage tenants, through contract
specifications, to apply in good-faith funding for diesel truck replacement/retrofit through grant
programs such as the Carl Moyer, Prop 18, VIP [On-Road Heavy Duty Voucher Incentive Program],
HVIP [Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project], and SOON [Surplus Off-
Road Opt-In for NOX] funding programs, as identified on SCAQMD’s website
(http://www.aqmd.gov). Tenants would be required to use those funds, if awarded. (General Plan
EIR MM-AQ-5)
AQ-13: The applicant/developer shall encourage its tenants to use water-based or low volatile organic
compound (VOC) cleaning products by providing publicly available information from the Southern
California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on such cleaning products. (General Plan EIR MM-
AQ-6)
AQ-14: All on-site forklifts shall be non-diesel and shall be powered by electricity, compressed natural
gas, or propane if technically feasible. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-7)
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-35 Air Quality
AQ-15: All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate high efficiency/low
polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water heaters. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-20)
AQ-16: All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate thermal pane windows
and weather-stripping. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-21)
AQ-17: All residential and commercial and structures shall be required to incorporate light colored roofing
materials. (General Plan EIR MM-AQ-22, updated)
AQ-18: The minimum number of automobile electric vehicle (EV) charging stations required by the
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 shall be provided. As agreed by the Applicant and
Lead Agency, final designs of Project Area buildings shall include electrical infrastructure
sufficiently sized to accommodate the potential installation of additional auto EV charging
stations.
AQ-19: Future individual projects within the Project Area shall not discharge from any source whatsoever
such quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or
annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or that endanger the comfort,
repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or that cause, or have a natural
tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
AQ-20: Future individual projects within the Project Area shall be required to comply with South Coast
Air Quality Management District Rule 1301 – General. This rule is intended to provide that pre-
construction review requirements to ensure that new or relocated facilities do not interfere with
progress in attainment of the NAAQS, while future economic growth within the South Coast Air
Quality Management District is not unnecessarily restricted. The specific air quality goal is to
achieve no net increases from new or modified permitted sources of nonattainment air
contaminants or their precursors. Rule 1301 also limits emission increases of ammonia, and Ozone
Depleting Compounds (ODCs) from new, modified or relocated facilities by requiring the use of
Best Available Control Technology (BACT).
AQ-21: Building operators will require (by contract specifications) that equipment, including heavy-duty
equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, be turned off when not in use for more than
5 minutes. Truck idling shall not exceed 5 minutes in time. All facilities will post signs requiring
that trucks shall not be left idling for more than 5 minutes pursuant to Title 13 of the California
Code of Regulations, Section 2485, which limits idle times to not more than five minutes.
Nighttime (after 10:00 PM) truck idling would not be permitted.
AQ-22: Future individual projects within the Project Area shall be required to maximize the planting of
drought resistant trees in landscaping and parking lots and when/if recycled water becomes
available in the future, landscaping shall be supported by this alternative source of water supply.
AQ-23: Where individual projects within the Project Area require permits from SCAQMD to operate
specific types of equipment and processes, the developers/operators shall be required to obtain
such permits prior to operation of the specific equipment and processes requiring the permit.
Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-36 Air Quality
Impact 5.2-3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Impact Analysis:
LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS
The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Area are the residences and other sensitive receptors
located within and adjacent to the Project Area. To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD
recommends addressing LSTs for construction. LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing
Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized
Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology
assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with Project-specific emissions.
The daily construction emissions generated onsite by future development associated with
implementation of the proposed Project are evaluated against SCAQMD’s LSTs or a 5-acre site as a
conservative screening analysis to determine whether the emissions would cause or contribute to adverse
localized air quality impacts. The appropriate SRA for the LSTs is the Central San Bernardino Valley area
(SRA 34), since SRA 34 includes the Project Area. LSTs apply to CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD
produced look-up tables for projects that disturb areas less than or equal to 5.0 acres.
The SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be
included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, for purposes of the construction LST analysis,
only emissions included in the CalEEMod “on-site” emissions outputs were considered. LST thresholds are
provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. Therefore, as
recommended by the SCAQMD, LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters were utilized in this analysis for
receptors closer than 25 meters. Table 5.2-9, Localized Significance of Construction Emissions (Maximum
Pounds per Day), presents the results of localized emissions during proposed Project construction.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-37 Air Quality
Table 5.2-9
Localized Significance of Construction Emissions (Maximum Pounds per Day)1
Construction Activity
Nitrogen
Oxides
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Coarse
Particulates
(PM10)
Fine
Particulates
(PM2.5)
Demolition 4.3 23.1 0.2 0.2
Building Construction 11.3 16.9 0.6 0.5
Architectural Coating 1.3 1.8 0.1 0.1
Site Preparation 6.7 20.4 7.5 4.0
Grading 5.6 32.8 3.6 1.5
Paving 8.6 14.6 0.4 0.4
SCAQMD Localized Screening Thresholds
(5 acres at 25 meters) 270 1,746 14 8
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0; refer to Appendix C for model outputs.
Notes:
1. Emissions reflect on-site construction emissions only, per SCAQMD guidance.
As shown in Table 5.2-9, the emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of construction for each
pollutant1 would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors.
Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact concerning LSTs during
construction activities.
LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS
The on-site operational emissions are compared to the LST thresholds in Table 5.2-10, Localized
Significance of Operational Emissions (Maximum Pounds per Day). Table 5.2-10 shows that the maximum
daily emissions of these pollutants during operations of future developments associated with
implementation of the proposed Project could exceed the localized significance thresholds for operation
emissions for PM10 and PM2.5. The cause of these emissions are emissions from landscaping equipment. It
should be noted that the CalEEMod model defaults were utilized for landscaping equipment and number
of days of landscaping. However, the amount of landscaping within the Project Area is likely to be much
lower than the default assumptions made by CalEEMod, since the assumptions are made based on the
land use types selected for the model, and the Project Area is denser, and would therefore contain less
area to be landscaped than typical land uses utilized within the modeling software (i.e. CalEEMod).
Nevertheless, for the sake of a conservative analysis, the default landscaping equipment and timing
assumptions were utilized in the CalEEMod modeling for this analysis.
The proposed Project would implement all feasible mitigation with implementation of Mitigation
Measures AQ-9 through AQ-23. However, even with implementation of these mitigation measures, the
1 Note: Peak day of emissions for each pollutant is calculated by CalEEMod, for each year of Project construction,
during both ‘summer’ and ‘winter’ months. The maximum value provided by CalEEMod for each pollutant (during
all years, and both ‘summer’ and ‘winter’ months) represents the peak day of emissions for each pollutant.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-38 Air Quality
proposed Project could result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors,
based on the CalEEMod modeling results. It should be noted that individual projects that would be
developed in the Project Area would be reviewed pursuant to CEQA; individual projects could
demonstrate localized operational emissions that are below the applicable thresholds. Nevertheless,
implementation of the proposed Project as a whole is assumed to result in a significant and unavoidable
impact concerning LSTs during operational activities.
Table 5.2-10
Localized Significance of Operational Emissions (Maximum Pounds per Day)
Emission Sources Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Coarse
Particulates
(PM10)
Fine
Particulates
(PM2.5)
On-Site Emissions
(Area Sources) 8.4 731.3 4.1 4.1
SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(5 acres at 25 meters) 270 1,746 4 2
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No Yes Yes
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0; refer to Appendix C for model outputs.
The Project would not involve the use, storage, or processing of carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic toxic air
contaminants, and no significant toxic airborne emissions would result from operation of the proposed
Project. Construction activities are subject to the regulations and laws relating to toxic air pollutants at
the regional, State, and federal level that would protect sensitive receptors from substantial
concentrations of these emissions. Therefore, impacts associated with the release of toxic air
contaminants would be less than significant.
CRITERIA POLLUTANT HEALTH IMPACTS
In December 2018, in the case of Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, California Supreme
Court held that an EIR's air quality analysis must meaningfully connect the identified air quality impacts
to the human health consequences of those impacts, or meaningfully explain why that analysis cannot be
provided. As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD in the Friant Ranch case (April 6, 2015,
Appendix 10.1), SCAQMD has among the most sophisticated air quality modeling and health impact
evaluation capability of any of the air districts in the State, and thus it is uniquely situated to express an
opinion on how lead agencies should correlate air quality impacts with specific health outcomes.
The SCAQMD discusses that it may be infeasible to quantify health risks caused by projects similar to the
proposed Project, due to many factors. It is necessary to have data regarding the sources and types of air
toxic contaminants, location of emission points, velocity of emissions, the meteorology and topography
of the area, and the location of receptors (worker and residence). The Brief states that it may not be
feasible to perform a health risk assessment for airborne toxics that will be emitted by a generic industrial
building that was built on "speculation" (i.e., without knowing the future tenant(s). Even where a health
risk assessment can be prepared, however, the resulting maximum health risk value is only a calculation
of risk--it does not necessarily mean anyone will contract cancer as a result of the Project. The Brief also
cites the author of the CARB methodology, which reported that a PM2.5 methodology is not suited for
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-39 Air Quality
small projects and may yield unreliable results. Similarly, SCAQMD staff does not currently know of a way
to accurately quantify O3-related health impacts caused by NOX or VOC emissions from relatively small
projects, due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. The Brief concludes, with respect to the
Friant Ranch EIR, that although it may have been technically possible to plug the data into a methodology,
the results would not have been reliable or meaningful.
It should also be noted that NOx and VOCs are “precursor” pollutants, which makes analysis of potential
health impacts even more difficult. NOx and VOCs are precursors to ozone, which is formed in the
atmosphere from the chemical reaction of NOx and VOCs in the presence of sunlight. As explained by the
SCAQMD in its amicus curiae brief for the Friant Ranch case, it takes time and the influence of
meteorological conditions for these reactions to occur, so ozone may be formed at a distance downwind
from the sources.” Given this, “…it takes a large amount of additional precursor emissions to cause a
modeled increase in ambient ozone levels over an entire region.” Therefore, SCAQMD opined that while
it “may be feasible” for large, regional projects with very high emissions of NOX and VOCs to conduct an
accurate health impact analysis, “SCAQMD staff does not currently know of a way to accurately quantify
ozone-related health impacts caused by NOX or VOC (similar to ROG] emissions from relatively small
projects.”
On the other hand, for extremely large regional projects (unlike the proposed Project), the SCAQMD states
that it has been able to correlate potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources – as part of
their rulemaking activity, specifically 6,620 lbs./day of NOX and 89,180 lbs./day of VOC were expected to
result in approximately 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences due to O3.
The proposed Project does not generate anywhere near 6,620 lbs/day of NOX or 89,190 lbs/day of VOC
emissions. Rather, as shown in Table 5.2-8, maximum daily NOx emissions would be 191.8 lbs/day, and
maximum daily VOC (similar to ROG) emissions would be 432.8 lbs/day.
Therefore, the emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use a regional modeling program to correlate
health effects on a basin-wide level. Notwithstanding, this evaluation does evaluate full buildout of the
proposed Project throughout the entire Plan Area through buildout year 2040, including evaluation of
localized impacts to air quality for emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 by comparing the on-site
emissions to the SCAQMD’s applicable LST thresholds. As described previously, the proposed Project could
exceed SCAQMD’s LST thresholds for operation for PM10 and PM2.5. However, it should be noted that
individual projects to be developed within the Project Area may be shown to have impacts that would be
below the LST thresholds for operational impacts.
CARBON MONOXIDE HOTSPOTS
An analysis of CO “hot spots” is needed to determine whether the change in the level of service of an
intersection resulting from future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project
would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS. It has long been recognized
that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections.
Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO
standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for certain
vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and
implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-40 Air Quality
Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not
result in exceedances of the CO standard. The 2022 AQMP is the most recent version that addresses CO
concentrations. As part of the SCAQMD CO Hotspot Analysis, the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue
intersection, one of the most congested intersections in Southern California with approximately 100,000
average daily traffic (ADT), was modeled for CO concentrations. This modeling effort identified a CO
concentration high of 4.6 ppm, which is well below the 35-ppm Federal standard. The proposed Project
would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s
CO Hotspot Analysis. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue
intersection even as it accommodates 100,000 ADT, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would
not be experienced at any Project area intersections, since no intersection in the vicinity of the Project
would come close to 100,000 ADT, even with the addition of the net new ADT attributable to the proposed
Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER
Project construction would generate diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from the use of off-road
diesel equipment required. The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration
and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to
toxic air contaminants (TAC) emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Health-related risks
associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated
risk of contracting cancer.
The use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic. The duration of
exposure would be short and exhaust from construction equipment would dissipate rapidly. Current
models and methodologies for conducting health risk assessments are associated with longer-term
exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly
variable nature of construction activities. The closest sensitive receptor to the Project Area is located
within the Project Area.
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has not identified short-term health effects
from diesel particulate matter (DPM). Construction is temporary and would be transient throughout the
Project Area and individual development sites (i.e., move from location to location) and would not
generate emissions in a fixed location for extended periods of time. Construction activities would be
subject to and would comply with California regulations limiting the idling of heavy-duty construction
equipment to no more than five minutes to further reduce nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to
temporary and variable DPM emissions. Moreover, Mitigation Measures AQ-2, AQ-5, AQ-7 and AQ-8
would require that Project plans and specifications shall include signs at loading dock facilities that
include: 1) instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use; 2) instructions for trucks
drivers to restrict idling to no more than 5 minutes once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to
“neutral” or “park”, and the parking brake is engaged pursuant to Title 13 of the California Code of
Regulations, Section 2485; and 3) telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB to report
violations. Signs shall be installed prior to receipt of an occupancy permit. For these reasons, DPM
generated by Project construction activities, in and of itself, would not expose sensitive receptors to
substantial amounts of air toxins and the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-41 Air Quality
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-1 through AQ-23. No additional mitigation
measures are feasible.
Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
Impact 5.2-4: Would the project result in other emissions such as those leading to odors
adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Impact Analysis: Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the use of
architectural coatings and solvents. SCAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) limits the amount of
VOCs from architectural coatings and solvents. According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook,
construction equipment is not a typical source of odors. Odors from the combustion of diesel fuel would
be minimized by complying with the CARB ATCM that limits diesel-fueled commercial vehicle idling to five
minutes at any given location, which was adopted in 2004. Future development accommodated through
implementation of the Downtown Core Project would also comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance),
which prohibits the emissions of nuisance air contaminants or odorous compounds. Through adherence
with mandatory compliance with SCAQMD Rules and State measures, construction activities and materials
would not create objectionable odors. Construction of future development would not be expected to
generate nuisance odors at nearby air quality sensitive receptors. Therefore, impacts with respect to
odors would be less than significant.
According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints
typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants,
composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Downtown Core Project create and
implement the new WMXU-3: Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core land use category and six new FBC
districts within the Project Area, which would support higher-density residential and commercial
development within the Project Area. Potential operational airborne odors could be created commercial
uses developed within the Project Area. However, compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and
SCAQMD’s Rule 402 (Nuisance), which prohibits the emissions of nuisance air contaminants or odorous
compounds would reduce potential impacts. The other potential source of odors would be new waste
receptacles within the Project Area. The receptacles would be stored in areas and in containers, as
required by the City and be emptied on a regular basis, before potentially substantial odors have
developed. Consequently, implementation of the Downtown Core Project would not create operational-
related objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people within the City. Impacts would be
less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.2.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Analysis: Construction of the growth associated with implementation of the Downtown Core
Project has the potential to temporarily emit criteria air pollutant emissions through the use of heavy-
duty construction equipment, and through vehicle trips generated by workers and haul trucks. In addition,
fugitive dust emissions would result from demolition and various soil-handling activities. Mobile source
emissions, primarily NOx and PM emissions (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5), would result from the use of diesel-
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-42 Air Quality
powered on- and off-road vehicles and equipment. Construction emissions can vary substantially from
day-to-day, depending on the level of activity and the specific type of construction activity. As shown in
Table 5.2-7, mitigated construction-related daily emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance
thresholds.
Operation of the future development accommodated by the proposed Project would generate criteria air
pollutant emissions from project-generated vehicle trips traveling within the City, energy sources such as
natural gas combustion, and area sources such as landscaping equipment and consumer products usage.
CUMULATIVE SHORT-TERM EMISSIONS
SCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards and nonattainment for O3
and PM2.5 for Federal standards. As discussed above, the Project’s mitigated construction-related
emissions by themselves would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants.
Since these thresholds indicate whether individual Project emissions have the potential to affect
cumulative regional air quality, it can be expected that the Project-related construction emissions would
not be cumulatively considerable. The SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant
emissions outlined in the AQMP pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act mandates. The analysis assumed
fugitive dust controls would be utilized during construction, including frequent water applications.
SCAQMD rules, mandates, and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures would also
be imposed on construction projects throughout the SCAB, which would include related cumulative
projects. As concluded above, the Project’s construction-related impacts would be less than significant.
Compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would further minimize the proposed Project’s
construction-related emissions. Therefore, Project-related construction emissions, in combination with
those from other projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate the local air quality. The
Project’s construction-related emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to
significant cumulative air quality impacts.
CUMULATIVE LONG-TERM IMPACTS
The SCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions.
The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size
to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, individual project emissions
contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The SCAQMD developed the
operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which individual project emissions would
result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to SCAB’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a
project that exceeds the SCAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative impact.
As shown in Table 5.2-8, the Project’s operational emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG,
NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. As a result, the Project’s operational emissions would result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. While adherence to SCAQMD rules
and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project-by-project
basis, since the Project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds, this is considered a significant and unavoidable
impact. Based on these impacts, the Downtown Core Project would contribute to a cumulative impact
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-43 Air Quality
with regard to air quality in the region and within the air basin (i.e. the South Coast Air Basin) as a whole.
Therefore, this impact is considered a cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-23. No additional mitigation
measures are feasible.
Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
5.2.8 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The Project would result in a significant unavoidable impact for the following areas:
• The Project could result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations
or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or
the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.
• The Project could result in ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 operational emissions that would be
significant and unavoidable.
• Implementation of the proposed Project as a whole would result in a significant and unavoidable
impact concerning Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) during operational activities.
• Project implementation would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant
cumulative air quality impacts during operational activities.
All other air quality impacts associated with implementation of the Project would be less than significant.
If the City of Fontana approves the Downtown Core Project, the City will be required to make findings in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations
for consideration by the City’s decision makers in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.
5.2.9 REFERENCES
Ahrens, Donald C., Meteorology Today: An Introduction to Weather, Climate, & the Environment, 2006.
California Air Resources Board, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-
Fueled Engines and Vehicles, October 2000,
https://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpFinal.pdf
South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993,
https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-
handbook#https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-
thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, June
2003, Revised July 2008. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-
document.pdf?sfvrsn=2
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology – Appendix
C, Revised October 21, 2009.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.2-44 Air Quality
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2022 Air Quality Management Plan, December 2022.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.3-1 Biological Resources
5.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
5.3.1 PURPOSE
This section describes biological resources within the Project Area and provides an analysis of potential
impacts associated with implementation of the Project.
KEY TERMS
The following key terms are used throughout this section to describe biological resources and the
framework that regulates them:
Hydric Soils: One of the three wetland identification parameters, according to the Federal definition of a
wetland, hydric soils have characteristics that indicate they were developed in conditions where soil
oxygen is limited by the presence of saturated soil for long periods during the growing season. There are
approximately 2,000 named soils in the United States that may occur in wetlands.
Hydrophytic Vegetation: Plant types that typically occur in wetland areas. Nearly 5,000 plant types in the
United States may occur in wetlands. Plants are listed in regional publications of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and include such species as cattails, bulrushes, cordgrass, sphagnum moss, bald cypress,
willows, mangroves, sedges, rushes, arrowheads, and water plantains.
Sensitive Natural Community: A sensitive natural community is a biological community that is regionally
rare, provides important habitat opportunities for wildlife, is structurally complex, or is in other ways of
special concern to local, State, or Federal agencies. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
identifies the elimination or substantial degradation of such communities as a significant impact. The
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) tracks sensitive natural communities in the California
Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).
Special-Status Species: Special-status species are those plants and animals that, because of their
recognized rarity or vulnerability to various causes of habitat loss or population decline, are recognized
by federal, State, or other agencies. Some of these species receive specific protection that is defined by
federal or State endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as "sensitive" on the basis
of adopted policies and expertise of State resource agencies or organizations with acknowledged
expertise, or policies adopted by local governmental agencies such as counties, cities, and special districts
to meet local conservation objectives. These species are referred to collectively as "special status species"
in this report, following a convention that has developed in practice but has no official sanction. For the
purposes of this assessment, the term “special status” includes those species that are:
• Federally listed or proposed for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 17.11-
17.12);
• Candidates for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act (61 FR 7596-7613);
• State listed or proposed for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (14 CCR 670.5);
• Species listed by the USFWS or the CDFW as a species of concern (USFWS), rare (CDFW), or of
special concern (CDFW);
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.3-2 Biological Resources
• Fully protected animals, as defined by the State of California (California Fish and Game Code
Section 3511, 4700, and 5050);
• Species that meet the definition of threatened, endangered, or rare under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15380);
• Plants listed as rare or endangered under the California Native Plant Protection Act (California
Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et seq.); and
• Plants listed by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as rare, threatened, or endangered (List
1A and List 2 status plants in Skinner and Pavlik 1994).
Waters of the U.S.: The Federal government defines waters of the U.S. as "lakes, rivers, streams,
intermittent drainages, mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, and wet meadows" [33 C.F.R. §328.3(a)].
Waters of the U.S. exhibit a defined bed and bank and ordinary high-water mark (OHWM). The OHWM is
defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as “that line on shore established by the fluctuations
of water and indicated by physical character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence
of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas”
[33 C.F.R. §328.3(e)].
Wetlands: Wetlands are ecologically complex habitats that support a variety of both plant and animal life.
The Federal government defines wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” [33 C.F.R.
§328.3(b)]. Wetlands require wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation. Examples of
wetlands include freshwater marsh, seasonal wetlands, and vernal pool complexes that have a hydrologic
link to waters of the U.S.
5.3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Fontana is located on a desert valley floor between the San Gabriel Mountains to the north
and the Jurupa Hills to the south. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the City of Fontana is generally
highly urbanized, and the majority of the City’s biological resources occur at its outskirts, in areas free
from large-scale development (City of Fontana, 2018). Within the City, these areas include the foothills of
the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the Jurupa Hills to the south.
The Project Area is an urbanized area bounded by Foothill Boulevard on the north, Randall Avenue on the
south, Juniper Avenue on the west, and Mango Avenue on the east. The Project Area consists primarily of
developed and/or disturbed land that has been developed, paved, or landscaped, and existing vegetation
consists of primarily ornamental and/or nonnative plant species. No major regional wildlife migration
corridors are known to exist within the Project Area. No native riparian habitat, blueline streams, or
sensitive natural communities are located in the Project Area.
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
As previously described, special-status species are those plants and animals that, because of their
recognized rarity or vulnerability to various causes of habitat loss or population decline, are recognized
by federal, State, or other agencies. As part of this DEIR, a background search was conducted to determine
documented occurrences of special-status species within a one-mile radius of the Project Area. The
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.3-3 Biological Resources
background search included documented occurrences in the California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB), the California Native Plant Survey (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, and the
USFWS endangered and threatened species lists. The search revealed documented occurrences of three
special-status plants and animals within a one-mile radius of the Project Area, as shown in Table 5.3-1,
Special-Status Plants and Animals – One-Mile Search.
Table 5.3-1
Special-Status Plants and Animals – One-Mile Search
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status
State
Status
CDFW
Status*
Mammals
Lasiurus xanthinus western yellow bat None None SSC
Reptiles
Anniella stebbinsi Southern California legless lizard None None SSC
Invertebrates
Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis Delhi Sands flower-loving fly Endangered None --
Notes: One-mile radius of Project Area.
*CDFW Status Key: SSC – CDFW Species of Special Concern
Source: CDFW CNDDB, 2022.
According to the General Plan EIR, areas with non-native grassland are disturbed or graded areas that
have revegetated with opportunistic weedy species. These species include wild oat (Avena barbata),
brome (Bromus spp.), and Mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus), as well as some native wildflowers
including popcornflower (Cryptantha spp.) and fiddleneck (Amsinckia spp.). In developed areas,
landscaping or a variety of annual grasses and weedy forbs have replaced native species. The non-native
annual grass species found within the City include a variety of bromes: downy brome (Bromus tectorum),
Australian chess (B. arenarius), ripgut brome (B. diandrus), and others. Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon)
and Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense) also occur in the area. Forbs common to the area include Saharan
mustard (Brassica tournefortii), red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), annual bur ragweed
(Ambrosia acanthicarpa), and southern suncups (Cammissonia bistorta). In more disturbed areas,
grasslands may be almost entirely overgrown with Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) and/or mustard. This
habitat is particularly valuable to raptors and other avian species, including northern harriers (Circus
cyaneus), Burrowing Owl (BUOW), horned larks (Eremophila alpestris), red-tailed hawks (Buteo
jamaicensis), ferruginous hawks (Buteo regalis), and loggerhead shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus). Within City
boundaries, non-native grasslands are found in vacant lots throughout the City as well as in many larger,
open fields north of Baseline Avenue.
Although primarily developed, the Project Area includes vacant lots, including lots identified by the
General Plan EIR as non-native grasslands and disturbed. These lots are non-contiguous, infill lots
surrounded by urbanized development. As they currently remain undeveloped, there is the potential for
revegetation with weedy species to occur, as described above. The Project Area does not contain any
areas identified within the General Plan EIR as having critical habitat for federally listed species or having
biological constraints to future development associated with suitable habitat for San Bernardino Kangaroo
Rat (SBKR), Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSF), Coastal California Gnatcatcher (CAGN) and BUOW;
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.3-4 Biological Resources
designated critical habitat; areas with known CNDDB and/or eBird records for SBKR, DSF, CAGN, or BUOW;
or areas mapped as Delhi fine sand and soils.
5.3.3 REGULATORY SETTING
FEDERAL
Federal Endangered Species Act
Federally listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats are protected under provisions of
the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973. FESA Section 9 prohibits “take” of threatened or
endangered species. “Take” under the FESA is defined as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,
kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any of the specifically enumerated conduct.” The
presence of any Federally threatened or endangered species that are in a project area generally imposes
severe constraints on development, particularly if development would result in “take” of the species or
its habitat. Under the regulations of the FESA, the USFWS may authorize “take” when it is incidental to,
but not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful act.
“Harm” has been defined by the regulations of the USFWS to include types of “significant habitat
modification or degradation.” The U.S. Supreme Court, in Babbit v. Sweet Home, 515 U.S. 687, ruled that
“harm” may include habitat modification “...where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly
impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.” Activities that may
result in “take” of individuals are regulated by USFWS.
Under the FESA, “Critical Habitat” is also designated at the time of listing or within one year of listing.
“Critical Habitat” refers to habitat or a specific geographic area that contains the elements and features
that are essential for the survival and recovery of the species. In the event a project may result in take or
in adverse effects to a species’ designated Critical Habitat, the project proponent may be required to
provide mitigation. If the project has a federal nexus (i.e., occurs on federal land, is issued federal permits,
or receives any other federal oversight or funding), the proponent would be required to enter into Section
7 informal and/or formal consultations with the USFWS to obtain, if possible, a biological opinion allowing
for incidental take of the species in question. If the project is on private land or would not require any
federal permits, the proponent would be required to prepare a habitat management plan to address the
impacts.
The FESA defines as “endangered” any plant or animal species that is in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. A “threatened” species is a species that is likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future. A “proposed” species is one that has been officially proposed by
USFWS for addition to the federal threatened and endangered species list.
USFWS produced an updated list of candidate species for listing in June 2002 (Federal Register: Volume
67, Number 114, 50 CFR Part 17 2002). Candidate species are regarded by USFWS as candidates for
addition to the “List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.” Although candidate species are
not afforded legal protection under the FESA, they typically receive special attention from Federal and
State agencies during the environmental review process.
USFWS also uses the label “species of concern,” an informal term that refers to species which might be in
need of concentrated conservation actions. As the species of concern designated by USFWS do not receive
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.3-5 Biological Resources
formal legal protection, the use of the term does not necessarily ensure that the species would be
proposed for listing as a threatened or endangered species.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 United States Government Code [USC] 703) makes it unlawful
to pursue, capture, kill, or possess or attempt to do the same to any migratory bird or part, nest, or egg
of any such bird listed in wildlife protection treaties between the United States, Great Britain, Mexico,
Japan, and the countries of the former Soviet Union, and authorizes the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to
protect and regulate the taking of migratory birds. It establishes seasons and bag limits for hunted species
and protects migratory birds, their occupied nests, and their eggs (16 USC 703; 50 CFR 10, 21).
Bald and Golden Eagle Preservation Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provides for the protection of the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) and the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) by prohibiting, except under certain specified
conditions, the taking, possession, and commerce of such birds (16 U.S. Government Code Section 668(a)).
“Take” under the Act includes actions which significantly disturb eagles (50 CFR Section 22.3). 1972
amendments increased penalties for violating provisions of the Act and strengthened other enforcement
measures. A 1978 amendment authorized the Secretary of the Interior to permit the taking of golden
eagle nests that interfere with resource development or recovery operations, and recent amendments
authorize USFWS to issue permits for incidental and practically unavoidable take of eagles.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 requires that a permit be obtained from the United States Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) prior to the discharge of dredged or fill materials into any “waters of the United States
or wetlands.” Waters of the United States are broadly defined in the Corps regulations (33 CFR 328) to
include navigable waterways, their tributaries, lakes, ponds, and wetlands. Wetlands are defined as “those
areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient
to support, and that normally do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas” (United States
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 2021). Wetlands that are not specifically exempt from Section 404
regulations (such as drainage channels excavated on dry land) are considered to be “jurisdictional
wetlands.” In Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Court
acted to limit the regulatory jurisdiction of the Corps under CWA Section 404 as it applies to adjacent
waters (2001). Specifically, the Court ruled that waters that are non-navigable, isolated, and intrastate are
not subject to the Corps jurisdiction (Guzy and Anderson 2001). The Corps is required to consult with the
USFWS, EPA, and State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), among other agencies, in carrying
out its discretionary authority under Section 404.
The Corps grants two types of permits, individual and nationwide. Project-specific individual permits are
required for certain activities that may have a potential for more than a minimal impact and necessitate
a detailed application. The most common type of permit is a nationwide permit. Nationwide permits
authorize activities on a nationwide basis unless specifically limited and are designed to regulate with little
delay or paperwork certain activities having minimal impacts. Nationwide permits typically take two to
three months to obtain whereas individual permits can take a year or more. To qualify for a nationwide
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.3-6 Biological Resources
permit, specific criteria must be met. If the criteria restrictions are met, permittees may proceed with
certain activities without notifying the Corps. Some nationwide permits require a pre-construction
notification before activities can begin.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
Applicants for a federal license or permit for activities which may discharge to waters of the U.S. must
seek Water Quality Certification from the State or Indian tribe with jurisdiction. Such Certification is based
on a finding that the discharge would meet water quality standards and other applicable requirements.
In California, RWQCBs issue or deny Certification for discharges within their geographical jurisdiction.
Water Quality Certification must be based on a finding that the proposed discharge would comply with
water quality standards, which are defined as numeric and narrative objectives in each RWQCB’s Basin
Plan. Where applicable, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has this responsibility for
projects affecting waters within the jurisdiction of multiple RWQCBs. The RWQCB’s jurisdiction extends
to all waters of the State and to all waters of the U.S., including wetlands.
CWA Section 401 requires that “any applicant for a Federal permit for activities that involve a discharge
to waters of the State, shall provide the Federal permitting agency a certification from the State in which
the discharge is proposed that states that the discharge would comply with the applicable provisions
under the federal Clean Water Act.” Therefore, before the Corps would issue a Section 404 permit,
applicants must apply for and receive a Section 401 water quality certification from the RWQCB.
STATE
California Endangered Species Act (California Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et seq.)
State-listed threatened and endangered species are protected under provisions of the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA). Activities that may result in “take” of individuals (defined in CESA as to
“hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”) are regulated by
the CDFW. Habitat degradation or modification is not included in the definition of “take” under CESA.
Nonetheless, CDFW has interpreted “take” to include the destruction of nesting, denning, or foraging
habitat necessary to maintain a viable breeding population of protected species.
The State of California considers an endangered species as one whose prospects of survival and
reproduction are in immediate jeopardy. A threatened species is considered as one present in such small
numbers throughout its range that it is likely to become an endangered species in the near future in the
absence of special protection or management. A rare species is one that is considered present in such
small numbers throughout its range that it may become endangered if its present environment worsens.
State threatened and endangered species are fully protected against take, as defined above.
The CDFW has also produced a Species of Special Concern list to serve as a species watch list. Species on
this list are either of limited distribution or their habitats have been reduced substantially, such that a
threat to their populations may be imminent. Species of special concern may receive special attention
during environmental review, but they do not have formal statutory protection.
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 independently defines “endangered” and “rare” species separately from
the definitions in the CESA. Under CEQA, “endangered” species of plants or animals are defined as those
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.3-7 Biological Resources
whose survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy, while “rare” species are defined
as those who are in such low numbers that they could become endangered if their environment worsens.
Lake and Streambed Alteration Program (California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 through 1616)
California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 through 1616 establish a fee-based process to ensure that
projects conducted in and around lakes, rivers, or streams do not adversely impact fish and wildlife
resources, or, when adverse impacts cannot be avoided, ensures that adequate mitigation and/or
compensation is provided.
Fish and Game Code Section 1602 requires any person, State, or local governmental agency or public
utility to notify the CDFW before beginning any activity that would do one or more of the following:
• Substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake;
• Substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake;
or
• Deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground
pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake.
Fish and Game Code Section 1602 applies to all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers, streams,
and lakes in the State. CDFW’s regulatory authority extends to include riparian habitat (including
wetlands) supported by a river, stream, or lake regardless of the presence or absence of hydric soils and
saturated soil conditions. Generally, the CDFW takes jurisdiction to the top of bank of the stream or to
the outer limit of the adjacent riparian vegetation (outer drip line), whichever is greater. Notification is
generally required for any project that would take place in or in the vicinity of a river, stream, lake, or their
tributaries. This includes rivers or streams that flow at least periodically or permanently through a bed or
channel with banks that support fish or other aquatic life and watercourses having a surface or subsurface
flow that support or have supported riparian vegetation.
Native Plant Protection Act (Fish and Game Code Sections 1900 through 1913)
Fish and Game Code Sections 1900 through 1913 were developed to preserve, protect, and enhance Rare
and Endangered plants in the State of California. The act requires all State agencies to use their authority
to carry out programs to conserve Endangered and Rare native plants. Provisions of the Native Plant
Protection Act prohibit the taking of listed plants from the wild and require notification of the CDFW at
least ten days in advance of any change in land use which would adversely impact listed plants. This allows
the CDFW to salvage listed plant species that would otherwise be destroyed.
California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, 3513, 4700, 5050, and 5515
The CDFW administers the Fish and Game Code. There are particular sections of the Fish and Game Code
that are applicable to natural resource management. For example, Section 3503 of the Code makes it
unlawful to destroy the nests or eggs of any birds that are protected under the MBTA. Furthermore, any
birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (Birds of Prey, such as hawks, eagles, and owls) are
protected under Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5, which makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy
their nest or eggs. A consultation with CDFW would be required prior to the removal of any bird of prey
nest that may occur on a project site. Fish and Game Code Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 list fully
protected bird, mammal, reptile and amphibian, and fish species, respectively. The CDFW is unable to
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.3-8 Biological Resources
authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take these species. Examples of species that are State fully
protected include golden eagle and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). Fish and Game Code Section 3513
makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA or any part
of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of
the Interior under provisions of the MBTA.
California Native Plant Society Rare or Endangered Plant Species
Vascular plants listed as rare or endangered by the CNPS, but which have no designated status under State
and federal endangered species legislation are defined as follows:
• California Rare Plant Rank
1A. Plants Presumed Extirpated in California and either Rare or Extinct Elsewhere
1B. Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere
2A. Plants Presumed Extirpated in California, But More Common Elsewhere
2B. Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere
3. Plants about Which More Information is Needed - A Review List
4. Plants of Limited Distribution - A Watch List
• Threat Ranks
1. Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and
immediacy of threat)
2. Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened/moderate degree
and immediacy of threat)
3. Not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened/low degree and
immediacy of threat or no current threats known)
LOCAL
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce potential impacts to biological
resources. Chapter 7, Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails Element contains the following goals
and policies potentially relevant to the proposed Project:
Chapter 7 – Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails Element
• Goal 1: Fontana continues to preserve sensitive natural open space in the foothills of the San
Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills.
o Policy: Consider permanent protection for sensitive foothill lands through potential
partnerships with conservation organizations or acquisition and deed restrictions.
• Goal 2: Large city parks and open spaces include plantings and natural areas attractive to birds
and other wildlife.
o Policy: Inform the public about the natural ecological character of Fontana.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.3-9 Biological Resources
o Policy: Use public open space to support wildlife habitat where appropriate.
• Goal 3: Fontana has a healthy, drought-resistant urban forest.
o Policy: Support tree conservation and planting that enhances shade and drought
resistance.
o Policy: Expand Fontana’s tree canopy.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 28, Article III, Preservation of Heritage, Significant and Specimen Trees,
includes regulations for the preservation and protection of heritage, significant, and/or specimen trees
within the City, located on both private and public property. The Municipal Code defines a “heritage tree”
as a tree of historical value because of its association with a place, building, natural feature or event of
local, regional or national historical significance as identified by city council resolution; or a tree
representative of a significant period of the City's growth or development (windrow tree, European Olive
tree); or a protected or endangered species as specified by federal or State statute; or a tree deemed
historically or culturally significant by the City Manager or his or her designee because of size, condition,
location or aesthetic qualities. The Municipal Code defines a “significant tree” as the species of Southern
California black walnut, Coast live oak, Deodora cedar, California sycamore, or London plane trees. The
Municipal Code defines a “specimen tree” as a mature tree (that is not a heritage or significant tree) that
is an excellent example of its species in structure and aesthetics and warrants preservation, relocation, or
replacement as specified by Municipal Code Sections 28-66, 28-67, and 28-68. A tree removal permit is
required for the removal of any heritage, significant or specimen tree. In the event that a removal permit
is issued, such trees removed must be replaced.
5.3.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Initial Study
Environmental Checklist, which includes questions related to biological resources. A project would result
in a significant impact related to biological resources if it would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(refer to Impact Statement 5.3-1);
• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (refer to Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be
Significant);
• Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means (refer to Section 8.0, Effects Found Not
To Be Significant);
• 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 (refer to Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant);
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.3-10 Biological Resources
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance (refer to Impact Statement 5.3-2); and/or
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (refer to
Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a), Mandatory Findings of Significance, states that a project may have a
significant effect on the environment if it would 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,
reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species ...”
An evaluation of whether an impact on biological resources would be substantial must consider both the
resource itself and how that resource fits into a regional and/or local context. Substantial impacts would
be those that would substantially diminish or result in the loss of, an important biological resource or
those that would obviously conflict with local, State, or federal resource conservation plans, goals, or
regulations. Impacts are sometimes locally adverse but not significant because, although they would
result in an adverse alteration of existing conditions, they would not substantially diminish or result in the
permanent loss of an important resource on a population- or region-wide basis.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15380, Endangered, Rare or Threatened Species, states that a lead agency can
consider a non-listed species to be Rare, Threatened, or Endangered for the purposes of CEQA if the
species can be shown to meet the criteria in the definition of Rare, Threatened, or Endangered. For the
purposes of this discussion, the current scientific knowledge on the population size and distribution for
each special-status species was considered according to the definitions for Rare, Threatened, and
Endangered listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15380.
Based on these standards and significance thresholds and criteria, the Project’s effects have been
categorized as either “no impact,” a “less than significant impact,” or a “potentially significant impact.”
Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant
impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant impact through the application of mitigation, it is
categorized as a “significant unavoidable impact.”
5.3.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 5.3-1: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Impact Analysis: The Project Area is located within an urbanized area and currently developed with
residential and non-residential uses. The Project Area consists primarily of developed and/or disturbed
land that has been developed, paved, or landscaped, and existing vegetation consists of primarily
ornamental and/or nonnative plant species. The General Plan EIR does not identify any sensitive natural
communities located on or adjacent to the Project Area. As shown in Table 5.3-1, there have been
documented occurrences of three special-status species within the general vicinity of the Project Area,
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.3-11 Biological Resources
including the western yellow bat, Southern California legless lizard, and Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. The
Project Area does not contain any areas identified within the General Plan EIR as having critical habitat
for federally listed species or having biological constraints to future development associated with suitable
habitat for San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR), Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSF), Coastal California
Gnatcatcher (CAGN) and BUOW; designated critical habitat; areas with known CNDDB and/or eBird
records for SBKR, DSF, CAGN, or BUOW; or areas mapped as Delhi fine sand and soils.
Although primarily developed, there are a limited number of non-contiguous undeveloped parcels within
the Project Area consisting of disturbed and/or graded areas that have the opportunity to be revegetated
with opportunistic weedy species including non-native annual grasses and weedy forbs (City of Fontana,
2018). As previously discussed, in more disturbed areas, grasslands may be almost entirely overgrown
with Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) and/or mustard. This habitat is particularly valuable to raptors and
other avian species, including northern harriers (Circus cyaneus), BUOW) horned larks (Eremophila
alpestris), red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), ferruginous hawks (Buteo regalis), and loggerhead shrikes
(Lanius ludovicianus).
Although the Project Area is not within an area identified as having critical habitat or areas known to
contain BUOW, the General Plan EIR identifies BUOW as a species of concern that is known to occur within
the City of Fontana boundaries and could theoretically inhabit undeveloped land within the City, including
the Project Area. BUOW is known to nest in existing burrows, culverts, or other appropriately-sized holes
on disturbed, vacant, or agricultural lands. Further there is the potential that ornamental vegetation
within the Project Area could provide potential nesting sites for birds that are protected under Sections
3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code and under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Thus, there is potential for construction activities to negatively affect breeding or reproduction of
protected nesting birds within the Project Area.
The Downton Core Project does not include any specific development proposals and would not result in
significant direct impacts to existing biological resources. However, subsequent development and
redevelopment activities associated with implementation of the proposed Project could occur on
undeveloped sites that have been revegetated or result in the removal of ornamental vegetation,
potentially resulting in direct impacts to BUOW or nesting birds. Future development associated with
implementation of the proposed Project would be required to implement General Plan EIR mitigation
measures MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2 (incorporated herein as Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2).
Specifically, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires that for sites containing suitable habitat, a qualified
biologist conduct a pre-construction survey prior to ground disturbing or vegetation disturbing activities
to determine the presence or absence of burrowing owl within the proposed area of impact and
appropriate actions if occupied burrows are discovered. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 provides that clearing
of vegetation and removal of trees should occur during the non-nesting (or non-breeding) season for
nesting birds to ensure their protection, if feasible. If not feasible, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 provides the
alternative of carrying out such activities under the supervision of a qualified biologist. Compliance with
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, the MBTA, and the California Fish and Game Code, would ensure
that protected birds are not adversely affected during construction activities accommodated as part of
the Downtown Core Project and impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.3-12 Biological Resources
Mitigation Measures:
BIO-1:
1. Prior to initial grading or clearing of areas of suitable habitat within the Project Area (e.g., a
vacant site with a landscape of grassland or low-growing, arid scrub vegetation or agricultural
use or vegetation), a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey, in accordance
with the CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, to determine the presence or
absence of burrowing owl within the proposed area of impact.
2. Results of surveys, including mitigation recommendations (i.e., a Burrowing Owl Mitigation
and Monitoring Report) shall be incorporated into the project-level CEQA compliance
documentation.
3. Construction grading/clearing of areas of suitable habitat should occur between September 1
and January 31 to avoid impacts to breeding owls. If occupied burrows are discovered, they
shall not be removed during nesting season (February 1 through August 31), unless a qualified
biologist can determine that either the owls have not laid eggs or are incubating eggs, or that
any young from the burrows are able to forage independently. If initial grading is scheduled
to occur during nesting season, the following measures shall be implemented.
4. If removal of occupied burrows is necessary, passive relocation outside of nesting season shall
be implemented under the supervision of the qualified biologist. This shall include
covering/excavation of burrows and installation of one-way doors as necessary. One-way
doors will allow owls inside the burrow to exit but not allow them to re-enter. The biologist
shall wait a minimum of one week before the burrow may be excavated to allow the owls
time to leave the area. (General Plan EIR MM-BIO-1)
BIO-2: To avoid impacts to nesting birds and to comply with the MBTA, clearing of vegetation and
removal of trees should occur between non-nesting (or non-breeding) season for birds (generally,
September 1 to January 31). If this avoidance schedule is not feasible, the alternative is to carry
out such activities under the supervision of a qualified biologist. This shall entail the following:
1. A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction nesting bird survey no more than 14
days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities. The survey will consist of full coverage
of the proposed disturbance limits and up to a 500-foot buffer area, determined by the
biologist and taking into account the species nesting in the area and the habitat present.
2. If no active nests are found, no additional measures are required.
3. If “occupied” nests are found, their locations shall be mapped, species documented, and,
to the degree feasible, the status of the nest (e.g., incubation of eggs, feeding of young,
near fledging) recorded. The biologist shall establish a no-disturbance buffer around each
active nest. The buffer area will be determined by the biologist based on the species
present, surrounding habitat, and type of construction activities proposed in the area.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.3-13 Biological Resources
4. No construction or ground disturbance activities shall be conducted within the buffer until
the biologist has determined the nest is no longer active and has informed the construction
supervisor that activities may resume. (General Plan EIR MM-BIO-2)
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Impact 5.3-2: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Impact Analysis: Future development accommodated under the Downtown Core Project would be
subject to all applicable federal, State, regional, and local policies and regulations related to the protection
of biological resources, as outlined above in Section 5.3.3, Regulatory Setting. Fontana Municipal Code
Chapter 28, Article III includes regulations for the preservation and protection of heritage, significant,
and/or specimen trees within the City, located on both private and public property. The Municipal Code
outlines the definition of a “heritage tree,” “significant tree,” and “specimen tree.” A tree removal permit
is required for the removal of any heritage, significant or specimen tree. In the event that a removal permit
is issued, such trees removed must be replaced. In addition, the Fontana General Plan includes goals,
policies, and actions to protect and conserve biological resources.
The Downtown Core Project would not modify the City’s Municipal Code or General Plan goals, policies,
and actions specific to the protection of biological resources. Site-specific development is not currently
proposed; however, future development projects associated with implementation of the Downtown Core
Project would be assessed for consistency with local policies and ordinances, including the Municipal Code
and General Plan goals, policies, and actions, as appropriate. Proposed removal of any trees within the
Project Area would be reviewed in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 28, Article III and would be
required to comply with the requirements for removal. Thus, the Project would not conflict with any local
policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts would be less than significant in this
regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.3.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Analysis: Biological resources are a limited resource and their cumulative loss is considered
significant. The Project Area is located within an urbanized area and currently developed with residential
and non-residential uses. No natural open space areas containing significant biological resources exist
within the Project Area. The Project Area does not function as a migratory wildlife corridor; and is not
located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. The Downtown Core Project
does not change land use designations from open space to development; rather Project implementation
would allow for the intensification of land uses in areas already developed or considered for development.
Subsequent projects associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would be required
to be consistent with federal, State, and local regulations, including the General Plan and General Plan EIR
mitigation measures, designed to protect biological resources. In compliance with Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 and BIO-2, proposed development or redevelopment within the Project Area would be reviewed to
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.3-14 Biological Resources
determine the potential for site-specific development to impact biological resources and if present, would
be required to implement measures to mitigate potential impacts. Thus, the Project’s impacts would not
be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts to biological resources would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.3.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts associated with biological resources would occur with the proposed
Project.
5.3.8 REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB),
December 1, 2022.
City of Fontana, Fontana Forward: General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report,
June 2018.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Wetlands Inventory,
https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/, accessed December 2,
2022.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.4-1 Cultural Resources
5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
5.4.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this section is to evaluate the Project’s potential to impact cultural (including historic and
archaeological resources) resources within the Project Area. This section is based primarily on the Fontana
Forward: General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No.
016021099) (City of Fontana, 2018).
5.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
PREHISTORIC OVERVIEW
The earliest period of human occupation in southern California is referred to by various terms, including
Clovis, Paleoindian, and Early Systems Period. This is a time believed to have commenced about 12,000
years ago Before Present (BP), lasting until about 10,000 years BP. While some scholars have campaigned
for the idea of a Pre-Projectile Point Tradition predating this time, it is not considered here, as there are
no documented sites of this age near the City. The following cultural periods reflect human adaptations
that occurred among prehistoric societies in inland California. While these are broad generalizations,
there appear to be similarities among various populations in southern California, particularly in the inland
areas.
Prehistoric chronological sequences for the area can be represented by the Encinitas Tradition. Tradition
is defined by Warren as, “a generic unit comprising historically related phases.” These phases can be
characterized based on patterns seen in artifact types with more precise data coming from obsidian
hydration tests and radiocarbon assays. The Encinitas Tradition is characterized by an abundance of
grinding implements (manos and metates), rough core and flaked stone and bone tools, and shell
ornaments but few projectile points and hunting implements. Subsistence focused more heavily on
collecting rather than hunting with faunal remains, varying by site, including marine mammals, fish, shell
fish, and land animals. The Encinitas Tradition has four regional patterns. The pattern applicable for the
City is Greven Knoll, recognized in the inland Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside County
areas. Below are descriptions of the three patterns of the Encinitas Tradition applicable to the City based
on Sutton and Gardener.
Greven Knoll I
The Greven Knoll I Pattern of the Encinitas Tradition (9,400 to 4,000 BP) is characterized by manos and
metates, large dart points and core tools but no mortars and pestles. Flexed inhumations with occasional
cremations were preferred methods of internment. It has been noted that there have been no
documented shellfish sustenance remains and hunting was important to the people’s subsistence. It is
believed that this period was influenced by Pinto Groups from the Mojave Desert. The Yukaipa’t site in
San Bernardino County is an example of this pattern. This site, excavated in 1947 and 1948, included a
large quantity of manos and matates, large dart points (such as Pinto points which stylistically date form
7,000-4,000 BP) and stone and shell beads. Several other Greven Knoll I site types have been documented
in San Bernardino, including at least one near the City of Fontana. Obsidian artifacts from Greven Knoll I
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.4-2 Cultural Resources
sites have been sourced to the Coso Volcanic Fields located more than 150-miles north. The earliest known
evidence of the use of ceramic vessels was found at a Greven Knoll I site in Riverside County.
Greven Knoll II
The Greven Knoll II Pattern of the Encinitas Tradition (4,000 to 3,000 BP) was similar to Greven Knoll I but
with a marked difference in the ratio of ground stone tools to flaked stone tools. In Greven knoll II ground
stone tools (e.g. manos, metataes) increased while dart points, such as Elko-style points (4,000 – 1,500
BP), and bone tools decreased. No new hunting technology, such as the bow-and-arrow, was introduced
during this period. At around the middle of the Greven Knoll II pattern a significant change appears in
coastal areas. Populations expanded, new artifact types were developed, subsistence patterns changed,
and sedentism increased. These changes seem to coincide with the influx of Takic language groups into
the area. However, the inland Greven knoll II populations seemed to not be affected by this influx and
instead became more isolated from the coastal groups and developed new subsistence strategies of their
own.
Greven Knoll III
The Greven Knolls III Pattern of the Encinitas Tradition (3,000 to 1,000 BP) continued to place a high
importance on hunting and gathering. The most significant difference between Greven Knolls II and
Greven Knolls III is the emergence of the scrapper plane, an important artifact for yucca processing.
Obsidian was still being either traded or procured from the Coso Volcanic fields but a few specimens from
one of the Crowder Canyon Greven Knoll III sites were sourced to Obsidian Buttes, over 100-miles
southeast of the Planning Area. Although radiocarbon dates are rare, projectile point typology was useful
with Elko and Gypsum dart points (4,000 – 1,500 BP) as well as Rose Spring and Cottonwood arrow points
(1,500 to 800 BP) being found in Greven Knoll III artifact assemblages. Greven Knoll III contain more
scrapper planes, ornaments, and bone artifacts than Greven Knoll II. Greven Knoll III continued until about
1,000 BP at which time it may have been replaced by Takic influences that were moving inland from the
coast.
ETHNOHISTORIC OVERVIEW
During the Ethnohistoric period two groups claimed this area as their use area. These were the Gabrielino
and the Serrano. Both of these groups trace their ancestry through artifacts, oral history, and cultural
traditions to the San Bernardino County areas. The Gabrielino territory lies mainly to the west and the
Serrano to the east from the City but the boundary is broad and undefined, allowing for interaction and
trade between the groups. Both groups practiced a hunting-gathering subsistence strategy and both were
decimated by disease and forceful eviction as more settlers discovered the rich valleys of historic San
Bernardino County.
Gabrielino
The group that inhabited much of southern California from the Pacific Coast near present day Los Angeles,
including three of the Channel Islands and, into the current San Bernardino County area were historically
referred to by association with the San Gabriel Mission. The name was spelled Gabrieliño or Gabrieleño
and although there is little evidence that they used a general name to define their cultural groups they
most likely identified by the community or area they were from. Today various groups prefer the
designation of Tongva or Kizh, rather than Gabrielino. This section will use the name Tongva for this group.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.4-3 Cultural Resources
The Tongva territory encompassed a vast area that covered an area of more than 2,500 square miles. At
European contact, the tribe consisted of more than 5,000 people living in various settlements throughout
the region. The Tongva are considered to have been one of the wealthiest tribes and they appear to have
greatly influenced tribes they traded with.
The Tongva practiced a hunting and gathering economy at the time of Spanish contact (as early as the
1542 Cabrillo expedition for coastal groups), with plant foods playing a significant part of the Tongva diet.
Seeds were parched then ground and cooked as mush in various combinations according to availability
and personal preferences. Plant foods would be eaten raw or cooked and would also be dried for storage.
Bulbs, roots, and tubers were dug in the spring and summer and usually eaten fresh. Various teas were
made from flowers, fruits, stems, and roots for medicinal cures as well as beverages. The principal game
animals were deer, rabbit, jackrabbit, woodrat, mice, ground squirrels, antelope, quail, dove, ducks, and
other birds. Predators were largely avoided as food, as were tree squirrels and most reptiles. Houses were
domed, circular structures that were thatched with tule or similar materials. The coastal Tongva groups
are renowned for their workmanship of steatite and these artifacts were highly prized. Common everyday
steatite items were often decorated with inlaid shell or carvings reflecting the intricately developed skill
of the creator.
Serrano
The Serrano, like the Tongva, occupied large areas of land that included the City. Their territory was as
diverse as the Tongva and included the San Gabriel and San Jacinto Mountains and the Mojave and
Colorado Desert. Historically, they have been referred to as Desert Serrano and Mountain Serrano. The
name Serrano, given the group by the Spanish, means “mountain dwellers”. Serrano who lived at
Yuhaviat, near present day Big Bear Lake, were called the Yuhaviatam, People of the Pines.
The Serrano practiced a hunting and gathering economy with an expansive variety of subsistence choices
ranging from the valleys and desert to the mountains. Plant food would have included honey mesquite,
acorn, pinyon, yucca, berries, and chia seeds. The cultural area of the Serrano would have allowed deer,
pronghorn, and bighorn sheep as well as small game such as rabbits, birds, and aquatic life from the
Mojave and Santa Ana Rivers. The desert and mountain Serrano would share resources to supplement
their local supplies. The Serrano used willow and yucca fiber to build dome-shaped homes, called a Kiic,
that measured 12-14-feet across. Yucca fiber, along with deergrass, and juncus were used to weave
magnificent baskets durable enough to hold water and hot stones and to boil water.
The Serrano, called kuko’mkar or qaqa’yvit by the Tongva, were able to avoid many of the disrupting
influences of Spanish settlers and the California Mission system until 1819 when an asistencia, a mission
outpost, was built in the what is now known as Redlands. After this time and until the secularization in
1834, many Serrano were forcibly removed from their homelands to missions. In 1866, militia forces killed
many Serrano men, women, and children in a 32-day campaign. A Yuhaviatam tribal leader named Santos
Manuel safely led the remaining Yuhaaviatam from their mountain homelands to valley floor. The San
Manual Reservation, and associated San Manual Band of Mission Indians, are named in honor of this
heroic leader.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.4-4 Cultural Resources
HISTORIC OVERVIEW
The arrival of non-native people into the area now known as San Bernardino County occurred in 1772
when Pedro Fages traversed the area with a group of soldiers exploring the new lands under Spanish
control. Fages was followed by Juan Bautista de Anza and then Francisco Garces later in the 1770s. These
early travelers made little direct impact on the Native inhabitants during their travels and until the
nineteenth century the land was quiet. However, by the early 1800s change came quickly with the impacts
from disease and attempts to missionize the Native inhabitants.
In 1842, the Rancho de San Bernardino land grant was awarded to the Lugo family by Governor Alvarado.
This grant, which included some 127,700 acres of land, comprised the best part of San Bernardino Valley,
land that included the City of Fontana. Nine years later, in 1851, the Lugos’ sons sold parts of their land
grant to Mormon colonists, who began cultivating crops and developing an irrigation system using waters
from Lytle Creek. Although the bulk of the Mormon settlers did not stay long, a few did stay behind to
continue the crops. By the 1850s, man-made features noted by United States (U.S.) land surveyors in the
area were several winding roads, including a "San Bernardino Road," also identified as "Los Angeles and
San Bernardino Road," traversing just to the south of present-day Baseline Road, and an "Old San
Bernardino Road" running along the foot of the Jurupa Mountains. The Old San Bernardino Road was
possibly a trading route that had been utilized by the local Tribes prior to historic times, while the San
Bernardino Road appears to have been a wagon road initiated by Mormon settlers for the transportation
of freight.
In 1874, a family of French immigrants, the Sainsevain brothers, moved their wine business into the San
Bernardino area with vineyards that extended from the Los Angeles foothills to the northern part of the
City. Other businesses representing agriculture and orchards began showing up on surveyors’ maps during
the 1870s and 1880s, mainly around the north end of the City. By 1887, the Rosena townsite, in what is
today downtown Fontana, was sub-divided by the Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company and, along with
the community of Grapeland at the foot of the San Gabriel Mountains and the Declezville quarry at the
foot of the Jurupa Mountain, Rosena became a center of rural development. The area around
transportation corridors such as Baseline Road and the Santa Fe Railway attracted the bulk of residential
development by the end of the 19th century.
As California began a period of rapid growth in the early 20th century, so did Rosena, and with the arrival
of Azariel Blanchard (A.B.) Miller in 1905, the area began a period of substantial growth. In 1913, Rosena
and Grapeland were reorganized as the City of Fontana. Miller founded Fontana Farms, Fontana Union
Water Company, Fontana Power Company, B. B. Company, and Miller Livestock Company. Miller began
selling lots as the Fontana Land Company. With Miller creating the opportunities, the city began an
expansion that continued well into the beginning of the 1940s.
In 1952, Fontana incorporated as a city and continued to grow with the influx of workers to the steel plant.
Kaiser Steel was established in Fontana in 1942 by Henry J Kaiser to supply steel for his seven shipyards.
Opening a few days after Christmas, the dedication for the first complete steel mill west of the Rockies
was a “patriotic extravaganza.” Kaiser Steel was considered the twelfth largest producer of steel in the
U.S. by 1953. The possibilities for employment at the mill and supporting businesses in the city had a
profound influence on the growth of Fontana as well as other surrounding communities. As industry
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.4-5 Cultural Resources
became more important, agriculture began to decline and urbanization to begin, predominantly in the
south-central portion of Fontana. The mill closed in the 1980s.
Henry Kaiser borrowed an idea developed in the isolated desert town of Desert Center for a health care
system that transformed insurance services in California. In the 1940s, when Kaiser acquired ore rights at
Eagle Mountain Mine he worked with Dr. Sidney Garfield, the surgeon at a small 12-bed hospital near
Desert Center, to bring his health care system to his new mill. Garfield developed a “prepayment” system
with an insurance company to ensure that workers at the nearby Eagle Mountain mine and on the
Colorado River Aqueduct would be able to receive medical care and doctors would be ensured payment
for services in this isolated locale. In 1945, the Permanente Health Plan officially opened to the public in
the City of Fontana. The growth of Kaiser Permanente facilities on Sierra Avenue, north of I-10, has
developed into a large commercial strip that continues to provide economic opportunities to this section
of the City and the larger Fontana region.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Over 80 previously recorded prehistoric and historic-era archaeological sites have been identified in the
City. Prehistoric sensitivity in Fontana is mostly concentrated in the southern and northern portions of the
City. A cluster of prehistoric sites was previously identified in the southern portion of the City and has
been interpreted by archaeologists to be the remains of an important Native American village with
associated campsites and habitation sites. The majority of the prehistoric sites within the City represent
evidence of Native American food-processing activity, such as bedrock milling features, which are
common to the area. All of the prehistoric sites previously identified are clustered along the foothills of
the San Gabriel Mountains and the Jurupa Hills. The lack of prehistoric sites within the City of Fontana
urban center is likely due to obliteration by development. However, remnants of prehistoric sites may still
be present below the surface, having been displaced underground during development.
Historic-era archaeological sites in the City consist mainly of historic residences but also include an
irrigation system, transportation systems (such as Route 66), and historic industrial sites such as Kaiser
Mill. The historic residences that are documented date mainly to the early to mid-20th century; however,
some documented irrigation and transportation systems pre-date the founding of the townsite.
In total, the City of Fontana lists three National Register-listed properties, one California Historic landmark,
and 12 California Points of Historic Interest. As shown in Exhibit 4.1 of the Fontana General Plan, five of
the 12 California Points of Historic Interest are located within the Project Area: the Fontana Woman’s
Club, Fontana Community Church, A.B. Miller Community Park and Plunge, Fontana Company Tract
Office/Library/Chamber of Commerce Building, and Sinclair Commercial Block Heritage Site.
According to the General Plan EIR, more sites are likely eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historic properties or the National Register of Historic Places, notably in the northern portion of the
Project Area, which hosts a higher concentration of historic-era buildings, including many that are
considered significant by the local community.
Fontana Municipal Code Section 5-365, Designated Local Historic Resources, designates 22 properties as
historic resources within the City. Locally designated historic resources within the Project Area are shown
in Table 5.4-1, Designated Local Historic Resources Within the Project Area.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.4-6 Cultural Resources
Table 5.4-1
Designated Local Historic Resources Within the Project Area
Property Description Address
A. B. Miller Community Park (boundaries only) and Plunge Building 17004 Arrow Route
Fontana Community Church 8316 Sierra Avenue
Fontana Farms Company, Tract Office 8459 Wheeler Avenue
Fontana Fire Department (exterior) 16980 Arrow Boulevard
Fontana Woman's Club 16880 Seville Avenue
Fontana Theater (exterior only, stand-alone marquee/sign, and two pedestals) 8463 Sierra Avenue
Kaiser Steel Medical Residence 9107 Sierra Avenue
Kreis Building 8462 Sierra Avenue
Provincial Revival Cottage 8350 Mango Avenue
Shoop Residence 8323 Bennet Avenue
Shultze Residence (residence only) 17006 Ivy Avenue
Spanish Colonial Residence (front residence, garage and front yard pine tree) 8336 Mango Avenue
Sticksel/Lemmerich Residence 16806 Ivy Avenue
Two-story commercial building 8461 Juniper Avenue
Source: City of Fontana Municipal Code, Chapter 5, Article XIII, Section 5-365, Designated Local Historic Resources.
5.4.3 REGULATORY SETTING
FEDERAL
National Historic Preservation Act
Enacted in 1966 and amended in 2000, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) declared a national
policy of historic preservation and instituted a multifaceted program, administered by the Secretary of
the Interior, to encourage the achievement of preservation goals at federal, State, and local levels. The
NHPA authorized the expansion and maintenance of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP),
established the position of State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and provided for the designation of
State Review Boards, set up a mechanism to certify local governments to carry out the purposes of the
NHPA, assisted Native American tribes to preserve their cultural heritage, and created the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).
Section 106 Process
Through regulations associated with the NHPA, an impact to a cultural resource would be considered
significant if government action would affect a resource listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP. The
NHPA codifies a list of cultural resources found to be significant within the context of national history, as
determined by a technical process of evaluation. Resources that have not yet been placed on the NRHP,
and are yet to be evaluated, are afforded protection under the Act until shown not to be significant.
Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800) state
that for a cultural resource to be determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, the resource must meet
specific criteria associated with historic significance and possess certain levels of integrity of form,
location, and setting. The criteria for listing on the NRHP are applied within an analysis when there is some
question as to the significance of a cultural resource. The criteria for evaluation are defined as the quality
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.4-7 Cultural Resources
of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. This quality must
be present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A property is eligible for the NRHP if it is
significant under one or more of the following criteria:
• Criterion A: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
• Criterion B: It is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
• Criterion C: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction; or
• Criterion D: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Criterion (D) is usually reserved for archaeological resources. Eligible cultural resources must meet at least
one of the above criteria and exhibit integrity, measured by the degree to which the resource retains its
historical properties and conveys its historical character.
The Section 106 evaluation process does not apply to projects undertaken under City environmental
compliance jurisdiction. However, should the undertaking require funding, permits, or other
administrative actions issued or overseen by a Federal agency, analysis of potential impacts to cultural
resources following the Section 106 process would likely be necessary. The Section 106 process typically
excludes cultural resources created less than 50 years ago unless the resource is considered highly
significant from the local perspective. Finally, the Section 106 process allows local concerns to be voiced
and the Section 106 process must consider aspects of local significance before a judgment is rendered.
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
Evolving from the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation Projects with Guidelines
for Applying the Standards that were developed in 1976, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and
Reconstructing Historic Buildings were published in 1995 and codified as 36 Code of Federal Regulations
Part 67. Neither technical nor prescriptive, these standards are “intended to promote responsible
preservation practices that help protect our Nation’s irreplaceable cultural resources.” “Preservation”
acknowledges a resource as a document of its history over time, and emphasizes stabilization,
maintenance, and repair of existing historic fabric. “Rehabilitation” not only incorporates the retention of
features that convey historic character, but also accommodates alterations and additions to facilitate
continuing or new uses. “Restoration” involves the retention and replacement of features from a specific
period of significance. “Reconstruction,” the least used treatment, provides a basis for recreating a
missing resource. These standards have been adopted, or are used informally, by many agencies at all
levels of government to review projects that affect historic resources.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.4-8 Cultural Resources
STATE
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires a lead agency determine whether a project may have a significant effect on historical
resources (Public Resources Code Section 21084.1). A historical resource is a resource listed in, or
determined to be eligible for listing, in the CRHR, a resource included in a local register of historical
resources, or any object building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency
determines to be historically significant (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5[a][1-3]).
A resource is considered historically significant if it meets any of the following criteria:
• Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California’s history and cultural heritage;
• Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
• Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
• Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
In addition, if it can be demonstrated that a project would cause damage to a unique archaeological
resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources
to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left
undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (Public Resources Code Section 21083.2[a], [b], and [c]).
Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological
artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the
current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
• Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is
a demonstrable public interest in that information;
• Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available
example of its type; or
• Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person.
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)
Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the CRHR is “an authoritative guide in California to be used by
State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the State’s historical resources and to
indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse
change.” Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP
and California Historical Landmarks numbered 770 and higher, are automatically included in the CRHR.
Other properties recognized under the California Points of Historical Interest program, identified as
significant in historical resources surveys, or designated by local landmarks programs, may be nominated
for inclusion in the CRHR. A resource, either an individual property or a contributor to a historic district,
may be listed in the CRHR if the State Historical Resources Commission determines that it meets one or
more of the criteria modeled on the NRHP criteria.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.4-9 Cultural Resources
Public Resources Code Section 5097 (Related to Cultural Resources)
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097 addresses the disposition of Native American burials
in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction;
establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during
construction of a project; and establishes the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to
resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains. It has been incorporated into Section
15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines.
The NAHC, created in statute in 1976 (Chapter 1332, Statutes of 1976), is a nine-member body whose
members are appointed by the Governor. The NAHC identifies, catalogs, and protects Native American
cultural resources -- ancient places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans and
known ancient graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private and public lands in California. The
NAHC is also charged with ensuring California Native American tribes’ accessibility to ancient Native
American cultural resources on public lands, overseeing the treatment and disposition of inadvertently
discovered Native American human remains and burial items, and administering the California Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (CalNAGPRA), among many other powers and duties.
PRC Sections 5097.9 through 5097.991 establish that no public agency or private party using or occupying
public property (or operating on under a public license, permit, grant, lease or contract made after July 1,
1977) shall in any manner interfere with the free expression or exercise of Native American religion as
provided in the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution. It also prohibits such agencies and parties
from causing severe or irreparable damage to any Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship,
religious or ceremonial site or sacred shrine located on public property, except on a clear and convincing
showing that the public interest and necessity so require it.
These sections also establish the state’s NAHC. The NAHC is tasked with working to ensure the
preservation and protection of Native American human remains, associated grave goods and cultural
resources. Towards this end, the NAHC has a strategic plan for assisting the public, development
communities, local and federal agencies, educational institutions and California Native Americans to
better understand problems relating to the protection and preservation of cultural resources and to serve
as a tool to resolve these problems. In 2006, PRC Sections 5097.91 and 5097.98 were amended by
Assembly Bill 2641 to authorize the NAHC to bring legal action when necessary to prevent damage to
Native American burial grounds or places of worship. It also established more specific procedures to be
implemented in the event that Native American remains are discovered.
California Health and Safety Code (Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054)
Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054 of the California Health and Safety Code collectively address the illegality
of interference with human burial remains (except as allowed under applicable sections of the PRC), as
well as the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from
disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; and establish procedures to be implemented if Native
American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, including procedures for
treatment of the remains prior to, during, and after evaluation, and reburial procedures.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.4-10 Cultural Resources
LOCAL
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and programs to reduce potential impacts to cultural
resources. Chapter 4, Community and Neighborhoods Element contains the following goal and policies
potentially relevant to the proposed Project:
Chapter 4 – Community and Neighborhoods
• Goal 1: The integrity and character of historic structures, cultural resources sites and overall
historic character of the city of Fontana is maintained and enhanced.
o Policy: Coordinate City programs and policies to support preservation goals.
o Policy: Support and promote community-based historic preservation initiatives.
o Policy: Designate local historic landmarks.
o Policy: Provide appropriate tools to review changes that may detract from historic
integrity and character.
• Goal 2: Residents’ and visitors’ experiences of Fontana are enhanced by a sense of the city’s
history.
o Policy: Enhance public awareness of Fontana’s unique historical and cultural legacy and
the economic benefits of historic preservation in Fontana.
o Policy: Support creation of the Fontana Historical Museum.
• Goal 3: Cultural and archaeological resources are protected and preserved.
o Policy: Collaborate with state agencies to protect cultural and archaeological resources.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 5, Article XIII, Preservation of Historic Resources, allows the Planning
Commission to designate historical resources or historic overlay districts within the City. Section 5-365,
Designated Local Historic Resources, designates 22 properties as historic resources. Per Section 5-357, any
exterior alteration or proposed demolition of a locally designated historic resource must receive a
Certificate of Appropriateness from the City Council before receiving a building or demolition permit. The
process involves a determination and advice from the Planning Commission acting as the historic
commission, public hearings, and a final decision by the City Council. In addition, the owner, occupant or
person in charge of an historical resource must keep the property’s exterior in good repair to prevent
deterioration and decay of any exterior architectural feature.
5.4.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
SIGNIFICANCE GUIDELINES
Historical Resources
Impacts to a significant cultural resource that affect characteristics that would qualify it for the NRHP or
that adversely alter the significance of a resource listed in or eligible for listing in the CRHR are considered
a significant effect on the environment. These impacts could result from “physical demolition, destruction,
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.4-11 Cultural Resources
relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an
historical resource would be materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5 [b][1], 2000).
Material impairment is defined as demolition or alteration “in an adverse manner [of] those
characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion
in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the California Register” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5[b][2][A]).
Archaeological Resources
A significant prehistoric archaeological impact would occur if grading and construction activities result in
a substantial adverse change to archaeological resources determined to be “unique” or “historic.”
“Unique” resources are defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2; “historic” resources are
defined in Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4.
Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g) states:
As used in this section, “unique archaeological resource” means an archaeological artifact, object,
or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body
of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that
there is a demonstrable public interest in that information;
2. Has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best
available example of its type; or
3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic
event or person.
CEQA SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Initial Study
Environmental Checklist, which includes questions related to cultural resources. A project would result in
a significant impact related to cultural resources if it would:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5 (refer to Impact Statement 5.4-1);
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5 (refer to Impact Statement 5.4-2); and/or
• Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries (refer to
Impact Statement 5.4-3).
Based on these standards and significance thresholds and criteria, the Project’s effects have been
categorized as either “no impact,” a “less than significant impact,” or a “potentially significant impact.”
Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant
impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant impact through the application of mitigation, it is
categorized as a “significant unavoidable impact.”
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.4-12 Cultural Resources
5.4.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 5.4-1: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Impact Analysis: As described above, the Project Area includes five California Points of Historic Interest
as well as 14-locally designated historic resources. Additionally, undiscovered or potentially eligible sites
may be located within the Project Area. Redevelopment and alteration of existing structures has the
potential to impact known and potentially eligible historical resources. A substantial adverse change in
the significance of an historic resource is defined in Section 15064.5 (b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines as the
“physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings
such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.”
According to the General Plan EIR, more sites are likely eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historic properties or the National Register of Historic Places, notably in the northern portion of the
Project Area, which hosts a higher concentration of historic-era buildings, including many that are
considered significant by the local community. While the Downtown Core Project does not directly
propose any changes to any historic resources, future development allowed under the Downtown Core
Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of known historical resources or
unknown historical resources which have not yet been identified. This is considered a potentially
significant impact.
The Fontana General Plan contains goals, policies, and actions to identify and protect historic resources
within the City. In addition, future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project
would be required to implement General Plan mitigation measures identified in the General Plan DEIR.
Specifically, General Plan MM-CUL-1 requires a qualified archaeologist to perform a number of tasks prior
to construction activities, including: subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the
potential for historic resources, conduct a field survey for historical resources within portions of the
project site not previously surveyed; subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the
potential for historic resources, contact the San Bernardino County Archives for information on historical
property records; inventory all historical resources within the project site using appropriate State record
forms and guidelines followed according to the California Office of Historic Preservation’s handbook;
evaluate the significance and integrity of all historical resources within the project site using criteria
established in the CEQA Guidelines for important archaeological resources and/or 36 CFR 60.4 for
eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places; propose mitigation measures and/or
implement conditions of approval (if a local government action) recommended to eliminate adverse
project effects on significant, important, and unique historical resources, following appropriate CEQA
and/or National Historic Preservation Act's Section 106 guidelines; prepare a technical resources
management report documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within
the project site, following guidelines for Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by the
California Office of Historic Preservation, Preservation Planning Bulletin 4(a), December 1989; and
permanently curate all resources and data collected within the project site at an appropriate repository
within the County.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.4-13 Cultural Resources
As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project would be
evaluated for conformance with the Fontana General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable State
and local regulations relative to historic and potentially historic resources. Future development associated
with implementation of the proposed Project would be required to implement General Plan EIR mitigation
measure MM-CUL-1 (incorporated herein as Mitigation Measure CUL-1), which would ensure evaluation
of a project site for historical resources and, if necessary, implement mitigation measures to reduce
impacts to a level that is less than significant. Per Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 5, Article XIII,
Preservation of Historic Resources, potential historic resources and/or districts may be considered by the
Planning Commission and/or City Council, and would require approval prior to alteration, restoration,
rehabilitation, remodeling, construction, addition, change of use, demolition, relocation or removal of any
designated or proposed historical resource or any improvement or object in a designated or proposed
historical overlay district. Further, for structures that potentially have historical significance, the City
would require preparation of a study by a qualified professional archaeologist or historian to determine
the significance of the structure and potential impacts of the proposed development in compliance with
CEQA. Therefore, with compliance with federal, State, and local regulations, including the General Plan
and General Plan Mitigation Measures, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
CUL-1: A qualified archaeologist shall perform the following tasks, prior to construction activities within
project boundaries:
• Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for historic
resources, a field survey for historical resources within portions of the project site not
previously surveyed for cultural resources shall be conducted.
• Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for historic
resources, the San Bernardino County Archives shall be contacted for information on
historical property records.
• Subsequent to a preliminary City review, if evidence suggests the potential for sacred land
resources, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted for information
regarding sacred lands.
• All historical resources within the project site, including archaeological and historic
resources older than 50 years, shall be inventoried using appropriate State record forms
and guidelines followed according to the California Office of Historic Preservation’s
handbook “Instructions for Recording Historical Resources.” The archaeologist shall then
submit two (2) copies of the completed forms to the San Bernardino County Archaeological
Information Center for the assignment of trinomials.
• The significance and integrity of all historical resources within the project site shall be
evaluated, using criteria established in the CEQA Guidelines for important archaeological
resources and/or 36 CFR 60.4 for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places.
• Mitigation measures shall be proposed and conditions of approval (if a local government
action) recommended to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.4-14 Cultural Resources
unique historical resources, following appropriate CEQA and/or National Historic
Preservation Act's Section 106 guidelines.
• If there is evidence that a historical resource exists or could exist, a technical resources
management report shall be prepared, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and
proposed mitigation of resources within the project site, following guidelines for
Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic
Preservation, Preservation Planning Bulletin 4(a), December 1989. One copy of the
completed report, with original illustrations, shall be submitted to the San Bernardino
County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving.
• If human remains or funerary objects are encountered on the project site, work in the
immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the San Bernardino
County Coroner’s Office shall be contacted pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections
7050.5 to 7055 and PRC Section 5097.98. If the coroner determines that the remains are
not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes the human remains to be
those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native
American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within 24 hours.
• All resources and data collected within the project site shall be permanently curated at an
appropriate repository within the County. (General Plan EIR MM-CUL-1, updated)
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Impact 5.4-2: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Impact Analysis: Redevelopment and development of previously undeveloped areas have the potential
to impact known and unknown archaeological resources. Surface-level and subsurface archaeological
sites and deposits can be affected by ground-disturbing activities associated with construction activities.
Prehistoric sensitivity in Fontana is mostly concentrated in the southern and northern portions of the City,
outside of the Project Area. The lack of prehistoric sites within the City of Fontana urban center is likely
due to obliteration by development. However, remnants of prehistoric sites may still be present below
the surface, having been displaced underground during development. Effects on archaeological resources
deemed to be significant could be considered adverse if they involve physical demolition, destruction, or
alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a resource would be
materially impaired. While the Downtown Core Project does not directly propose site-specific
development with the potential to directly impact archaeological resources, future development
associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project could cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of known or unknown archaeological resources. This is considered a potentially
significant impact.
The Fontana General Plan contains goals, policies, and actions to identify and protect cultural resources
within the City, including archeological resources. In addition, future development associated with
implementation of the proposed Project would be required to implement General Plan EIR mitigation
measure MM-CUL-2 (incorporated herein as Mitigation Measure CUL-2), which would ensure that if any
prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer shall retain
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.4-15 Cultural Resources
a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities and to take appropriate measures to protect
or preserve them for study.
Archaeological resources are protected under federal, State, and local regulations as described above and
compliance with Fontana General Plan policies, actions, and mitigation measures would reduce potential
adverse impacts to archaeological resources associated with future development. Subsequent
development and infrastructure projects would be required to comply with existing federal, State, and
local regulations, including the General Plan and implement Mitigation Measure CUL-2, which would
reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
CUL-2: If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the
developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities and to take
appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. In the event Native American
cultural resources are discovered, the archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and City
of Fontana Planning Department, shall implement Mitigation Measure TCR-1. With the assistance
of the archaeologist, the City of Fontana shall:
• Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant
modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value.
• Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites within new
developments, using their special qualities at a theme or focal point.
• Pursue educating the public about the area's archaeological heritage.
• Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of approval (if a local government
action) to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric
resources, following appropriate CEQA guidelines.
• Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation,
and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the
completed report, with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological
Information Center for permanent archiving. (General Plan EIR MM-CUL-2)
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Impact 5.4-3: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of dedicated cemeteries?
Impact Analysis: Although no conditions exist that suggest human remains are likely to be found in the
Project Area, future construction activities could have the potential to disturb or destroy buried Native
American human remains as well as other human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 to 7055 describe the general provisions for human
remains. Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any human
remains are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. As required by State law, the requirements
and procedures set forth in PRC Section 5097.98 would be implemented, including notification of the
County Coroner, notification of the NAHC and consultation with the individual identified by the NAHC to
be the “most likely descendant (MLD).” The MLD would have 48 hours to make recommendations to
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.4-16 Cultural Resources
landowners for the disposition of any Native American human remains and grave goods found.
Recommendations would be made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Thus, compliance
with Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 to 7055 and PRC Section 5097.98 would ensure that in the
event human remains are discovered, the remains would be handled in accordance with applicable laws,
and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.4.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Analysis: Cultural resource impacts are site specific and generally do not combine to result in
cumulative impacts. Construction of individual development projects associated with implementation of
the Downtown Core Project may result in the discovery and removal of cultural resources, including
historic and archaeological resources, as well as the inadvertent discovery of human remains. Federal,
State, and local regulations, including the Fontana General Plan and mitigation measures, would reduce
the risk to cultural resources in the region. As discussed above, site-specific development with the
potential to impact known or unknown historic and/or archaeological resources would require a resource
assessment to determine the significant of potential resources and if potential impacts are identified, to
incorporate mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to the identified resources. In the event of
inadvertent discovery of human remains, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(e), and PRC Section 5097.98 would dictate the proper identification and handling. Compliance
with the Fontana General Plan policies and actions, and existing federal, State, and local regulations would
avoid and/or minimize a cumulative loss of these important resources if they are identified during project-
specific surveys or construction activities. Therefore, the Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative
cultural resource impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.4.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts associated with cultural resources would occur with the proposed
Project.
5.4.8 REFERENCES
City of Fontana, Fontana Forward: General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report,
June 2018.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.5-1 Energy
5.5 ENERGY
5.5.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing environmental conditions and regulatory
requirements related to energy and to evaluate the potential for implementation of the proposed Project
to result in short-term construction and long-term operational energy consumption impacts. This section
is primarily based upon the energy analysis and modeling prepared by De Novo Planning Group and
included as Appendix C, Air Quality, Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Data.
5.5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Energy in California is consumed from a wide variety of sources. Fossil fuels (including gasoline and diesel
fuel and natural gas) are the most widely used form of energy in the State (U.S. Energy Information
Administration, 2022a). However, renewable sources of energy (such as solar and wind) are growing in
proportion to California’s overall energy mix. A large driver of renewable sources of energy in California is
the State’s current Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires the State to derive at least 33
percent of electricity generated from renewable resources by 2020, and 60 percent by 2030.
Overall, in 2020, California’s per capita energy usage was ranked 48th in the nation at 175 million British
thermal units (Btu) per capita (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2022a). Additionally, California’s
per capita rate of energy usage has been reduced by approximately one third since the 1970s (U.S. Energy
Information Administration, 2022b). Many State regulations since the 1970s, including new building
energy efficiency standards, vehicle fleet efficiency measures, as well as growing public awareness, have
helped to keep per capita energy usage in the State constrained.
The consumption of nonrenewable energy (primarily gasoline and diesel fuel) associated with the
operation of passenger, public transit, and commercial vehicles results in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
that ultimately result in global climate change. Other fuels such as natural gas, ethanol, and electricity
(unless derived from solar, wind, nuclear, or other energy sources that do not produce carbon emissions)
also result in GHG emissions and contribute to global climate change.
ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION
California relies on a regional power system composed of a diverse mix of natural gas, renewable,
hydroelectric, and nuclear generation resources. Approximately 70 percent of the electrical power needed
to meet California’s demand is produced in the State, while the remaining 30 percent is imported from
the Pacific Northwest and the Southwest (California Energy Commission, 2022a). In 2021, California’s in-
state generated electricity was derived from natural gas (50.2 percent), nuclear sources (8.5 percent),
large hydroelectric resources (6.2 percent), coal (0.2 percent), and renewable resources that include
geothermal, biomass, small hydroelectric resources, wind, and solar (34.8 percent). The percentage of
renewable resources as a proportion of California’s overall energy portfolio is increasing over time, as
directed the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.5-2 Energy
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the Project site. SCE, a subsidiary of Edison
International, serves approximately 185 cities in 15 counties across central and Southern California
(Southern California Edison, 2019). According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), approximately
103,597 million kilowatt-hours (GWh) of electricity were used in SCE’s service area in 2020 (California
Energy Commission, 2022b). This is approximately 38 percent of the State total system electric generation
of 272,576 GWh in 2020, which was a two percent decrease from the previous year (California Energy
Commission, 2022c). San Bernardino County’s total electricity consumption in 2021 (residential and non-
residential) was approximately 16,181 GWh (California Energy Commission, 2022d).
NATURAL GAS
Natural gas supplies are derived from underground sources and brought to the surface at gas wells. Once
it is extracted, gas is purified and the odorant that allows gas leaks to be detected is added to the normally
odorless gas. Natural gas suppliers, such as Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), then send the
gas into transmission pipelines, which are usually buried underground. Compressors propel the gas
through the pipeline system, which delivers it to homes and businesses.
The State produces approximately 12 percent of its natural gas, while obtaining 22 percent from Canada
and 65 percent from the Rockies and the Southwest. In 2020, California produced 144 billion cubic feet of
natural gas. SoCalGas provides natural gas for residential, industrial, and agency consumers within the
City, including the Project Area.
PETROLEUM
The primary energy source for the United States is petroleum (oil), which is refined to produce fuels like
gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2022c). Petroleum is a finite,
nonrenewable energy source. California used approximately 524 million barrels of petroleum in 2020,
with the majority (433 million barrels) used for the transportation sector (U.S. Energy Information
Administration, 2022d). This total annual consumption equates to a daily use of approximately 1.4 million
barrels of petroleum.
5.5.3 REGULATORY SETTING
FEDERAL
Clean Air Act
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) was first signed into law in 1970. In 1977, and again in 1990, the law was
substantially amended. The FCAA is the foundation for a national air pollution control effort, and it is
composed of the following basic elements: National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for criteria air
pollutants, hazardous air pollutant standards, state attainment plans, motor vehicle emissions standards,
stationary source emissions standards and permits, acid rain control measures, stratospheric ozone
protection, and enforcement provisions.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for administering the FCAA. The FCAA
requires the EPA to set NAAQS for several problem air pollutants based on human health and welfare
criteria. Two types of NAAQS were established: primary standards, which protect public health, and
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.5-3 Energy
secondary standards, which protect the public welfare from non-health-related adverse effects such as
visibility reduction.
Energy Policy and Conservation Act
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 sought to ensure that all vehicles sold in the U.S. would
meet certain fuel economy goals. Through this Act, Congress established the first fuel economy standards
for on-road motor vehicles in the United States. Pursuant to the Act, the National Highway Traffic and
Safety Administration, which is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), is responsible for
establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards.
Since 1990, the fuel economy standard for new passenger cars has been 27.5 mpg. Since 1996, the fuel
economy standard for new light trucks (gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less) has been 20.7 mpg.
Heavy-duty vehicles (i.e., vehicles and trucks over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight) are not currently
subject to fuel economy standards. Compliance with federal fuel economy standards is determined on
the basis of each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of its vehicles produced for sale in
the U.S. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, which is administered by the EPA, was
created to determine vehicle manufacturers’ compliance with the fuel economy standards. The EPA
calculates a CAFE value for each manufacturer based on city and highway fuel economy test results and
vehicle sales. Based on the information generated under the CAFE program, the USDOT is authorized to
assess penalties for noncompliance.
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct)
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) was passed to reduce the Country’s dependence on foreign
petroleum and improve air quality. EPAct includes several parts intended to build an inventory of
alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) in large, centrally fueled fleets in metropolitan areas. EPAct requires
certain federal, state, and local government and private fleets to purchase a percentage of light duty AFVs
capable of running on alternative fuels each year. In addition, financial incentives are included in EPAct.
Federal tax deductions will be allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of
AFVs. States are also required by the act to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote AFVs.
Energy Policy Act of 2005
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was signed into law on August 8, 2005. Generally, the Act provides for
renewed and expanded tax credits for electricity generated by qualified energy sources, such as landfill
gas; bond financing, tax incentives, grants, and loan guarantees for clean renewable energy and rural
community electrification; and establishes a federal purchase requirement for renewable energy.
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)
ISTEA (49 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq.) promoted the development of intermodal transportation systems to
maximize mobility as well as address national and local interests in air quality and energy. ISTEA contained
factors that metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), were to address in developing transportation
plans and programs, including some energy-related factors. To meet the ISTEA requirements, MPOs
adopted explicit policies defining the social, economic, energy, and environmental values that were to
guide transportation decisions in that metropolitan area. The planning process was then to address these
policies. Another requirement was to consider the consistency of transportation planning with federal,
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.5-4 Energy
state, and local energy goals. Through this requirement, energy consumption was expected to become a
criterion, along with cost and other values that determine the best transportation solution.
STATE
Warren-Alquist Act
The 1975 Warren-Alquist Act established the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development
Commission, now known as CEC. The Act established state policy to reduce wasteful, uneconomical, and
unnecessary uses of energy by employing a range of measures. The California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) regulates privately-owned utilities in the energy, rail, telecommunications, and water fields.
Energy Action Plan
The first Energy Action Plan (EAP) emerged in 2003 from a crisis atmosphere in California’s energy
markets. The State’s three major energy policy agencies (CEC, CPUC, and the Consumer Power and
Conservation Financing Authority [established under deregulation and now defunct]) came together to
develop one high-level, coherent approach to meeting California’s electricity and natural gas needs. It was
the first time that energy policy agencies formally collaborated to define a common vision and set of
strategies to address California’s future energy needs and emphasize the importance of the impacts of
energy policy on the California environment.
In the October 2005 Energy Action Plan II, CEC and CPUC updated their energy policy vision by adding
some important dimensions to the policy areas included in the original EAP, such as the emerging
importance of climate change, transportation-related energy issues, and research and development
activities. The CEC adopted an update to the EAP II in February 2008 that supplements the earlier EAPs
and examines the State’s ongoing actions in the context of global climate change.
State of California Energy Action Plan
The CEC is responsible for preparing the State Energy Action Plan, which identifies emerging trends related
to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy
economy. The current plan is the 1997 California Energy Plan. The plan calls for the State to assist in the
transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the
efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan
identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in
implementing incentive programs for zero-emission vehicles and addressing their infrastructure needs;
and encouragement of urban design that reduces vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and accommodates
pedestrian and bicycle access.
Assembly Bill 1493
In response to AB 1493, CARB approved amendments to the California Code of Regulations (CCR) adding
GHG emission standards to California’s existing motor vehicle emission standards. Amendments to CCR
Title 13 Sections 1900 (CCR 13 1900) and 1961 (CCR 13 1961), and adoption of Section 1961.1 (CCR 13
1961.1) require automobile manufacturers to meet fleet average GHG emission limits for all passenger
cars, light-duty trucks within various weight criteria, and medium-duty passenger vehicle weight classes
beginning with the 2009 model year. Emission limits are further reduced each model year through 2016.
For passenger cars and light-duty trucks 3,750 pounds or less loaded vehicle weight (LVW), the 2016 GHG
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.5-5 Energy
emission limits are approximately 37 percent lower than during the first year of the regulations in 2009.
For medium-duty passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks 3,751 LVW to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle
weight (GVW), GHG emissions are reduced approximately 24 percent between 2009 and 2016.
CARB requested a waiver of federal preemption of California’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards. The
intent of the waiver is to allow California to enact emissions standards to reduce carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles in accordance with the regulation amendments to the CCRs
that fulfill the requirements of AB 1493. The EPA granted a waiver to California to implement its
greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars.
Assembly Bill 1007
Assembly Bill 1007, (Pavley, Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) directed the CEC to prepare a plan to increase
the use of alternative fuels in California. As a result, the CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan in
consultation with the state, federal, and local agencies. The plan presents strategies and actions California
must take to increase the use of alternative non-petroleum fuels in a manner that minimizes costs to
California and maximizes the economic benefits of in-state production. The Plan assessed various
alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum
consumption, increase alternative fuels use, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase in-state
production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation of public health and environmental
quality.
Executive Order B-48-18: Zero-Emission Vehicles
In January 2018, Executive Order (EO) B-48-18 was signed into law and requires all State entities to work
with the private sector to have at least five million zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) on the road by 2030, as
well as install 200 hydrogen fueling stations and 250,000 electric vehicle charging stations by 2025. It
specifies that 10,000 of the electric vehicle charging stations should be direct current fast chargers. This
Executive Order also requires all State entities to continue to partner with local and regional governments
to streamline the installation of ZEV infrastructure. The Governor’s Office of Business and Economic
Development is required to publish a Plug-in Charging Station Design Guidebook and update the 2015
Hydrogen Station Permitting Guidebook to aid in these efforts. All State entities are required to participate
in updating the 2016 Zero-Emissions Vehicle Action Plan (Governor’s Interagency Working Group on Zero-
Emission Vehicles 2016) to help expand private investment in ZEV infrastructure with a focus on serving
low-income and disadvantaged communities. Additionally, all State entities are to support and
recommend policies and actions to expand ZEV infrastructure at residential uses through the Low Carbon
Fuel Standard Program, and recommend how to ensure affordability and accessibility for all drivers.
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards
Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations, known as the Building Energy Efficiency Standards
(Standards), was established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy
consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation
of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. On January 1, 2010, the California Building Standards
Commission adopted CALGreen and became the first state in the United States to adopt a statewide green
building standards code.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.5-6 Energy
The 2022 update to the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (the current version of the
Standards) went into effect on January 1, 2023. The Standards are divided into three basic sets. First, there
is a basic set of mandatory requirements that apply to all buildings. Second, there is a set of performance
standards – the energy budgets – that vary by climate zone (of which there are 16 in California) and
building type; thus, the Standards are tailored to local conditions. Finally, the third set constitutes an
alternative to the performance standards, which is a set of prescriptive packages that are basically a recipe
or a checklist compliance approach.
Renewable Portfolio Standard
In 2002, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1078 (Stats. 2002, ch. 516), which established the Renewables
Portfolio Standard program, requiring retail sellers of electricity, including electrical corporations,
community choice aggregators, and electric service providers, to purchase a specified minimum
percentage of electricity generated by eligible renewable energy resources such as wind, solar,
geothermal, small hydroelectric, biomass, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas. (See Pub. Utilities Code,
Section 399.11 et seq. [subsequently amended].) The legislation set a target by which 20 percent of the
State’s electricity would be generated by renewable sources. (Pub. Utility Code, Section 399.11, subd. (a)
[subsequently amended].) As described in the Legislative Counsel’s Digest, Senate Bill 1078 required
“[e]ach electrical corporation … to increase its total procurement of eligible renewable energy resources
by at least one percent per year so that 20 percent of its retail sales are procured from eligible renewable
energy resources. If an electrical corporation fails to procure sufficient eligible renewable energy
resources in a given year to meet an annual target, the electrical corporation would be required to procure
additional eligible renewable resources in subsequent years to compensate for the shortfall, if funds are
made available as described. An electrical corporation with at least 20 percent of retail sales procured
from eligible renewable energy resources in any year would not be required to increase its procurement
in the following year.”
In 2006, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 107 (Stats. 2006, ch. 464), which modified the Renewables
Portfolio Standard to require that at least 20 percent of electricity retail sales be served by renewable
energy resources by year 2010. (Pub. Utility Code, Section 399.11, subd (a) [subsequently amended].)
Senate Bill X1-2 (Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 1) set even more aggressive statutory targets for renewable
electricity, culminating in the requirement that 33 percent of the State’s electricity come from renewables
by 2020. This legislation applies to all electricity retailers in the State, including publicly owned utilities,
investor-owned utilities, electricity service providers, and community choice aggregators. All of these
entities must meet renewable energy goals of 20 percent of retail sales from renewables by the end of
2013, 25 percent by the end of 2016, and 33 percent by the end of 2020. (See Pub. Utility Code, Section
399.11 et seq. [subsequently amended].)
SB 350, discussed above, increases the Renewable Portfolio Standard to require 50 percent of electricity
generated to be from renewables by 2030. (Pub. Utility Code, Section 399.11, subd (a); see also Section
399.30, subd. (c)(2).) Of equal significance, Senate Bill 350 also embodies a policy encouraging a
substantial increase in the use of electric vehicles. As noted earlier, Section 740.12(b) of the Public Utilities
Code now states that the PUC, in consultation with CARB and the CEC, must “direct electrical corporations
to file applications for programs and investments to accelerate widespread transportation electrification
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.5-7 Energy
to reduce dependence on petroleum, meet air quality standards, … and reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.”
Executive Order, B-16-12, issued in 2012, embodied a similar vision of a future in which zero-emission
vehicles (ZEV) will play a big part in helping the State meet its GHG reduction targets. Executive Order B-
16-12 directed State government to accelerate the market for in California through fleet replacement and
electric vehicle infrastructure. The Executive Order set the following targets:
• By 2015, all major cities in California will have adequate infrastructure and be “ZEV ready”;
• By 2020, the State will have established adequate infrastructure to support 1 million ZEVs in
California;
• By 2025, there will be 1.5 million ZEVs on the road in California; and
• By 2050, virtually all personal transportation in the State will be based on ZEVs, and GHG
emissions from the transportation sector will be reduced by 80 percent below 1990 levels.
In 2018, Senate Bill 100 (Stats. 2018, ch. 312) revised the above-described deadlines and targets so that
the State will have to achieve a 50 percent renewable resources target by December 31, 2026 (instead of
by 2030) and achieve a 60 percent target by December 31, 2030. The legislation also establishes a State
policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of retail
sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all
State agencies by December 31, 2045.
In summary, California has set a statutory goal of requiring that, by 2030, 60 percent of the electricity
generated in California should be from renewable sources, with increased generation capacity sufficient
to allow the mass conversion of the statewide vehicle fleet from petroleum-fueled vehicles to electrical
vehicles and/or other ZEVs. By 2045, all electricity must come from renewable resources and other
carbon-free resources. Former Governor Brown had an even more ambitious goal for the State of
achieving carbon neutrality as soon as possible and by no later than 2045. This goal was reaffirmed in the
Final 2022 Scoping Plan, which lays out a path to achieve State targets for carbon neutrality and reduce
anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045. The Legislature is thus
looking to California drivers to buy electric cars, powered by green energy, to help the State meet its
aggressive statutory goal, created by SB 32, of reducing statewide GHG emissions by 2030 to 40 percent
below 1990 levels. Another key prong to this strategy is to make petroleum-based fuels less carbon-
intensive. A number of statutes in recent years have addressed that strategy.
Senate Bill 1078 (2002), Senate Bill 107 (2006), Executive Order S-14-08 (2008), Senate Bill 350 (2015), and
Senate Bill 100 (2018), Assembly Bill 1279 (2022), Senate Bill 1020 (2022)
SB 1078 established the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) program, which required retail sellers of
electricity to provide at least 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by 2017. This goal has
subsequently been accelerated several times. SB 107 changed the target date to 2010 and Executive Order
S-14-08 expanded the State’s RPS to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. SB 350 expanded the RPS by
requiring retail seller and publicly owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from eligible
renewable energy resources by 2030, with interim goals of 40 percent by 2024 and 45 percent by 2027.
SB 100 accelerated and expanded the standards set forth in SB 350 by updating the RPS program to 50
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.5-8 Energy
percent eligible renewable energy resources by 2025 and 60 percent by 2030. In addition, SB 100 sets a
100 percent clean, zero carbon, and renewable energy policy for California’s electricity system by 2045.
Additionally, AB 1279, the California Climate Crisis Act, declares the policy of the state both to achieve net
zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net
negative greenhouse gas emissions thereafter, and to ensure that by 2045, statewide anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 85 percent below the 1990 levels. Lastly, SB 1020 revised
state policy to require that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 90
percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2035, 95 percent
of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2040, 100 percent of all
retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045, and 100 percent of
electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2035.
LOCAL
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce potential impacts to energy.
Chapter 12, Sustainability and Resilience, contains the following goals and policies potentially relevant to
the proposed Project:
Chapter 12 – Sustainability and Resilience
• Goal 1: Fontana is a regional leader in sustainability and resilience with an effective “Sustainable
Fontana” program.
o Policy: Create a Sustainable Fontana program that promotes green practices in
government and in the community.
• Goal 2: Government facilities and operations are models of resource efficiency.
o Policy: Incorporate goals into the City Code for resource efficiency in municipal facilities
and operations.
o Policy: Continue organizational and operational improvements to maximize energy and
resource efficiency and reduce waste.
• Goal 3: Renewable sources of energy, including solar and wind, and other energy-conservation
strategies are available to city households and businesses.
o Policy: Promote renewable energy programs for government, Fontana businesses, and
Fontana residences.
• Goal 4: Fontana meets the greenhouse gas reduction goals for 2030 and subsequent goals set by
the state.
o Continue to collaborate with SBCTA, infrastructure agencies, and utilities on greenhouse
gas reduction studies and goals.
• Goal 5: Green building techniques are used in new development and retrofits.
o Policy: Fontana is a leader energy-efficient development and retrofits.
• Goal 6: Fontana is a leader energy-efficient development and retrofits.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.5-9 Energy
o Policy: Promote energy-efficient development in Fontana.
o Policy: Meet or exceed state goals for energy-efficient new construction.
5.5.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Initial Study
Environmental Checklist, which includes questions related to energy. A project would result in a significant
impact related to energy if it would:
• Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation (refer to Impact
Statement 5.5-1); and/or
• Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency (refer to
Impact Statement 5.5-2).
Based on these standards and significance thresholds and criteria, the Project’s effects have been
categorized as either “no impact,” a “less than significant impact,” or a “potentially significant impact.”
Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant
impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant impact through the application of mitigation, it is
categorized as a “significant unavoidable impact.”
5.5.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 5.5-1: 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?
Impact 5.5-2: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
Impact Analysis: The means to achieve the goal of conserving energy include decreasing overall energy
consumption, decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy
sources. In particular, the proposed Project would be considered “wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary”
if it were to violate State and federal energy standards and/or result in significant adverse impacts related
to project energy requirements, energy inefficiencies, energy intensiveness of materials, cause significant
impacts on local and regional energy supplies or generate requirements for additional capacity, fail to
comply with existing energy standards, otherwise result in significant adverse impacts on energy
resources, or conflict or create an inconsistency with applicable plan, policy, or regulation.
The City is proposing to create a new focused area in the Downtown Core (Project Area) by creating and
implementing a new General Plan land use category and six new Form-Based Code (FBC) districts specific
to the Project Area. The Proposed Project would involve amending General Plan Chapter 9, Community
Mobility and Circulation, including Exhibit 9.2, Hierarchy of Streets in Fontana, Chapter 14, Downtown
Area Plan, and Chapter 15, Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design, including establishing a new General Plan
land use category, amending the General Plan Land Use Map to apply the new land use category, and
amending the Zoning and Development Code, including the Zoning District Map. The proposed Project,
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.5-10 Energy
would in part, provide increased residential development opportunities, consistent with the goals of the
SB 2 Planning Grant received by the City.
Although development of the Project Area is not currently proposed, for purposes of this analysis
development of the net new development (i.e. development over existing conditions) is considered as
part of the proposed Project. The amount of energy used by future development associated with
implementation of the proposed Project would directly correlate to the size of the residential and non-
residential structures proposed, the energy consumption of appliances, and outdoor lighting. Other major
sources of Project energy consumption include fuel used by vehicle trips generated during Project
construction and operation, and fuel used by off-road construction vehicles during construction.
The following discussion provides calculated levels of energy use expected for the potential development,
based on commonly used modelling software (i.e. CalEEMod v.2020.4.0 and the California Air Resource
Board’s EMFAC2021). It should be noted that many of the assumptions provided by CalEEMod are
conservative relative to the Project; thus, this discussion provides a conservative estimate of proposed
Project emissions.
Electricity and Natural Gas
Electricity and natural gas used by the Project would be used primarily to power on-site buildings. Total
annual natural gas (kBTU) and electricity (kWh) usage associated with the operation of the Project are
shown in Table 5.5-1, Project Operational Natural Gas and Electricity Usage (Mitigated Scenario).
Table 5.5-1
Project Operational Natural Gas and Electricity Usage
Emissions Project Annual
Consumption
San Bernardino
County Annual
Consumption
Percent Increase
Natural Gas Consumption (therms) 1,381,388 561,000,000 0.25%
Electricity Consumption (MWh/year) 68,753 16,180,000 0.42%
Sources: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0; California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County; Natural Gas
Consumption by County.
CalEEMod uses the California Commercial End Use Survey (CEUS) database to develop energy intensity
value for non-residential buildings. As shown in Table 5.5-1, Project operational natural gas usage would
be a 0.42 percent increase above the County’s typical annual electricity consumption, and an approximate
0..25 percent increase above the county’s typical natural gas consumption. These increases are minimal
in the context of the County as a whole.
On-Road Vehicles (Operation)
The Project would generate vehicle trips during its operational phase. According to the Transportation
Study prepared by Kittelson & Associates (refer to Appendix E), the Project would generate an average of
approximately 105,168 net new daily vehicles trips and 662,369 average daily vehicle miles traveled
(Average Daily VMT). Based on fleet mix data provided by CalEEMod and Year 2040 gasoline and diesel
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.5-11 Energy
miles per gallon (MPG) factors for individual vehicle classes as provided by EMFAC2021, a weighted MPG
factor for operational on-road vehicles of approximately 31.2 MPG for gasoline vehicles were derived.
Based on 231.2 MPG and 662,369 Average Daily VMT, the Project would generate vehicle trips that would
use approximately 21,248 gallons of gasoline per day or 7,755,420 gallons of gasoline per year.
On-Road Vehicles (Construction)
Project implementation would also generate on-road vehicle trips during future site-specific construction
activities (from construction workers and vendors). Estimates of vehicle fuel consumed were derived
based on the assumed construction schedule, vehicle trip lengths and number of workers per construction
phase as provided by CalEEMod, and Year 2023 gasoline MPG factors provided by EMFAC2021. It was
assumed that all vehicles would use gasoline as a fuel source (as opposed to diesel fuel or alternative
sources). Table 5.5-2, On-Road Mobile Fuel Generated by Project Construction Activities – By Phase,
describes gasoline and diesel fuel used by on-road mobile sources during each phase of the construction
schedule. As shown, the vast majority of on-road mobile vehicle fuel used during construction would occur
during the building construction phase.
Table 5.5-2
On-Road Mobile Fuel Generated by Project Construction Activities – By Phase
Construction Phase # of
Days
Total Daily
Worker
Trips(1)
Total Daily
Vendor
Trips(1)
Total
Hauler
Trips(1)
Gallons of
Gasoline
Fuel(2)
Gallons of
Diesel
Fuel(2)
Demolition 400 15 0 0 3,402 0
Site Preparation 240 18 0 0 240 0
Grading 620 20 0 0 7,032 0
Building Construction 4,566 7,132 1,392 0 923,331 293,243
Paving 440 15 0 0 3,743 0
Architectural Coating 4,566 1,426 0 0 184,614 0
Total 0 1,122,362 293,243
Sources: CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0; EMFAC2021.
Notes:
1. Provided by CalEEMod.
2. Refer to Appendix C for further detail.
Off-Road Vehicles (Construction)
Off-road construction vehicles would use diesel fuel during the construction phase of site-specific
development. Off-road construction vehicles expected to be used during the construction phase include,
but are not limited to, cranes, forklifts, generator sets, tractors, excavators, and dozers. Based on the total
amount of CO2 emissions expected to be generated (as provided by the CalEEMod output), and a CO2 to
diesel fuel conversion factor (provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration), Project
implementation would use up to approximately 941,439 gallons of diesel fuel for off-road construction
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.5-12 Energy
vehicles during the site preparation and grading phases associated with future development; refer to
Appendix C for detailed calculations.
On-site Renewable Energy
The Project contains various land uses, including residential and commercial uses. Under the latest version
of the California Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (2022), effective on January 1, 2023, single-
family residential and various commercial uses are required to include on-site solar photovoltaic (PV)
systems. Therefore, it is anticipated that many of the uses proposed as part of the Project would include
on-site solar, including rooftop solar, as required. It should also be noted that additional on-site solar PV
installations, above what is required by the current and future versions of the California Title 24 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards, would likely be installed at some of the properties developed under the
Project. Overall, it is anticipated that the Project would incorporate renewable energy features, such as
on-site solar PV, which would reduce the Project’s dependence on electricity from the utility grid,
including providers such as Southern California Edison (SCE).
Conclusion
Project implementation would use energy resources for the operation of new residential and non-
residential buildings (e.g., electricity and natural gas), for on-road vehicle trips (e.g. gasoline and diesel
fuel) generated by the Project (both during project construction and operation), and from off-road
construction activities associated with the Project (e.g. diesel fuel). Each of these activities would require
the use of energy resources. Future development projects associated with implementation of the
proposed Project would be responsible for conserving energy, to the extent feasible, and would be
required to comply with Statewide and local measures regarding energy conservation, such as Title 24
building efficiency standards.
The proposed Project would be in compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations
regulating energy usage. For example, Southern California Edison (SCE) is responsible for the mix of energy
resources used to provide electricity for its customers, and it is in the process of implementing the
Statewide Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to increase the proportion of renewable energy (e.g. solar
and wind) within its energy portfolio. SCE has achieved at least a 33 percent mix of renewable energy
resources, and will be required to achieve a renewable mix of at least 50 percent by 2030. Additionally,
energy-saving regulations, including the latest State Title 24 building energy efficiency standards (“part
6”), would be applicable to future development within the Project Area. Other statewide measures,
including those intended to improve the energy efficiency of the statewide passenger and heavy-duty
truck vehicle fleet (e.g. the Pavley Bill and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard) are improving vehicle fuel
economies, thereby conserving gasoline and diesel fuel. These energy savings would continue to accrue
over time.
As a result, the proposed Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to Project
energy requirements, energy use inefficiencies, and/or the energy intensiveness of materials by amount
and fuel type for each stage of the Project including construction, operations, maintenance, and/or
removal. Both SCE, the electricity provider to the site, and Southern California Gas, the natural gas
provider to the site, maintain sufficient capacity to serve development associated with implementation
of the proposed Project. Future development associated with the Project would be required to comply
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.5-13 Energy
with all existing energy efficiency standards, and would not result in significant adverse impacts on energy
resources. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary of
energy resources during Project construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.5.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Analysis: As future development projects within the Project Area are received and reviewed by
the City in subsequent years, those projects would be reviewed for consistency with the City’s General
Plan and Development Code and all relevant State-level programs and requirements. All future projects
must implement the most current version of the Title 24 energy efficiency requirements, as required by
State law. Consistency with the General Plan and other mandatory State-level programs would ensure
that future project-level contributions to inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary energy use would be less
than significant. Moreover, as identified above, Project implementation would not be expected to cause
an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources nor conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As a result, the proposed Downtown Core Project’s
incremental contribution to cumulative energy impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.5.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts associated with energy would occur with the proposed Project.
5.5.8 REFERENCES
California Energy Commission, 2021 Total System Electric Generation, https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-
reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2021-total-system-electric-generation,
accessed November 11, 2022a.
California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by Planning Area,
http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyplan.aspx, accessed November 11, 2022b.
California Energy Commission, 2020 Total Electricity System Power, https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-
reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2020-total-system-electric-generation/2020,
accessed November 11, 2022c.
California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County,
https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx, accessed November 11, 2022d.
Southern California Edison, Southern California Edison’s Service Area,
https://download.newsroom.edison.com/create_memory_file/?f_id=5cc32d492cfac24d21aecf4
c&content_verified=True, April 2019, accessed November 11, 2022.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.5-14 Energy
U.S. Energy Information Administration, California State Profile and Energy Estimates,
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-1, accessed November 11, 2022a.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, State Energy Data System: 1960-2020, June 24, 2022b.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review,
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/, accessed November 11, 2022c.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, California State Profile and Energy Estimates: Table F16: Total
Petroleum Consumption Estimates, 2020,
https://www.eia.gov/state/data.php?sid=CA#ConsumptionExpenditures, accessed November
11, 2022d.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.6-1 Geology and Soils
5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
5.6.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing conditions and regulatory environment related to
geology and soils, and identify potential impacts that could result from Project implementation. This
section is based in part on the Fontana Forward: General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental
Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 016021099) (City of Fontana, 2018), the San Bernardino
Countywide Plan: Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2017101033) (PlaceWorks,
2019), and California Geological Survey.
5.6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The City of Fontana is located within the northwestern portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic
Province, which includes parts of Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties.
The Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province is located in the southwestern corner of California and is
bounded by the Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province to the north (including the San Gabriel and San
Bernardino Mountains) and the Colorado Desert Geomorphic Province to the east. This geomorphic
province is characterized by elongated northwest-trending mountain ridges separated by sediment-
floored valleys. The City is located within the San Bernardino Valley, between the foothills of the San
Gabriel Mountains to the north and the Jurupa Mountains to the south.
The City is underlain by the relatively young (Holocene and late Pleistocene) alluvial deposits of the Lytle
Creek alluvial fan (City of Fontana, 2018). These deposits primarily consist of unconsolidated, gray, cobbly
and bouldery alluvium. In the southern reaches, the deposits are relatively fine-grained (pebbly and
cobbly) and become coarser grained (cobbly and bouldery) to the north.
The Project Area is located in a predominately developed area in the City of Fontana. The Project Area is
bounded by Foothill Boulevard on the north, Randall Avenue on the south, Juniper Avenue on the west,
and Mango Avenue on the east. Elevations within the Project Area range from approximately 1,300 feet
above mean sea level in the north and 1,200 in the south. Generally, topography descends gently to the
south.
FAULTS
The City is located in a highly active seismic region of Southern California. There are no major active faults
within the Project Area. Major active faults in the vicinity of the Project Area include the San Andreas Fault
Zone, San Jacinto Fault Zone, Sierra Madre Fault Zone, Elsinore Fault Zone, Cucamonga Fault, and Chino
Fault.
San Andreas Fault Zone
The San Andreas fault is approximately nine miles northeast of the Project Area. This fault is widely
recognized as the longest and most active fault in the state. It has been mapped from Cape Mendocino in
northern California to an area near the Mexican border, a length of approximately 800 miles. Abundant
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.6-2 Geology and Soils
evidence of historic earthquakes indicates that the fault is active, including those that have caused
extensive surface rupture and displacement of recent sediments. Current work indicates that large
earthquakes have occurred along the fault at widely varying intervals, but averaging 160 years. A
maximum probable earthquake of M 8.3 (magnitude of 8.3 on the Richter Scale) has been assigned to the
San Andreas fault in Southern California.
San Jacinto Fault Zone
The San Jacinto Fault is approximately five miles northeast of the Project Area. This active fault is similar
to the San Andreas fault in that it is a large strike-slip fault that has been active for several million years.
It has been the principal focus of historical release of strain in Southern California between the North
American continental plate and Pacific Ocean plate. Surface rupture has been associated with several
historic earthquakes on the fault. A maximum probable earthquake for the San Jacinto of M 7.2
(magnitude of 7.2 on the Richter Scale) is based upon historic seismicity and rupture length.
Sierra Madre Fault Zone
The Sierra Madre Fault is approximately five miles northwest of the Project Area. The Sierra Madre fault
is part of the San Gabriel Mountain frontal fault system. This fault zone has been responsible for uplift of
mountains by reverse faulting in response to north-south compression. During the 1971 San Fernando
earthquake, approximately seven feet of uplift occurred along the San Fernando and Tujunga faults
(westward extensions of the Sierra Madre fault zone). The recurrence interval for large (M 6.0 to 7.0)
earthquakes is estimated at 100 to 5,000 years. The Sierra Madre fault zone encompasses essentially all
major faults in the foothill area of San Jacinto, including major surface traces in bedrock as well as sub-
parallel faults in alluvial areas immediately to the south.
Cucamonga Fault
The Cucamonga fault is an easterly extension of the Sierra Madre fault zone. It is considered active and
has been mapped from the Lytle Creek area to at least the mouth of San Antonio Canyon, a distance of 10
miles. Geologically, recent movement has occurred just east of Glendora where granite basement rocks
have been thrust over alluvial formation and in the vicinity of San Antonio, Deer, and Day Canyons to the
east where relative uplift on the northern side has produced steep slopes approximately 200 feet high in
recent alluvium.
Elsinore Fault Zone
The Elsinore fault zone is located south and southeast of the Project Area. This active fault parallels the
San Jacinto fault. In 1987, a M 5.9 (magnitude of 5.9 on the Richter Scale) earthquake occurred along a
previously unknown thrust fault attached to this system. A maximum probable of M 6.7 (magnitude of 6.7
on the Richter Scale) is assigned to the Whittier-Elsinore fault.
Chino
The Chino Fault is a northerly extension of the Elsinore Fault Zone. It runs along the Chino Hills and is
located approximately 18 miles southwest of the Project Area.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.6-3 Geology and Soils
SEISMIC HAZARDS
Seismic hazards include both rupture (surface and subsurface) along active faults and ground shaking,
which can occur over wider areas. Ground shaking, produced by various tectonic phenomena, is the
principal source of seismic hazards in areas devoid of active faults. All areas of the state are subject to
some level of seismic ground shaking.
The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3, or UCERF3, is the latest official
earthquake rupture forecast (ERF) for the State of California. It provides estimates of the likelihood and
severity of potentially damaging earthquake ruptures in the long- and near-term. Combining this with
ground motion models produces estimates of the severity of ground shaking that can be expected during
a given period (seismic hazard), and of the threat to the built environment (seismic risk). This information
is used to inform engineering design and building codes, planning for disaster, and evaluating whether
earthquake insurance premiums are sufficient for the prospective losses.
UCERF3 was prepared by the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), a
collaboration between the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the California Geological Survey (CGS),
and the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), with funding from the California Earthquake
Authority (CEA). The UCERF3 Model represents the latest model from the Working Group on California
Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP). Results for the Los Angeles region faults, which includes the Fontana
region, based on the UCERF3 are shown in Table 5.6-1, Likelihood of Having One or More Earthquakes by
Size in the Next 30 Years (Starting from 2014).
Table 5.6-1
Likelihood of Having One or More Earthquakes by Size in the Next 30 Years (Starting from 2014)
Magnitude
(greater than or equal to)
Average repeat time
(years)
30-year likelihood of one or
more events Readiness
5 1.4 100% 1.0
6 10 96% 1.0
6.7 40 60% 1.1
7 61 46% 1.2
7.5 109 31% 1.3
8 532 7% 1.3
Source: United States Geological Survey (USGS), UCERF3: A New Earthquake Forecast for California’s Complex Fault
System, March 2015, https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2015/3009/pdf/fs2015-3009.pdf.
The US Geologic Survey (USGS) Earthquake Probabilities predicts the probabilities of earthquakes within
Greater California, the Southern California/Los Angeles Region, and the Northern California/San Francisco
Region. The USGS Earthquake Probabilities predicts the probability that an earthquake will occur in the
Los Angeles region within the next 30 years is:
• 60 percent that an earthquake measuring magnitude 6.7 will occur;
• 46 percent that an earthquake measuring magnitude 7 will occur; and
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.6-4 Geology and Soils
• 31 percent that an earthquake measuring magnitude 7.5 will occur.
SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES
Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone
An active earthquake fault, per California’s Alquist-Priolo Act, is one that has ruptured within the Holocene
Epoch (≈11,000 years). Based on this criterion, the CGS identifies Earthquake Fault Zones. These
Earthquake Fault Zones are identified in Special Publication 42 (SP42), which is updated as new fault data
become available. The SP42 lists all counties and cities within California that are affected by designated
Earthquake Fault Zones. The Fault Zones are delineated on maps within SP42 (Earthquake Fault Zone
Maps).
Southern California is a region of high seismic activity. Similar to most cities in the region, Fontana is
subject to risks associated with potentially destructive earthquakes. The Project Area is not located within
a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (California Geological Survey, 2022).
LIQUEFACTION
Liquefaction, which is primarily associated with loose, saturated materials, is most common in areas of
sand and silt or on reclaimed lands. Cohesion between the loose materials that comprise the soil may be
jeopardized during seismic events and the ground will take on liquid properties. Thus, liquefaction
requires specific soil characteristics and seismic shaking.
Liquefaction zones are areas where historical occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical,
and ground water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that
mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required. The Project Area is not
located within a mapped liquefaction zone (California Geological Survey, 2022).
OTHER GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Soils
Soil is generally defined as the unconsolidated mixture of mineral grains and organic material that mantles
the land surface. Soils can develop on unconsolidated sediments and weathered bedrock. The
characteristics of soil reflect the five major influences on their development: topography, climate,
biological activity, parent (source) material, and time. The Project Area is underlain by loamy sand of the
Tujunga series, which consists of very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in alluvium
from granitic sources (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2017). Tujunga soils are on alluvial fans
and floodplains, including urban areas.
Erosion
The U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) delineates soil units and compiles soils data as
part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. The following description of erosion factors is provided by
the NRCS Physical Properties Descriptions:
• Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. Values of K
range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the
soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water. Erosion factor Kw indicates the erodibility of the whole
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.6-5 Geology and Soils
soil, whereas Kf indicates the erodibility of the fine soils. The estimates are modified by the
presence of rock fragments.
Soil erosion data for the Project Area was obtained from the NRCS. As identified by the NRCS web soil
survey, the erosion factor K within the Project Area is 0.15, which is considered a low potential for erosion.
Expansive Soils
The NRCS delineates soil units and compiles soils data as part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. The
NRCS provides a description of linear extensibility (also known as shrink-swell potential or expansive
potential). The shrink-swell potential is low if the soil has a linear extensibility of less than three percent;
moderate if three to six percent; high if six to nine percent; and very high if more than nine percent. If the
linear extensibility is more than three, shrinking and swelling can cause damage to buildings, roads, and
other structures and to plant roots; special design is commonly needed.
The linear extensibility of the soils within the Project Area is 1.5 percent, which is considered Low.
Landslides
CGS classifies landslides with a two-part designation based on the research of Varnes (1978) and Cruden
and Varnes (1996). The designation captures both the type of material that failed and the type of
movement that the failed material exhibited. Material types are broadly categorized as either rock or soil,
or a combination of the two for complex movements. Landslide movements are categorized as falls,
topples, spreads, slides, or flows.
Landslide potential is influenced by physical factors, such as slope, soil, vegetation, and precipitation.
Landslides require a slope, and can occur naturally from seismic activity, excessive saturation, and
wildfires, or from human-made conditions such as construction disturbance, vegetation removal,
wildfires, etc. Landslides and debris flows can occur rapidly and without warning during periods of
exceptionally high rainfall. Due to the predominant underlying geologic formations and generally flat
topography within the City, the Project Area has a low susceptibility to landslides.
Earthquake Induced Landslides
Earthquake-Induced Landslide Zones are areas where previous occurrence of landslide movement, or
local topographic, geological, geotechnical, and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for
permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section
2693(c) would be required. There are no earthquake-induced landslide seismic hazard zones mapped
within the Project Area (California Geological Survey, 2022).
Subsidence
Land subsidence is a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the Earth's surface due to removal or
displacement of subsurface earth materials (USGS, 2019). Common causes of land subsidence include:
aquifer-system compaction associated with groundwater withdrawals; drainage of organic soils;
underground mining; and natural compaction or collapse. Subsidence takes place gradually, usually over
a period of several years. Soils with high shrink-swell potential can be particularly susceptible to
subsidence during a loss of soil moisture. The Project Area is underlain by Tujunga soils, which have low
shrink-swell potential.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.6-6 Geology and Soils
As discussed in Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project Area is underlain by the Chino
Groundwater Basin, an adjudicated basin managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster. Management of the
Basin reduces the likelihood of largescale extraction of groundwater that could cause subsidence.
Collapsible Soils
Hydroconsolidation occurs when soil layers collapse, or settle, as water is added under loads. Natural
deposits susceptible to hydroconsolidation are typically aeolian, alluvial, or colluvial materials, that have
a high apparent strength when dry. The dry strength of the materials may be attributed to the clay and
silt constituents in the soil and the presence of cementing agents (i.e., salts). Capillary tension may tend
to bond soil grains. Once these soils are subjected to excessive moisture and foundation loads, the
constituency including soluble salts or bonding agents is weakened or dissolved, capillary tensions are
reduced and collapse occurs resulting in settlement. Existing alluvium within the Project Area may be
susceptible to collapse and excessive settlements, which could create the risk of hydroconsolidation if
these soils were exposed to excessive moisture.
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As discussed in the Fontana General Plan EIR, the City of Fontana is situated on surface exposures of
Quaternary younger alluvial fan deposits (Holocene to late Pleistocene period) that are scored by more
recent wash deposits (City of Fontana, 2018). Although younger fan deposits do not have the potential to
contain significant paleontological resources, the City also contains areas of Pleistocene older fan deposits
exposed at surface levels that have been mapped along the western area of the City (near the intersection
of I-15 and I-210) and in the southwestern areas of the City. Subsurface Pleistocene deposits overlain with
more recent alluvial deposits are also known to be present. Within these Pleistocene older deposits the
potential for paleontological resources is consider to be high. Paleontological resources, including the
remains of a saber-tooth cat, have been recovered in the southwest area and many fossils that include
Pleistocene mega-fauna (e.g. mammoth, camels, horses) have been recovered from the Jurupa Basin area
near the intersection of Jurupa Avenue and Mulberry Avenue within the City of Fontana.
5.6.3 REGULATORY SETTING
FEDERAL
International Building Code (IBC)
The purpose of the International Building Code (IBC) is to provide minimum standards to preserve the
public peace, health, and safety by regulating the design, construction, quality of materials, certain
equipment, location, grading, use, occupancy, and maintenance of all buildings and structures. IBC
standards address foundation design, shear wall strength, and other structurally related conditions.
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program (NEHRP). Under the NEHRP, four federal agencies have responsibility for long-term earthquake
risk reduction: the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
NEHRP’s mission includes improved understanding, characterization, and prediction of hazards and
vulnerability; improvements of building codes and land use practices; risk reduction through post-
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.6-7 Geology and Soils
earthquake investigation and education; development and improvement of design and construction
techniques; improvement of mitigation capacity; and accelerated application of research results.
STATE
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act)
The State of California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (1972) was established to mitigate the
hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. Pursuant to the act, the state geologist has
established regulatory zones (known as earthquake fault zones) around surface traces of active faults.
These have been mapped for affected cities, including Fontana. Application for a development permit for
any project within a delineated earthquake fault zone is required to be accompanied by a geologic report,
prepared by a geologist registered in the state of California, that is directed to the problem of potential
surface fault displacement through a project site.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act (SHMA) was adopted by the State in 1990 to protect the public from the
effects of non-surface fault rupture earthquake hazards, including strong ground shaking, liquefaction,
seismically induced landslides, ground amplification, or other ground failure caused by earthquakes. The
goal of the act is to minimize loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating seismic hazards. The
CGS is the primary agency responsible for the implementation of the SHMA. The CGS prepares maps
identifying seismic hazard zones and provides them to local governments, which include areas susceptible
to amplified shaking, liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and other ground failures. SHMA
requires responsible agencies to only approve projects within these zones following a site-specific
investigation to determine if the hazard is present, and if so, the inclusion of appropriate mitigation(s). In
addition, the SHMA requires real estate sellers and agents at the time of sale to disclose whether a
property is within one of the designated seismic hazard zones.
California Building Standards Code (Title 24)
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) provides state regulations that govern the design and
construction of buildings, associated facilities, and equipment. These regulations are also known as
building standards (reference California Health and Safety Code Section 18909). Cities and counties are
required by state law to enforce CCR Title 24, and may adopt ordinances making more restrictive
requirements than provided by CCR Title 24 due to local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.
LOCAL
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce potential impacts associated with
geologic hazards and soils. Chapter 11, Noise and Safety Element contains the following goals and policies
specific to geologic hazards:
Chapter 11 – Noise and Safety
• Goal 4: Seismic injury and loss of life, property damage, and other impacts caused by seismic
shaking, fault rupture, ground failure, earthquake-induced landslides, and other earthquake-
induced ground deformation are minimized in Fontana.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.6-8 Geology and Soils
o Policy: The City shall monitor development or redevelopment in areas where faults have
been mapped through the city.
o Policy: The City shall continue to ensure that current geologic knowledge and peer (third
party) review are incorporated into the design, planning, and construction stages of a
project and that site-specific data are applied to each project.
o Policy: The City shall continue to ensure to the fullest extent possible that, in the event of
a major disaster, essential structures and facilities remain safe and functional, as required
by current law. Essential facilities include hospitals, police stations, fire stations,
emergency operation centers, communication centers, generators and substations, and
reservoirs.
• Goal 5: Risk to life or limb and property damage resulting from geologic hazards are minimized in
Fontana.
o Policy: The City shall continue to participate in regional programs designed to protect the
groundwater resources and to protect the area from the hazard of regional ground
subsidence through careful management of the regional groundwater basin that
underlies the area.
• Goal 6: Injury, loss of life, property damage, and economic and social disruption caused by flood
and inundation hazards are minimized in Fontana.
o Policy: The City shall discourage new development in flood-hazard areas and implement
mitigation measures to reduce the hazard to existing developments located within the
100- and 500-year flood zones.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 5, Buildings and Building Regulations, adopts various codes and safety
precautions as part of the building code for the City of Fontana, including, but not limited to, the Uniform
Administrative Code, the California Building Code, and the Green Building Standards Code.
Chapter 9, Article III, Control of Blowing Sand and Soil Erosion, adopts the County’s dust control measures
to minimize water quality-related impacts.
Chapter 23, Article I, In General, requires residential, commercial, industrial and public/institutional
buildings to connect to the public sewer system, provided the public sewer is within 200 feet of the
nearest point of the building. Chapter 23, Article IX, Preventing Discharge of Pollutants into Storm Drains,
requires all development activities subject to the City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which is
required to identify proposed structural best management practices (BMPs) and source and treatment
control BMPs to infiltrate and/or adequately treat the projected stormwater and urban runoff from the
development site.
Chapter 28, Article IV, Landscaping and Water Conservation, includes a number of regulations related to
applicable development projects within the City. Sections 28-99, Soil Management Report, and 28-102,
Grading Design Plan, require project applicants to complete a soil management report and grading plan.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.6-9 Geology and Soils
City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), identifies hazards, reviews and assesses past disaster
occurrences, estimates the probability of future occurrences, and sets goals to mitigate potential risks to
reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural and man-made hazards. The 2017
LHMP was approved and adopted by City Council on August 14, 2018.
5.6.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Initial Study
Environmental Checklist, which includes questions related to geology and soils. Accordingly, a project may
create a significant environmental impact if it would:
• Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving;
o Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42 (refer to Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant);
o Strong seismic ground shaking (refer to Impact Statement 5.6-1);
o Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction (refer to Impact Statement 5.6-1);
and
o Landslides (refer to Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant).
• Result in substantial soil erosion of the loss of topsoil (refer to Impact Statement 5.6-2);
• 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 (refer to Impact Statement 5.6-3);
• Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Tables 18-1-D of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property (refer to Impact Statement 5.6-4);
• Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water (refer to Section
8.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant); and/or
• Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature
(refer to Impact Statement 5.6-5).
Based on these standards and significance thresholds and criteria, the Project’s effects have been
categorized as either “no impact,” a “less than significant impact,” or a “potentially significant impact.”
Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant
impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant impact through the application of mitigation, it is
categorized as a “significant unavoidable impact.”
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.6-10 Geology and Soils
5.6.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 5.6-1: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking or
seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Impact Analysis: The Project Area, like the rest of Southern California, is situated within a seismically
active region as the result of being located near the active margin between the North American and Pacific
tectonic plates. Development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project could
expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving strong seismic ground shaking or seismic-related ground failure (i.e., liquefaction).
As discussed in Section 5.6.2, Environmental Setting, the Project Area is not located within a designated
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. While there are no major active faults within the Project Area, major
active faults exist in the vicinity of the Project Area, including the San Andreas Fault Zone, San Jacinto
Fault Zone, Sierra Madre Fault Zone, Elsinore Fault Zone, Cucamonga Fault, and Chino Fault. Therefore,
the Project Area could experience considerable ground shaking generated by faults located near the City.
Strong ground shaking can result in liquefaction. The Project Area is not located in an area designated as
potentially liquefiable by the California Geological Survey (California Geological Survey, 2022). The
General Plan DEIR and LHMP do not identify the Project Area as being located within an area that is
susceptible to liquefaction.
The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions intended to protect against injury and loss
of life, property damage, and other impacts caused by seismic shaking or seismic-related ground failure.
Chapter 5 of the Fontana Municipal Code adopts various codes and safety precautions as part of the
building code for the City of Fontana, including the Uniform Administrative Code and California Building
Code. Future development projects within the Project Area would be required to comply with the
provisions of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), which requires development projects to
perform geotechnical investigations in accordance with State law, engineer improvements to address
potential seismic and ground failure issues, and use earthquake-resistant construction techniques to
address potential earthquake loads when constructing buildings and improvements. As future
development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for
conformance with the CBSC, General Plan, Municipal Code, and other regulations.
Development projects are reviewed to address seismic safety issues and would be required to provide
adequate mitigation for existing and potential hazards identified. With the implementation of the policies
and actions in the General Plan, as well as applicable State and City codes, potential impacts associated
with a seismic event, including seismic ground shaking and liquefaction, would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.6-11 Geology and Soils
Impact 5.6-2: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion of the loss of topsoil?
Impact Analysis: Implementation of the Downtown Core Project would provide for development and
improvement projects that would involve some land clearing, mass grading, and other ground-disturbing
activities that could temporarily increase soil erosion rates during and shortly after project construction.
As noted previously, soil erosion data for the Project Area was obtained from the NRCS. As identified by
the NRCS web soil survey, the erosion factor K within the Project Area is 0.15, which is considered a low
potential for erosion. Further, the Project Area is relatively flat and does not possess site conditions
necessarily conducive to soil erosion. Depending upon the location of site-specific development,
construction activities, and soil conditions, construction-related erosion could result in the loss of a
substantial amount of nonrenewable topsoil and could adversely affect water quality in nearby surface
waters. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project would be
evaluated for conformance with the CBSC, General Plan, Municipal Code, and other regulations. Municipal
Code Chapter 23, Article IX, requires all development activities subject to the City’s NPDES permit to
prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which is required to identify
proposed structural BMPs and source and treatment control BMPs to infiltrate and/or adequately treat
the projected stormwater and urban runoff from the development site. Additionally, in compliance with
NPDES Permit regulations, the State of California requires that any construction activity disturbing one
acre or more of soil comply with the Construction General Permit. The permit requires development and
implementation of a SWPPP and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-control and sediment-
control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit to control
stormwater quality degradation due to potential construction-related pollutants. The SWPPP would
include project specific BMPs that are designed to control drainage and erosion. With the implementation
of the policies and actions in the General Plan, as well as applicable State and City requirements, potential
impacts associated with erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Impact 5.6-3: 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?
Impact Analysis: According to the General Plan EIR, given the relatively stable geology and soils within the
City, it is unlikely that there would be a potential risk that represents a significant change or increase from
existing conditions. Soils and geologic conditions within the Project Area are discussed below:
Landslide: Due to the predominant underlying geologic formations and generally flat topography within
the City, including the Project Area, future development associated with implementation of the
Downtown Core Project would not occur on geologic units or soils with the potential for on- or off-site
landslides.
Lateral Spreading: The potential for lateral spreading is present where open banks and unsupported cut
slopes provide a free face (unsupported vertical slope face). Ground shaking, especially when inducing
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.6-12 Geology and Soils
liquefaction, may cause lateral spreading toward unsupported slopes. Due to the predominant underlying
geologic formations and generally flat topography within the City, the Project Area has a low susceptibility
to lateral spreading.
Subsidence: Soils with high shrink-swell potential can be particularly susceptible to subsidence during a
loss of soil moisture. The Project Area is underlain by Tujunga soils, which have low shrink-swell potential.
The Project Area is underlain by the Chino Groundwater Basin, an adjudicated basin managed by the Chino
Basin Watermaster. Management of the Chino Groundwater Basin reduces the likelihood of largescale
extraction of groundwater that could cause subsidence.
Liquefaction: The Project Area is not located within a mapped liquefaction zone, as delineated by the
California Geological Survey.
Collapse: Collapsible soils occur predominantly at the base of mountain ranges, where Holocene-age
alluvial fan and wash sediments have been deposited during rapid run-off events. Differential settlement
of structures typically occurs when heavily irrigated landscape areas are near a building foundation.
Examples of common problems associated with collapsible soils include tilting floors, cracking or
separation in structures, sagging floors, and nonfunctional windows and doors. Existing alluvium within
the Project Area may be susceptible to collapse and excessive settlements, which could create the risk of
hydroconsolidation if these soils were exposed to excessive moisture.
Conclusion
The Project Area has a low potential for landslide, lateral spreading, and liquefaction. Additionally,
subsidence is considered low due to the soils underlaying the Project Area and management of the
groundwater basin. Collapsible soils and differential settlement within the Project Area would typically be
associated with inadequate drainage resulting in damage to the building foundation. As future
development and infrastructure projects are considered within the Project Area, each project would be
evaluated for conformance with the CBSC, the General Plan policies and actions, the Municipal Code, and
other regulations. Future development and improvement projects would be required to prepare site-
specific geotechnical studies to identify geologic and soil conditions specific to the site and provide design
recommendations consistent with the requirements of State and City codes. Implementation of CBSC and
the Municipal Code requirements related to seismic and geologic conditions and the General Plan policies
and actions would ensure that future development projects are evaluated for potential geologic and
seismic risks and that potential risks are adequately addressed. Compliance with applicable State and City
regulations would reduce potential impacts associated with unstable geologic and soil conditions to less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.6-13 Geology and Soils
Impact 5.6-4: Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Tables 18-1-D of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or
property?
Impact Analysis: Expansive soil properties can cause substantial damage to building foundations, piles,
pavements, underground utilities, and/or other improvements. Structural damage, such as warping and
cracking of improvements, and rupture of underground utility lines, may occur if the expansive potential
of soils is not considered during the design and construction of all improvements. As the linear
extensibility (i.e., shrink-swell potential or expansive potential) of the soils within the Project Area is 1.5
percent, which is considered low, the Project Area has low expansive soils.
As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project would be
evaluated for conformance with the CBSC, General Plan policies and actions, Municipal Code, and other
applicable regulations. As required by the CBSC, a site-specific geotechnical investigation would identify
the potential for damage related to expansive soils and non-uniformly compacted fill and engineered fill.
If a risk is identified, design criteria and specification options may include removal of the problematic soils,
and replacement, as needed, with properly conditioned and compacted fill material that is designed to
withstand the forces exerted during the expected shrink-swell cycles and settlements. Design criteria and
specifications set forth in the design-level geotechnical investigation would ensure impacts from
problematic soils are minimized. No significant adverse environmental impacts are anticipated to occur
associated with expansive soils. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Impact 5.6-5: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Impact Analysis: As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the City is situated on surface exposures of
Quaternary younger alluvial fan deposits (Holocene to late Pleistocene period) that are scored by more
recent wash deposits. The Project Area is not identified as being located within an area underlain by
Pleistocene older deposits, which are considered to have high potential for paleontological resources.
However, it is possible that undiscovered paleontological resources could be encountered during future
ground-disturbing activities within the Project Area. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Only qualified, trained paleontologists with specific expertise in the type of fossils being evaluated can
determine the scientific significance of paleontological resources. Fossils are considered to be significant
if one or more of the following criteria apply (Scott & Springer, 2003):
1. The fossils provide information on the evolutionary relationships and developmental trends
among organisms, living or extinct;
2. The fossils provide data useful in determining the age(s) of the rock unit or sedimentary stratum,
including data important in determining the depositional history of the region and the timing of
geologic events therein;
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.6-14 Geology and Soils
3. The fossils provide data regarding the development of biological communities or interaction
between paleobotanical and paleozoological biotas;
4. The fossils demonstrate unusual or spectacular circumstances in the history of life;
5. The fossils are in short supply and/or in danger of being depleted or destroyed by the elements,
vandalism, or commercial exploitation, and are not found in other geographic locations.
6. All identifiable vertebrate fossils are considered significant due to the rarity of their preservation.
As so defined, significant paleontological resources are determined to be fossils or assemblages of fossils
that are unique, unusual, rare, uncommon, or diagnostically important. Significant fossils can include
remains of large to very small aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates or remains of plants and invertebrate
animals previously not represented in certain portions of the stratigraphy. Assemblages of fossils that
might aid stratigraphic correlation, particularly those offering data for the interpretation of tectonic
events, geomorphologic evolution, and paleoclimatology are also critically important.
Damage to or destruction of a paleontological resource would be considered a potentially significant
impact under local, State, or federal criteria. The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions
to protect paleontological resources. In addition, future development associated with implementation of
the proposed Project would be required to implement General Plan EIR mitigation measure MM-CUL-4
(incorporated herein as Mitigation Measure GEO-1), which would require a qualified paleontologist
conduct a pre-construction field survey of any project site that is underlain by older alluvium. The
paleontologist shall submit a report of findings to the City that provides specific recommendations
regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Should
mitigation monitoring of paleontological resources be recommended for a specific project, the project
would be required to implement General Plan mitigation measure MM-CUL-5 (incorporated herein as
Mitigation Measure GEO-2), which would require the program to assign a paleontological monitor to the
site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities; cease earth-disturbing activities should
fossils be found; curate for documentation and transfer recovered fossils to an appropriate depository;
and submit a report to the City and San Bernardino County Museum. With implementation of Mitigation
Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, potential impacts to paleontological resources associated with future
development anticipated by the Downtown Core Project would be reduced to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
GEO-1: If excavation activities would occur at a depth of greater than five feet on any site mapped as
middle to late Pleistocene older alluvium at the surface, a qualified paleontologist shall conduct a
pre-construction field survey. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that provides
specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological
monitoring) that may be appropriate to the City of Fontana Community Development
Department. (General Plan EIR MM-CUL-4, updated)
GEO-2: Should mitigation monitoring of paleontological resources be recommended for a specific project
within the Project Area, the program shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures:
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.6-15 Geology and Soils
• Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils
with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing
activities.
• Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, earth-disturbing activities
shall be diverted elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction
personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor shalt immediately divert construction
and notify the monitor of the find.
• All recovered fossils shall be prepared, identified, and curated for documentation in the
summary report and transferred to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County
Museum).
• A summary report shall be submitted to City of Fontana. Collected specimens shall be
transferred with copy of report to San Bernardino County Museum. (General Plan EIR MM-
CUL-5)
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
5.6.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Analysis: Future development within the region, including the Project Area, would contribute to
the exposure of people and structures to geologic and seismic hazards. However, specific site and soils
conditions would vary amongst the Project Area and cumulative project sites. Similar to the Project,
geotechnical studies would be required to be prepared for cumulative projects and site-specific
development would be required to comply with the established regulatory framework (i.e., CBSC and
Municipal Code requirements). The site-specific geotechnical studies would require review and approval
by the City, and recommendations included in the report would be required to be incorporated into the
grading plans and specifications for individual projects. If a specific site were determined to create a
significant impact that could not be feasibly mitigated, the site would not be appropriate for development.
Overall, compliance with applicable laws, standards, and guidelines, (including the CBSC and Municipal
Code requirements) would ensure that design and construction of the Project and cumulative projects
would reduce potential impacts associated with site-specific geology and soils conditions.
The Project Area has the potential to contain paleontological resources. As discussed above,
implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 would reduce potential impacts to
paleontological resources associated with future Project Area construction activities to a less than
significant level. There is the potential for cumulative project sites within the City to have soils that contain
paleontological resources. Construction activities associated with the cumulative projects have the
potential to directly or indirectly destroy paleontological resources specific to those development sites.
However, as with the Project, cumulative development would undergo environmental and design review
on a project-by-project basis pursuant to CEQA to evaluate potential impacts to paleontological resources.
All development would be subject to compliance with the established federal, State, and local regulatory
framework concerning protection of paleontological resources on a project-by-project basis. Where
significant or potentially significant impacts are identified, implementation of all feasible site-specific
mitigation would be required to avoid or reduce impacts. Based on the above, the Project’s impacts would
not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts to paleontological resources would be less than
significant.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.6-16 Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.6.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts associated with geology and soils would occur with the proposed
Project.
5.6.8 REFERENCES
Branum, D., Chen, R., Peterson, M., & Wills, C., Map Sheet 48: Earthquake Shaking Potential for
California, 2016.
California Geological Survey, California Geomorphic Provinces, California Geological Survey Note 36.
Sacramento, CA, California Department of Conservation, 2002.
California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation,
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/, accessed November 15, 2022.
City of Fontana, Fontana Forward: General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report,
June 2018.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Official Series Description - Tujunga Series, March 2017,
https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/T/TUJUNGA.html, accessed November 15, 2022.
PlaceWorks, San Bernardino Countywide Plan: Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse
No. 2017101033), June 2019.
Scott, E. and Springer, K., CEQA and fossil preservation in southern California, The Environmental
Monitor, 2003.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), UCERF3: A New Earthquake Forecast for California’s Complex
Fault System, March 2015, https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2015/3009/pdf/fs2015-3009.pdf, accessed
November 15, 2022.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2019, Land Subsidence, https://www.usgs.gov/mission-
areas/water-resources/science/land-subsidence, accessed November 15, 2022.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
5.7.1 PURPOSE
This section identifies the existing climate conditions, the current state of climate change science, and
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions sources within California and the Project Area and provides an analysis
of potential impacts associated with implementation of the Project. This section is primarily based upon
greenhouse gas emissions analysis and modeling prepared by De Novo Planning Group and included as
Appendix C, Air Quality, Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Data.
5.7.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGES LINKAGES
Various gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical
role in determining the Earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters Earth’s atmosphere from
space, and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. The Earth emits this radiation
back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high-frequency solar radiation to
lower-frequency infrared radiation. This is called the greenhouse effect, and leads to global warming as
well as an overall global climate change, which includes long-term shifts in temperatures and weather
patterns.
Greenhouse gases, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation.
As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in
a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Among the
prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone
(O3), water vapor (H2O), N2O, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
Gases in the atmosphere can contribute to the greenhouse effect both directly and indirectly. Direct
effects occur when the gas itself absorbs radiation. Indirect radiative forcing occurs when chemical
transformations of the substance produce other greenhouse gases, when a gas influences the
atmospheric lifetimes of other gases, and/or when a gas affects atmospheric processes that alter the
radiative balance of the earth (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011).
Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Several classes of halogenated substances that contain fluorine,
chlorine, or bromine are also greenhouse gases, but they are, for the most part, solely a product of
industrial activities. There are also several gases that do not have a direct global warming effect but
indirectly affect terrestrial and/or solar radiation absorption by influencing the formation or destruction
of greenhouse gases, including tropospheric and stratospheric ozone. These gases include carbon
monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and non-CH4 volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs). Aerosols,
which are extremely small particles or liquid droplets, such as those produced by sulfur dioxide (SO2) or
elemental carbon emissions, can also affect the absorptive characteristics of the atmosphere (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2011).
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Although the direct greenhouse gases CO2, CH4, and N2O occur naturally in the atmosphere, human
activities have changed their atmospheric concentrations. From the pre-industrial era (i.e., ending about
1750) to 2011, concentrations of these three greenhouse gases have increased globally by 40, 150, and
20 percent, respectively.
Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities
associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors.
In California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by the industrial sector.
As the name implies, global climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria
air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern, respectively.
California produced approximately 418.2 million gross metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
(MMTCO2e) in 2019, meeting the annual Statewide target set by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB), which required that California emissions be below 431 MMTCO2e by 2020 (CARB, 2021). To meet
CARB’s Statewide targets, California emissions must further be reduced to below 260 MMTCO2e by 2030.
Carbon dioxide equivalents are a measurement used to account for the fact that different GHGs have
different potential to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect.
This potential, known as the global warming potential of a GHG, is also dependent on the lifetime, or
persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide
equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a
single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted.
Consumption of fossil fuels in the transportation sector was the single largest source of California’s GHG
emissions in 2019, accounting for 41 percent of total GHG emissions in the State (CARB, 2021). This
category was followed by the industrial sector (24 percent), the electricity generation sector (including
both in-State and out-of-State sources) (14 percent), the agriculture and forestry sector (7 percent), the
residential energy consumption sector (8 percent), and the commercial energy consumption sector (6
percent).
EFFECTS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
The effects of increasing global temperature are far-reaching and extremely difficult to quantify. The
scientific community continues to study the effects of global climate change. In general, increases in the
ambient global temperature as a result of increased GHGs are anticipated to result in rising sea levels,
which could threaten coastal areas through accelerated coastal erosion, threats to levees and inland water
systems, and disruption to coastal wetlands and habitat.
If the temperature of the ocean warms, it is anticipated that the winter snow season would be shortened.
Snowpack in the Sierra Nevada provides both water supply (runoff) and storage (within the snowpack
before melting), which is a major source of water supply for the State. The snowpack portion of the supply
could potentially decline by 50 percent to 75 percent by the end of the 21st century. This phenomenon
could lead to significant challenges securing an adequate water supply for a growing State population.
Further, the increased ocean temperature could result in increased moisture flux into the State; however,
since this would likely increasingly come in the form of rain rather than snow in the high elevations,
increased precipitation could lead to increased potential and severity of flood events, placing more
pressure on California’s levee/flood control system.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sea level has risen approximately seven inches during the last century and it is predicted to rise an
additional 22 to 35 inches by 2100, depending on the future GHG emissions levels. If this occurs, resultant
effects could include increased coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion, and disruption of wetlands. As the
existing climate throughout California changes over time, mass migration of species, or failure of species
to migrate in time to adapt to the perturbations in climate, could also result. According to the most recent
California Climate Change Assessment (California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment), the impacts of
global warming in California are anticipated to include, but are not limited to, the following.
Wildfires
In recent years, the area burned by wildfires has increased in parallel with increasing air temperatures.
Wildfires have also been occurring at higher elevations in the Sierra Nevada mountains, a trend which is
expected to continue under future climate change. Climate change will likely modify the vegetation in
California, affecting the characteristics of fires on the land. Land use and development patterns also play
an important role in future fire activity. Because of these complexities, projections of wildfire in future
decades in California range from modest changes from historical conditions to relatively large increases
in wildfire regimes depending on the time period for the projection and what interacting factors are
included in the analysis.
Public Health
Extreme heat conditions are defined as weather that is much hotter than average for a particular time
and place—and sometimes more humid, too. Extreme heat is not just a nuisance; it kills hundreds of
Americans every year and causes many more to become seriously ill (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2016). Nineteen heat-related events occurred from 1999 to 2009 that had significant impacts on
human health, resulting in about 11,000 excess hospitalizations. However, the National Weather Service
issued Heat Advisories for only six of the events. Heat-Health Events (HHEs), which better predict risk to
populations vulnerable to heat, will worsen drastically throughout the State: for example, by midcentury,
the Central Valley is projected to experience average HHEs that are two weeks longer, and HHEs could
occur four to ten times more often in the Northern Sierra region.
Higher temperatures are expected to increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of conditions
conducive to air pollution formation. Climate change poses direct and indirect risks to public health, as
people will experience earlier death and worsening illnesses. Air quality could be further compromised by
increases in wildfires, which emit fine particulate matter that can travel long distances depending on wind
conditions.
Energy Resources
Higher temperatures will increase annual electricity demand for homes, driven mainly by the increased
use of air conditioning units. High demand is projected in inland and Southern California, and more
moderate increases are projected in cooler coastal areas. However, the increased annual residential
energy demand for electricity is expected to be offset by reduced use of natural gas for space heating.
Increases in peak hourly demand during the hot months of the year could be more pronounced than
changes in annual demand. This is a critical finding for California’s electric system, because generating
capacity must match peak electricity demand.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
It should also be noted that with the electrification of vehicles, there will also be a significant increase in
residential energy use in the near future. Those increases are offset by the reduction of internal
combustion use.
Water Supply
A vast network of man-made reservoirs and aqueducts capture and transport water throughout the State
from northern California rivers and the Colorado River. The current distribution system relies on Sierra
Nevada snowpack to supply water during the dry spring and summer months. Rising temperatures,
potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, could severely reduce spring snowpack, increasing
the risk of summer water shortages.
The State’s water supplies are also at risk from rising sea levels. An influx of saltwater would degrade
California’s estuaries, wetlands, and groundwater aquifers. Saltwater intrusion caused by rising sea levels
is a major threat to the quality and reliability of water within the southern edge of the Sacramento/San
Joaquin River Delta, a major State fresh water supply.
Current management practices for water supply and flood management in California may need to be
revised for a changing climate. This is in part because such practices were designed for historical climatic
conditions, which are changing and will continue to change during the rest of this century and beyond. As
one example, the reduction in the Sierra Nevada snowpack, which provides natural water storage, will
have implications throughout California’s water management system. Even under the wetter climate
projections, the loss of snowpack would pose challenges to water managers, hamper hydropower
generation, and nearly eliminate all skiing and other snow-related recreational activities.
Agriculture
Increased GHG emissions are expected to cause widespread changes to the agriculture industry reducing
the quantity and quality of agricultural products Statewide. Although higher carbon dioxide levels can
stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency, California’s farmers will face greater
water demand for crops and a less reliable water supply as temperatures rise.
Plant growth tends to be slow at low temperatures, increasing with rising temperatures up to a threshold.
However, faster growth can result in less-than-optimal development for many crops, so rising
temperatures are likely to worsen the quantity and quality of yield for a number of California’s agricultural
products. Products likely to be most affected include wine grapes, fruits, and nuts, as well as milk due to
the reduced quality of grazing food such as alfalfa.
Crop growth and development will be affected, as will the intensity and frequency of pest and disease
outbreaks. Rising temperatures will likely aggravate ozone pollution, which makes plants more susceptible
to disease and pests and interferes with plant growth.
In addition, continued climate change will likely shift the ranges of existing invasive plants and weeds and
alter competition patterns with native plants. Range expansion is expected in many species while range
contractions are less likely in rapidly evolving species with significant populations already established.
Should range contractions occur, it is likely that new or different invasive species will fill the emerging
gaps. Continued global warming is also likely to alter the abundance and types of many pests, lengthen
pests’ breeding season, and increase pathogen growth rates.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Forests and Landscapes
Climate change will make forests more susceptible to extreme wildfires. California’s Fourth Climate
Change Assessment found that by 2100, if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, the frequency of
extreme wildfires burning over approximately 25,000 acres would increase by nearly 50 percent, and that
average area burned Statewide would increase by 77 percent by the end of the century. In the areas that
have the highest fire risk, wildfire insurance is estimated to see costs rise by 18 percent by 2055 and the
amount of property insured would decrease.
Moreover, continued global warming will alter natural ecosystems and biological diversity within the
State. For example, alpine and sub-alpine ecosystems are expected to decline by as much as 60 to 80
percent by the end of the century as a result of increasing temperatures. The productivity of the State’s
forests is also expected to decrease as a result of global warming.
Rising Sea Levels
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that, under mid to high sea-level rise scenarios, 31
to 67 percent of southern California beaches may completely erode by 2100 without large-scale human
interventions (USGS, 2017). Statewide damages could reach nearly $17.9 billion from inundation of
residential and commercial buildings under 50 centimeters (approximately 20 inches) of sea-level rise,
which is close to the 95th percentile of potential sea-level rise by the middle of this century. A 100-year
coastal flood, on top of this level of sea-level rise, would almost double the costs.
Rising sea levels, more intense coastal storms, and warmer water temperatures will increasingly threaten
the State’s coastal regions. Rising sea levels would inundate coastal areas with saltwater, accelerate
coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats.
5.7.3 REGULATORY SETTING
FEDERAL
Clean Air Act
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) was first signed into law in 1970. In 1977, and again in 1990, the law was
substantially amended. The FCAA is the foundation for a national air pollution control effort, and it is
composed of the following basic elements: National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for criteria air
pollutants, hazardous air pollutant standards, state attainment plans, motor vehicle emissions standards,
stationary source emissions standards and permits, acid rain control measures, stratospheric ozone
protection, and enforcement provisions.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for administering the FCAA. The FCAA
requires the EPA to set NAAQS for several problem air pollutants based on human health and welfare
criteria. Two types of NAAQS were established: primary standards, which protect public health, and
secondary standards, which protect the public welfare from non-health-related adverse effects such as
visibility reduction.
Energy Policy and Conservation Act
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 sought to ensure that all vehicles sold in the U.S. would
meet certain fuel economy goals. Through this Act, Congress established the first fuel economy standards
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
for on-road motor vehicles in the United States. Pursuant to the Act, the National Highway Traffic and
Safety Administration, which is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), is responsible for
establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards.
Compliance with federal fuel economy standards is determined on the basis of each manufacturer’s
average fuel economy for the portion of its vehicles produced for sale in the U.S. The Corporate Average
Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, which is administered by the EPA, was created to determine vehicle
manufacturers’ compliance with the fuel economy standards. The EPA calculates a CAFE value for each
manufacturer based on city and highway fuel economy test results and vehicle sales. Based on the
information generated under the CAFE program, the USDOT is authorized to assess penalties for
noncompliance.
Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct)
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) was passed to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign
petroleum and improve air quality. EPAct includes several parts intended to build an inventory of
alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) in large, centrally fueled fleets in metropolitan areas. EPAct requires
certain federal, state, and local government and private fleets to purchase a percentage of light duty AFVs
capable of running on alternative fuels each year. In addition, financial incentives are included in EPAct.
Federal tax deductions will be allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of
AFVs. States are also required by the act to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote AFVs.
Energy Policy Act of 2005
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was signed into law on August 8, 2005. Generally, the act provides for
renewed and expanded tax credits for electricity generated by qualified energy sources, such as landfill
gas; provides bond financing, tax incentives, grants, and loan guarantees for a clean renewable energy
and rural community electrification; and establishes a federal purchase requirement for renewable
energy.
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)
ISTEA (49 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq.) promoted the development of intermodal transportation systems to
maximize mobility as well as address national and local interests in air quality and energy. ISTEA contained
factors that metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), were to address in developing transportation
plans and programs, including some energy-related factors. To meet the ISTEA requirements, MPOs
adopted explicit policies defining the social, economic, energy, and environmental values that were to
guide transportation decisions in that metropolitan area. The planning process was then to address these
policies. Another requirement was to consider the consistency of transportation planning with federal,
state, and local energy goals. Through this requirement, energy consumption was expected to become a
criterion, along with cost and other values that determine the best transportation solution.
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) went into effect on December 4, 2015, to
provide long-term funding for surface transportation with a focus on improving mobility on America’s
highways, creating jobs and supporting economic growth, and accelerating project delivery and promoting
innovation.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
U.S. Federal Climate Change Policy
According to the EPA, “the United States government has established a comprehensive policy to address
climate change” that includes slowing the growth of emissions; strengthening science, technology, and
institutions; and enhancing international cooperation. To implement this policy, “the Federal government
is using voluntary and incentive-based programs to reduce emissions and has established programs to
promote climate technology and science.” The federal government’s goal is to reduce net GHG emissions
by 50-52 percent from 2005 levels in 2030 and reach net-zero emissions no later than 2050 (U.S.
Department of State, 2021). In addition, the EPA administers multiple programs that encourage voluntary
GHG reductions, including “ENERGY STAR”, “Climate Leaders”, and Methane Voluntary Programs.
However, as of this writing, there are no adopted federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws directly
regulating GHG emissions.
Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule
On September 22, 2009, EPA issued a final rule for mandatory reporting of GHGs from large GHG emissions
sources in the United States. In general, this national reporting requirement will provide EPA with accurate
and timely GHG emissions data from facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 per year. This
publicly available data will allow the reporters to track their own emissions, compare them to similar
facilities, and aid in identifying cost effective opportunities to reduce emissions in the future. Reporting is
at the facility level, except that certain suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial greenhouse gases along with
vehicle and engine manufacturers will report at the corporate level. An estimated 85 percent of the total
U.S. GHG emissions, from approximately 10,000 facilities, are covered by this final rule.
STATE
Warren-Alquist Act
The 1975 Warren-Alquist Act established the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development
Commission, now known as California Energy Commission (CEC). The Act established State policy to
reduce wasteful, uneconomical, and unnecessary uses of energy by employing a range of measures. The
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates privately-owned utilities in the energy, rail,
telecommunications, and water fields.
Energy Action Plan
The first Energy Action Plan (EAP) emerged in 2003 from a crisis atmosphere in California’s energy
markets. The State’s three major energy policy agencies (CEC, CPUC, and the Consumer Power and
Conservation Financing Authority [established under deregulation and now defunct]) came together to
develop one high-level, coherent approach to meeting California’s electricity and natural gas needs. It was
the first time that energy policy agencies formally collaborated to define a common vision and set of
strategies to address California’s future energy needs and emphasize the importance of the impacts of
energy policy on the California environment.
In the October 2005 Energy Action Plan II, CEC and CPUC updated their energy policy vision by adding
some important dimensions to the policy areas included in the original EAP, such as the emerging
importance of climate change, transportation-related energy issues, and research and development
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
activities. The CEC adopted an update to the EAP II in February 2008 that supplements the earlier EAPs
and examines the State’s ongoing actions in the context of global climate change.
Assembly Bill 1493
In response to AB 1493, CARB approved amendments to the California Code of Regulations (CCR) adding
GHG emission standards to California’s existing motor vehicle emission standards. Amendments to CCR
Title 13 Sections 1900 (CCR 13 1900) and 1961 (CCR 13 1961), and adoption of Section 1961.1 (CCR 13
1961.1) require automobile manufacturers to meet fleet average GHG emission limits for all passenger
cars, light-duty trucks within various weight criteria, and medium-duty passenger vehicle weight classes
beginning with the 2009 model year. Emission limits are further reduced each model year through 2016.
For passenger cars and light-duty trucks 3,750 pounds or less loaded vehicle weight (LVW), the 2016 GHG
emission limits are approximately 37 percent lower than during the first year of the regulations in 2009.
For medium-duty passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks 3,751 LVW to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle
weight (GVW), GHG emissions are reduced approximately 24 percent between 2009 and 2016.
CARB requested a waiver of federal preemption of California’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards. The
intent of the waiver is to allow California to enact emissions standards to reduce carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles in accordance with the regulation amendments to the CCRs
that fulfill the requirements of AB 1493. The EPA granted a waiver to California to implement its
greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars.
Assembly Bill 1007
Assembly Bill 1007, (Pavley, Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) directed the CEC to prepare a plan to increase
the use of alternative fuels in California. As a result, the CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan in
consultation with the State, federal, and local agencies. The plan presents strategies and actions California
must take to increase the use of alternative non-petroleum fuels in a manner that minimizes costs to
California and maximizes the economic benefits of in-State production. The Plan assessed various
alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum
consumption, increase alternative fuels use, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase in-State
production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation of public health and environmental
quality.
Bioenergy Action Plan – Executive Order #S-06-06
Executive Order (EO) #S-06-06 establishes targets for the use and production of biofuels and biopower
and directs State agencies to work together to advance biomass programs in California while providing
environmental protection and mitigation. The EO establishes the following target to increase the
production and use of bioenergy, including ethanol and biodiesel fuels made from renewable resources:
produce a minimum of 20 percent of its biofuels within California by 2010, 40 percent by 2020, and 75
percent by 2050. The EO also calls for the State to meet a target for use of biomass electricity.
California Executive Orders S-3-05 and S-20-06, and Assembly Bill 32
On June 1, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed EO S-3-05. The goal of this EO is to reduce California’s
GHG emissions to: 1) 2000 levels by 2010, 2) 1990 levels by the 2020 and 3) 80 percent below the 1990
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
levels by the year 2050. EO-S-20-06 establishes responsibilities and roles of the Secretary of Cal/EPA and
State agencies in climate change.
In 2006, this goal was further reinforced with the passage of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 sets the same overall GHG emissions reduction goals while further mandating
that CARB create a plan, which includes market mechanisms, and implement rules to achieve “real,
quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases.” EO S-20-06 further directs State agencies to
begin implementing AB 32, including the recommendations made by the State’s Climate Action Team.
Executive Order S-13-08
EO S-13-08 was issued on November 14, 2008. The EO is intended to hasten California’s response to the
impacts of global climate change, particularly sea level rise, and directs State agencies to take specified
actions to assess and plan for such impacts, including requesting the National Academy of Sciences to
prepare a Sea Level Rise Assessment Report, directing the Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency
to assess the vulnerability of the State’s transportation systems to sea level rise, and requiring the Office
of Planning and Research and the Natural Resources Agency to provide land use planning guidance related
to sea level rise and other climate change impacts.
The order also required State agencies to develop adaptation strategies to respond to the impacts of
global climate change that are predicted to occur over the next 50 to 100 years. The adaption strategies
report summarizes key climate change impacts to the State for the following areas: public health; ocean
and coastal resources; water supply and flood protection; agriculture; forestry; biodiversity and habitat;
and transportation and energy infrastructure. The report recommends strategies and specific
responsibilities related to water supply, planning and land use, public health, fire protection, and energy
conservation.
Assembly Bill 32 - Climate Change Scoping Plan
On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted its Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan), which functions as
a roadmap of CARB’s plans to achieve GHG reductions in California required by Assembly Bill (AB) 32
through subsequently enacted regulations. The Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will
implement to reduce carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e) emissions by 169 million metric tons (MMT), or
approximately 30 percent, from the State’s projected 2020 emissions level of 596 MMT of CO2e under a
business‐as‐usual scenario. (This is a reduction of 42 MMT CO2e, or almost 10 percent, from 2002–2004
average emissions, but requires the reductions in the face of population and economic growth through
2020.) The Scoping Plan also breaks down the amount of GHG emissions reductions CARB recommends
for each emissions sector of the State’s GHG inventory. The Scoping Plan calls for the largest reductions
in GHG emissions to be achieved by implementing the following measures and standards:
• Improved emissions standards for light-duty vehicles (estimated reductions of 31.7 MMT CO2e);
• The Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (15.0 MMT CO2e);
• Energy efficiency measures in buildings and appliances and the widespread development of
combined heat and power systems (26.3 MMT CO2e); and
• A renewable portfolio standard for electricity production (21.3 MMT CO2e).
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CARB updated the Scoping Plan in 2013 (First Update to the Scoping Plan) and again in 2017. The 2013
Update built upon the initial Scoping Plan with new strategies and recommendations, and also set the
groundwork to reach the long-term goals set forth by the State. Successful implementation of existing
programs (as identified in previous iterations of the Scoping Plan) has allowed California to meet the 2020
target. The 2017 Update expands the scope of the plan further by focusing on the strategy for achieving
the State’s 2030 GHG target of 40 percent emissions reductions below 1990 levels (to achieve the target
codified into law by SB 32), and substantially advances toward the State’s 2050 climate goal to reduce
GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels.
The 2017 Update relies on the preexisting programs paired with an extended, more stringent Cap-and-
Trade Program, to deliver climate, air quality, and other benefits. The 2017 Update identifies new
technologically feasible and cost-effective strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction
goals.
CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan Update (2022 Scoping Plan) on December 15, 2022. The 2022
Scoping Plan Update assesses progress towards the SB 32 GHG reduction target of at least 40 percent
below 1990 emissions by 2030, while laying out a path to achieving carbon neutrality no later than 2045
and a reduction in anthropogenic emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels.
Senate Bill 32
Senate Bill 32, which passed into law in 2016, sets the target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 40
percent below the 1990 level by the year 2030. SB 32 extends the original set of greenhouse gas targets
provided by the passage of AB 32 (the Global Warmings Solutions Act of 2006). This new target sets an
aggressive goalpost, helping the State along its pathway to achieve its longer-term goal of an 80 percent
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050.
Senate Bill 743
On September 27, 2013, Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed into law. SB 743 was passed to promote the
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a
diversity of land uses. SB 743 changes the way that public agencies evaluate the transportation impacts
of projects under CEQA. The revisions to the State CEQA Guidelines establish new criteria for determining
the significance of a project’s transportation impacts that will more appropriately balance the needs of
congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health
through active transportation, and reduction of GHGs. The 2017 Update to the Scoping Plan identified
that slower VMT growth from more efficient land use development patterns would promote achievement
of the State’s climate goals.
The Office of Planning and Research (OPR) published the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation
Impacts in CEQA (December 2018) to provide recommendations for jurisdictions to apply VMT metrics
and thresholds compliant with SB 743. OPR’s advisory includes recommendations pertaining to screening
criteria, metrics, and significant impact thresholds. OPR’s recommendations are not binding and lead
agencies ultimately have the discretion to set or apply their own significance thresholds, provided they
are based on significant evidence.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-11 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
For land use and transportation projects, SB 743-compliant CEQA analysis became mandatory on July 1,
2020. More detail about SB 743 is provided in the setting section of Section 5.14, Transportation.
Executive Order B-48-18: Zero-Emission Vehicles
In January 2018, EO B-48-18 was signed into law and requires all State entities to work with the private
sector to have at least five million zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) on the road by 2030, as well as install 200
hydrogen fueling stations and 250,000 electric vehicle charging stations by 2025. It specifies that 10,000
of the electric vehicle charging stations should be direct current fast chargers. This Executive Order also
requires all State entities to continue to partner with local and regional governments to streamline the
installation of ZEV infrastructure. The Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development is
required to publish a Plug-in Charging Station Design Guidebook and update the 2015 Hydrogen Station
Permitting Guidebook to aid in these efforts. All State entities are required to participate in updating the
2016 Zero-Emissions Vehicle Action Plan (Governor’s Interagency Working Group on Zero-Emission
Vehicles 2016) to help expand private investment in ZEV infrastructure with a focus on serving low-income
and disadvantaged communities. Additionally, all State entities are to support and recommend policies
and actions to expand ZEV infrastructure at residential uses through the Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Program, and recommend how to ensure affordability and accessibility for all drivers.
Assembly Bill 2076: California Strategy to Reduce Petroleum Dependence
In response to the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 2076 (Chapter 936, Statutes of 2000), the CEC and
CARB developed a strategy to reduce petroleum dependence in California. The strategy, Reducing
California’s Petroleum Dependence, was adopted by the CEC and CARB in 2003. The strategy recommends
that California reduce on-road gasoline and diesel fuel demand to 15 percent below 2003 demand levels
by 2020 and maintain that level for the foreseeable future; the Governor and Legislature work to establish
national fuel economy standards that double the fuel efficiency of new cars, light trucks, and sport utility
vehicles (SUVs); and increase the use of non-petroleum fuels to 20 percent of on-road fuel consumption
by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030.
Assembly Bill 2188: Solar Permitting Efficiency Act
Assembly Bill (AB) 2188, enacted in California in 2015, required local governments to adopt a solar
ordinance by September 30, 2015 that creates a streamlined permitting process that conforms to the best
practices for expeditious and efficient permitting of small residential rooftop solar systems. The act is
designed to lower the cost of solar installations in California and further expand the accessibility of solar
to more California homeowners. The bulk of the time and cost savings associated with a streamlined
permitting process comes from the use of a standardized eligibility checklist and a simplified plan. This bill
also shortens the number of days for those seeking Homeowner’s Association (HOA) approval for a written
denial of a proposed solar installation.
Governor’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (Executive Order #S-01-07)
Executive Order #S-01-07 establishes a statewide goal to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s
transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020 through establishment of a Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
The Low Carbon Fuel Standard is incorporated into the State Alternative Fuels Plan and is one of the
proposed discrete early action GHG reduction measures identified by the CARB pursuant to AB 32.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Senate Bill 97
Senate Bill (SB) 97 (Chapter 185, 2007) required OPR to develop recommended amendments to the State
CEQA Guidelines for addressing greenhouse gas emissions. OPR prepared its recommended amendments
to the State CEQA Guidelines to provide guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation
of greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of greenhouse gas emissions in draft CEQA documents. The
Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010.
Senate Bill 375
SB 375 (Stats. 2008, ch. 728) (SB 375) was built on AB 32 (California’s 2006 climate change law). SB 375’s
core provision is a requirement for regional transportation agencies to develop a Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS) in order to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles. The SCS is one
component of the existing Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
The SCS outlines the region’s plan for combining transportation resources, such as roads and mass transit,
with a realistic land use pattern, in order to meet a State target for reducing GHG emissions. The strategy
must take into account the region’s housing needs, transportation demands, and protection of resource
and farmlands.
Additionally, SB 375 modified the State’s Housing Element Law to achieve consistency between the land
use pattern outlined in the SCS and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation. The legislation
also substantially improved cities’ and counties’ accountability for carrying out their housing element
plans.
Finally, SB 375 amended CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) to ease the environmental
review of developments that help reduce the growth of GHG emissions.
Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, Governor Brown issued EO B-30-15, which establishes a State GHG reduction target of
40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The new emission reduction target provides for a mid-term goal
that would help the State to continue on course from reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (per
AB 32) to the ultimate goal of reducing emissions 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050 (per EO S-03-05).
This is in line with the scientifically established levels needed in the U.S. to limit global warming below
two degrees Celsius – the warming threshold at which scientists say there will likely be major climate
disruptions. EO B-30-15 also addresses the need for climate adaptation and directs State government to:
• Incorporate climate change impacts into the State’s Five-Year Infrastructure Plan;
• Update the Safeguarding California Plan, the State climate adaptation strategy, to identify how
climate change will affect California infrastructure and industry and what actions the State can
take to reduce the risks posed by climate change;
• Factor climate change into State agencies' planning and investment decisions; and
• Implement measures under existing agency and departmental authority to reduce GHG
emissions.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-13 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Advanced Clean Cars Program
In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program which combines the control of GHG
emissions and criteria air pollutants, as well as requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission
vehicles, into a single package of standards for vehicle model years 2017 through 2025. The new rules
strengthen the GHG standard for 2017 models and beyond. This will be achieved through existing
technologies, the use of stronger and lighter materials, and more efficient drivetrains and engines. The
program’s zero-emission vehicle regulation requires battery, fuel cell, and/or plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles to account for up to 15 percent of California’s new vehicle sales by 2025. The program also
includes a clean fuels outlet regulation designed to support the commercialization of zero-emission
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles planned by vehicle manufacturers by 2015 by requiring increased numbers of
hydrogen fueling stations throughout the State. The program will have significant energy demand
implications as battery, fuel cell, and/or plug-in hybrid electric vehicle sales increase overtime, creating
new demand for electricity services both in residential and commercial buildings (e.g., charging stations)
as well as demand for new EV and hydrogen fuel cell charging stations. The number of stations will grow
as vehicle manufacturers sell more fuel cell vehicles. According to the CARB, by 2025, when the rules will
be fully implemented, the Statewide fleet of new cars and light trucks will emit 34 percent fewer global
warming gases and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions than the Statewide fleet in 2016.
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards
Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations, known as the Building Energy Efficiency Standards
(Standards), was established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy
consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation
of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. On January 1, 2010, the California Building Standards
Commission adopted CALGreen and became the first state in the United States to adopt a statewide green
building standards code.
The 2019 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings
(California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6), commonly referred to as “Title 24,” became effective on
January 1, 2020. In general, Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to
conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible
incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. Under 2019 Title 24 standards,
residential buildings will use about 53 percent less energy (mainly due to the requirement for new homes
to provide solar photovoltaic panels and lighting upgrades) when compared to those constructed under
2016 Title 24 standards. The 2019 Title 24 standards require installation of energy efficient windows,
insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, rooftop solar panels, and other features that reduce energy
consumption in homes and businesses.
California Green Building Standards (CALGreen)
The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11),
commonly referred to as CALGreen, went into effect on January 1, 2023. CALGreen is the first-in-the-
nation mandatory green buildings standards code. The California Building Standards Commission
developed CALGreen in an effort to meet the State’s landmark initiative Assembly Bill (AB) 32 goals, which
established a comprehensive program of cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to
1990 levels by 2020. CALGreen was developed to (1) reduce GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-14 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
environmentally responsible, cost-effective, and healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and
water consumption; and (4) respond to the environmental directives of the administration. CALGreen
requires that new buildings employ water efficiency and conservation, increase building system
efficiencies (e.g. lighting, heating/ventilation and air conditioning [HVAC], and plumbing fixtures), divert
construction waste from landfills, and incorporate electric vehicles charging infrastructure. There is
growing recognition among developers and retailers that sustainable construction is not prohibitively
expensive, and that there is a significant cost-savings potential in green building practices and materials
(U.S. Green Building Council, 2022).
Executive Order B-55-18
EO B-55-18, issued by Governor Brown in September 2018, establishes a statewide goal to achieve carbon
neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net-negative emissions
thereafter. The goal is an addition to the existing Statewide targets of reducing the State’s GHG emissions.
Senate Bill 1078 (2002), Senate Bill 107 (2006), Executive Order S-14-08 (2008), Senate Bill 350 (2015), and
Senate Bill 100 (2018)
SB 1078 established the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) program, which required retail sellers of
electricity to provide at least 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by 2017. This goal has
subsequently been accelerated several times. SB 107 changed the target date to 2010 and Executive Order
S-14-08 expanded the State’s RPS to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. SB 350 expanded the RPS by
requiring retail seller and publicly owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from eligible
renewable energy resources by 2030, with interim goals of 40 percent by 2024 and 45 percent by 2027.
SB 100 accelerated and expanded the standards set forth in SB 350 by updating the RPS program to 50
percent eligible renewable energy resources by 2025 and 60 percent by 2030. In addition, SB 100 sets a
100 percent clean, zero carbon, and renewable energy policy for California’s electricity system by 2045.
Assembly Bill 939, Assembly Bill 341, and Assembly Bill 1826
The Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) (California Public Resources Code Section
40050 et seq.) established an integrated waste management system that focuses on source reduction,
recycling, composting, and land disposal of waste. AB 939 requires every city and county in California to
divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills whether through waste reduction, recycling, or other means.
AB 341, which took effect on July 1, 2012, amended the California Integrated Waste Management Act of
1989 to set California’s recycling goal of 75 percent by the year 2020. AB 1826 requires recycling of organic
matter by businesses generating such wastes in amounts over certain thresholds. AB 1826 also requires
that local jurisdictions implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated
by businesses and multi-family developments that consist of five or more units.
Senate Bill 1383
SB 1383, issued by Governor Brown in September 2016, set Statewide methane emissions reduction
targets to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. The targets must reduce organic waste
disposal 75 percent by 2025, and rescue at least 20 percent of currently disposed surplus food by 2025.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-15 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Senate Bill 379
In 2015, SB 379 revised California Government Code Section 65302 et seq. to require that cities and
counties update their safety elements to address climate adaptation and resiliency strategies applicable
to their jurisdiction. The updates are required at the next update of their local hazard mitigation plan
(LHMP) on or after January 1, 2017. Local jurisdictions without an LHMP must update their safety elements
beginning on or before January 1, 2022. The safety element update must include a vulnerability
assessment identifying the risks that climate change poses to the local jurisdiction, and feasible
implementation strategies to protect the community.
Assembly Bill 1279
Assembly Bill 1279, passed in 2022, declares the State’s objective to achieve net zero greenhouse gas
emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and to achieve and maintain net negative
greenhouse gas emissions thereafter. This is in addition to, and does not replace or supersede, Statewide
greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.
LOCAL
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted a Policy on Global Warming and
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion in April 1990. The policy commits the SCAQMD to consider global impacts
in rulemaking and in drafting revisions to the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). In March 1992, the
SCAQMD Governing Board reaffirmed this policy and adopted amendments to the policy to include the
following directives:
• Phase out the use and corresponding emissions of CFCs, methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane
or TCA), carbon tetrachloride, and halons by December 1995;
• Phase out the large quantity use and corresponding emissions of HCFCs by the year 2000;
• Develop recycling regulations for HCFCs (e.g., SCAQMD Rules 1411 and 1415);
• Develop an emissions inventory and control strategy for methyl bromide; and
• Support the adoption of a California GHG emission reduction goal.
The legislative and regulatory activity detailed above is expected to require significant development and
implementation of energy efficient technologies and shifting of energy production to renewable sources.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)
SCAG is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the region in which the City of Fontana is
located. In 2020, SCAG adopted Connect SoCal, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, which is an update to the previous
2016 RTP/SCS. The 2020 RTP/SCS considers the role of transportation in the broader context of economic,
environmental, and quality-of-life goals for the future, identifying regional transportation strategies to
address mobility needs. The 2020 RTP/SCS describes how the region can attain the GHG emission-
reduction targets set by CARB by achieving a 19 percent reduction by 2035 compared to the 2005 level.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-16 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS builds on the land use policies that were incorporated into the 2016 RTP/SCS, and
provides specific strategies for successful implementation. These strategies include implementing the
Sustainable Communities Program (SCP) – Housing and Sustainable Development (HSD) which will both
accelerate housing production as well as enable implementation of the Sustainable Communities Strategy
of Connect SoCal; encouraging use of active transportation, or human powered transportation such as
bicycles, tricycles, wheelchairs, electric wheelchairs/scooters, skates, and skateboards; and supporting
alternative fueled vehicles. The 2020 RTP/SCS overall land use pattern reinforces the trend of focusing
new housing and employment in infill areas well served by transit.
In addition, the 2020 RTP/SCS includes goals and strategies to promote active transportation and improve
transportation demand management (TDM). The 2020 RTP/SCS strategies support local planning and
projects that serve short trips, increase access to transit, expand understanding and consideration of
public health in the development of local plans and projects, and support improvements in sidewalk
quality, local bike networks, and neighborhood mobility areas. The 2020 RTP/SCS proposes to better align
active transportation investments with land use and transportation strategies, increase competitiveness
of local agencies for federal and State funding, and to expand the potential for all people to use active
transportation.
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce potential greenhouse gas
emissions. Chapter 4, Community and Neighborhoods, Chapter 6, Building a Healthier Fontana, Chapter
9, Community Mobility and Circulation, Chapter 10, Infrastructure and Green Systems, and Chapter 12,
Sustainability and Resilience, contain the following goals and policies potentially relevant to the proposed
Project:
Chapter 4 – Community and Neighborhoods
• Goal 5: New housing developments provide walkable neighborhoods with mixed-use amenities
and connections to citywide destinations.
o Policy: Support regulations that promote creation of compact and walkable urban village-
style design in new developments.
• Goal 6: The safe, attractive, and lively central area of the city has new infill development and
infrastructure and public improvements.
o Policy: Support revitalization of the central area of the city with an integrated approach
including mixed-use development, infill housing, infrastructure improvements,
interconnections, and placemaking programs.
Chapter 6 – Building a Healthier Fontana
• Goal 1: The average lifespan in Fontana is consistently within the top ten of all southern California
cities.
o Policy: Continue economic development efforts to develop a greater number and range
of jobs in Fontana so as to reduce residents’ need to commute out of the City.
o Policy: Support transit efforts that reduce residents’ need for automobile-based travel.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-17 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Chapter 9 – Community Mobility and Circulation
• Goal 1: The City of Fontana has a comprehensive and balanced transportation system with safety
and multimodal accessibility the top priority of citywide transportation planning, as well as
accommodating freight movement.
o Policy: Make land use decisions that support walking, bicycling, and public transit use, in
alignment with the 2014-2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable
Communities Strategy.
• Goal 3: Local transit within the City of Fontana is a viable choice for residents, easily accessible
and serving destinations throughout the city.
o Policy: Maximize the accessibility, safety, convenience, and appeal of transit service and
transit stops.
o Policy: Promote concentrated development patterns in coordination with transit
planning to maximize service efficiency and ridership.
• Goal 5: Fontana’s commercial and mixed-use areas include a multifunctional street network that
ensures a safe, comfortable, and efficient movement of people, goods, and services to support a
high quality of life and economic vitality.
o Policy: Provide a transportation network that is compatible with the needs of commerce
and those who live, work and shop in mixed-use areas.
o Policy: Encourage mixed use and commercial developments that support walking,
bicycling, and public transit use while balancing the needs of motorized traffic to serve
such developments.
• Goal 7: The city of Fontana participates in shaping regional transportation policies to reduce traffic
congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.
o Policy: Lead and participate in initiatives to manage regional traffic.
o Policy: Coordinate with regional agencies and Caltrans to participate in regional efforts to
maintain transportation infrastructure in Fontana.
o Policy: Participate in the efforts of the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) to coordinate transportation planning and services that support greenhouse gas
reductions.
o Policy: Participate in the efforts by Caltrans to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow
on area freeways.
Chapter 10 – Infrastructure and Green Systems
• Goal 7: Fontana is an energy efficient community.
o Policy: Promote renewable energy and distributed energy systems in new development
and retrofits of existing development to work towards the highest levels of low-carbon
energy-efficiency.
• Goal 10: Fontana uses the ENVISION rating system to evaluate infrastructure options and
potential social, environmental and economic impacts.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-18 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
o Policy: Support use of the ENVISION system to make Fontana projects as cost-effective
and beneficial as possible.
Chapter 12 – Sustainability and Resilience
• Goal 1: Fontana is a regional leader in sustainability and resilience with an effective “Sustainable
Fontana” program.
o Policy: Create a Sustainable Fontana program that promotes green practices in
government and in the community.
• Goal 2: Government facilities and operations are models of resource efficiency.
o Policy: Incorporate goals into the City Code for resource efficiency in municipal facilities
and operations.
o Policy: Continue organizational and operational improvements to maximize energy and
resource efficiency and reduce waste.
• Goal 3: Renewable sources of energy, including solar and wind, and other energy-conservation
strategies are available to city households and businesses.
o Policy: Promote renewable energy programs for government, Fontana businesses, and
Fontana residences.
• Goal 4: Fontana meets the greenhouse gas reduction goals for 2030 and subsequent goals set by
the state.
o Continue to collaborate with SBCTA, infrastructure agencies, and utilities on greenhouse
gas reduction studies and goals.
• Goal 5: Green building techniques are used in new development and retrofits.
o Policy: Fontana is a leader energy-efficient development and retrofits.
• Goal 6: Fontana is a leader energy-efficient development and retrofits.
o Policy: Promote energy-efficient development in Fontana.
o Policy: Meet or exceed state goals for energy-efficient new construction.
City of Fontana Active Transportation Plan
The City of Fontana Active Transportation Plan (ATP) provides a framework to enable residents and visitors
of Fontana to engage in healthier activities and more sustainable living to support Statewide and active
transportation goals. Objective 1A of the ATP calls for a reduction in the City’s VMT by four percent by
2035.
5.7.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Initial Study
Environmental Checklist, which includes questions related to greenhouse gas emissions and climate
change-related impacts. A project would result in a significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions
if it would:
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-19 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment (refer to Impact Statement 5.7-1); and/or
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases (refer to Impact Statement 5.7-2).
Based on these standards and significance thresholds and criteria, the Project’s effects have been
categorized as either “no impact,” a “less than significant impact,” or a “potentially significant impact.”
Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant
impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant impact through the application of mitigation, it is
categorized as a “significant unavoidable impact.”
ANALYSIS APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
Cumulative impacts are the collective impacts of one or more past, present, and future projects that,
when combined, result in adverse changes to the environment. In determining the significance of a
project’s contribution to anticipated adverse future conditions, a lead agency should generally undertake
a two‐step analysis. The first question is whether the combined effects from both the proposed Project
and other projects would be cumulatively significant. If the agency answers this inquiry in the affirmative,
the second question is whether “the project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable” and thus
significant in and of themselves. The cumulative global project list for this issue (climate change)
comprises anthropogenic (i.e., human-made) GHG emissions sources across the globe. No project alone
would reasonably be expected to contribute to a noticeable incremental change to the global climate, but
rather effects are shown to be caused by the cumulative emissions from across the globe. However,
legislation and executive orders on the subject of climate change in California have established a
Statewide context and process for developing an enforceable Statewide cap on GHG emissions. Given the
nature of environmental consequences from GHGs and global climate change, CEQA requires that lead
agencies consider evaluating the cumulative impacts of GHGs. Small contributions to this cumulative
impact (from which significant effects are occurring and are expected to worsen over time) may be
potentially considerable and, therefore, significant.
South Coast Air Quality Management District Developed Thresholds
SCAQMD is the agency responsible for air quality planning and regulation in the SCAB. SCAQMD addresses
the impacts to climate change of projects subject to SCAQMD permit as a lead agency if they are the only
agency having discretionary approval for the project and acts as a responsible agency when a land use
agency must also approve discretionary permits for the project. SCAQMD acts as an expert commenting
agency for impacts to air quality. This expertise carries over to GHG emissions, so the agency helps local
land use agencies through the development of models and emission thresholds that can be used to
address GHG emissions.
In 2008, SCAQMD formed a Working Group to identify GHG emissions thresholds for land use projects
that could be used by local lead agencies in the SCAB. The Working Group developed several different
options that are contained in the SCAQMD Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA GHG Significance
Threshold, that could be applied by lead agencies. The working group has not provided additional
guidance since release of the interim guidance in 2008 and the subsequent Working Group meetings
(latest of which occurred in 2010). The SCAQMD Board has not approved the thresholds; however, the
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-20 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Guidance Document provides substantial evidence supporting the approaches to significance of GHG
emissions that can be considered by the lead agency in adopting its own threshold.
Specifically, while estimated Project-related GHG emissions can be calculated, the direct impacts of such
emissions on global climate change (GCC) and global warming cannot be determined on the basis of
available science because GCC is a global phenomenon and not limited to a specific locale such as the
Project Area and its immediate vicinity. Furthermore, there is no evidence that would indicate that the
emissions from a project the size of the proposed Project could directly or indirectly affect the global
climate. Because global climate change is the result of GHG emissions, and GHGs are emitted by
innumerable sources worldwide, the proposed Project would not result in a direct impact to global climate
change; rather, Project-related impacts to global climate change only could be potentially significant on a
cumulative basis. Therefore, the analysis below focuses on the Project’s potential to contribute to global
climate change in a cumulatively considerable way.
The City of Fontana does not have an adopted threshold of significance for GHG emissions but, for CEQA
purposes, it has discretion to select an appropriate significance criterion based on substantial evidence.
To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA
documents, the SCAQMD Board developed an Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold of 3,000 metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) emissions per year. The City has selected this value as a
significance criterion which has been supported by substantial evidence.
The 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold is based on a 90 percent emission “capture” rate methodology.
Prior to its use by the SCAQMD, the 90 percent emissions capture approach was one of the options
suggested by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in their CEQA & Climate
Change white paper (2008). A 90 percent emission capture rate means that unmitigated GHG emissions
from the top 90 percent of all GHG-producing projects within a geographic area – the SCAB in this instance
– would be subject to a detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts from GHG emissions, while
the bottom 10 percent of all GHG-producing projects would be excluded from detailed analysis. A GHG
significance threshold based on a 90 percent emission capture rate is appropriate to address the long-
term adverse impacts associated with global climate change because medium and large projects will be
required to implement measures to reduce GHG emissions, while small projects, which are generally infill
development projects that are not the focus of the State’s GHG reduction targets, are allowed to proceed.
Further, a 90 percent emission capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a
substantial proportion of future development projects and demonstrate that cumulative emissions
reductions are being achieved while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects
that will, in aggregate, contribute approximate 1 percent of projected statewide GHG emissions in the
Year 2050 (SCAQMD, 2008).
In setting the threshold at 3,000 MTCO2e per year, SCAQMD researched a database of projects kept by
the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). That database contained 798 projects, 87 of which
were removed because they were very large projects and/or outliers that would skew emissions values
too high, leaving 711 as the sample population to use in determining the 90th percentile capture rate.
The SCAQMD analysis of the 711 projects within the sample population combined commercial, residential,
and mixed-use projects. It should be noted that the sample of projects included warehouses and other
light industrial land uses but did not include industrial processes (i.e., oil refineries, heavy manufacturing,
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-21 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
electric generating stations, mining operations, etc.). Emissions from each of these projects were
calculated by SCAQMD to provide a consistent method of emissions calculations across the sample
population and from projects within the sample population. In calculating the emissions, the SCAQMD
analysis determined that the 90th percentile ranged between 2,983 to 3,143 MTCO2e per year. The
SCAQMD set their significance threshold at the low-end value of the range when rounded to the nearest
hundred tons of emissions (i.e., 3,000 MTCO2e per year) to define small projects that are considered less
than significant and do not need to provide further analysis.
The City understands that the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold was proposed by SCAQMD a decade ago;
however, no permanent, superseding policy or threshold has since been adopted. The 3,000 MTCO2e per
year threshold was developed and recommended by SCAQMD, an expert agency, based on substantial
evidence as provided in the Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance
Threshold (2008) document and subsequent Working Group meetings (latest of which occurred in 2010).
SCAQMD has not withdrawn its support of the interim threshold and all documentation supporting the
interim threshold remains on the SCAQMD website on a page that provides guidance to CEQA
practitioners for air quality analysis (and where all SCAQMD significance thresholds for regional and local
criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants also are listed). Further, as stated by SCAQMD, this threshold
“uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal [80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050] as the basis for deriving the
screening level” and, thus, remains valid for use in 2023 (SCAQMD, 2008, pp. 3-4). Lastly, this threshold
has been used for hundreds, if not thousands of GHG analyses performed for projects located within the
SCAQMD jurisdiction.
Thus, for purposes of analysis in this EIR, if Project-related GHG emissions do not exceed the 3,000
MTCO2e per year threshold, then Project-related GHG emissions would clearly have a less-than-significant
impact. On the other hand, if Project-related GHG emissions exceed 3,000 MTCO2e per year, the Project
would be considered a potentially significant source of GHG emissions.
Consistency with Relevant Planning Documents
The City of Fontana does not have an adopted Climate Action Plan, or other qualified GHG Reduction
Strategy. However, the proposed Project has also been analyzed herein for its consistency with relevant
regional planning documents relating to GHGs, which include the CARB’s most recent Scoping Plan, the
2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan), and the most recent version of
the regional RTP/SCS, the SCAG’s Connect SoCal (2020 – 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy [2020 RTP/SCS]).
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-22 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
5.7.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 5.7-1: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Impact 5.7-2: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Impact Analysis:
Construction Emissions
Potential future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project would generate
GHGs during the construction and operational phases of the Project. The proposed Project’s primary
source of construction-related GHGs would result from emissions of CO2 associated with individual
development projects’ construction and worker vehicle trips; refer to Table 5.7-1, Construction GHG
Emissions (Metric Tons/Year). Additionally, site-specific development would likely require limited
demolition and grading, and would also include site preparation, paving building construction, and
architectural coating phases. Construction was assumed to occur starting in year 2023 and ending in year
2040. Since specific development projects are not currently proposed, default parameters were used for
construction activities except for the building and architectural phases, which were adjusted for the
buildout year of 2040. See Appendix C, Air Quality, Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Data,
for more detail.
Table 5.7-1
Construction GHG Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)
Year Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Maximum 0 13,139.6 13,139.6 0.6 0.7 13,362.3
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0
As shown in Table 5.7-1, Project construction-related activities would generate a maximum of
approximately 13,362 MTCO2e of GHG emissions in a single year. Total GHG emissions construction-
related activities would be approximately 196,390, over the entire course of construction (assumed to
start in year 2023 and end in year 2040). See Appendix C, Air Quality, Energy and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Modeling Data, for more detail. Once construction is complete, the generation of construction-
related GHG emissions would cease.
Operational Emissions
The operational phase of future development associated with implementation of the proposed Project
would generate GHGs primarily from the individual development’s operational vehicle trips and building
energy (electricity and natural gas) usage; refer to Table 5.7-2, Operational GHG Emissions 2040 (Metric
Tons/Year). Other sources of GHG emissions would be minimal. Refer to Section 5.2, Air Quality, of this
EIR for further detail regarding additional mitigation measures that could reduce GHG emissions.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-23 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 5.7-2
Operational GHG Emissions 2040 (Metric Tons/Year)
Category Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Area 0 150 150 0.1 0 153.6
Energy 0 19,631.3 19,631.3 1.2 0.3 19,738.4
Mobile 0 25,749.8 25,749.8 1.7 1.5 26,250.6
Waste 1,648.9 0 1,648.9 97.4 0 4,085.1
Water 255.1 2,847.6 3,102.7 26.4 0.6 3,956.7
Total 1,904 48,378.7 50,282.7 126.9 2.4 54,184.4
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0
As shown in Table 5.7-2, Project operational GHG emissions would total approximately 54,184 MTCO2e
annually, and combined with construction-related GHG emissions, would total approximately 54,629
MTCO2e annually. Therefore, the proposed Project would exceed the SCAQMD’s proposed GHG threshold
of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for residential and commercial land uses. Thus, the Project has the potential to
result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to GHG emissions.
The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce GHG emissions. In addition, future
development associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be required to implement
General Plan EIR mitigation measure MM-GHG-1 (incorporated herein as Mitigation Measure GHG-1), in
which future development projects must demonstrate the incorporation of design features that achieve
a minimum 28.5 percent reduction in GHG emissions from non-mobile sources. The proposed Project
would also be required to implement Mitigation Measure GHG-2 and Mitigation Measure GHG-3, as
provided below. Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would require developers of future individual projects in the
Project Area to construct buildings to be solar-ready and to install solar energy or clean energy for each
structure greater than 50,000 square feet within two years of commencing operations, when feasible.
Mitigation Measure GHG-3 would require developers of future individual projects in the Project Area that
have 10 employees or more to submit a GHG Reduction Plan to the City for review and approval. Although
the numerical effectiveness of these mitigation measures cannot be quantified at this time without
further information about the exact type and design of future individual projects in the Project Area, these
measures would minimize operational-source related contributions to significant GHG emissions to the
greatest extent feasible for a project of this type. However, ultimately the above measures, in conjunction
with Air Quality Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-28, would not fully reduce significant construction
or operational-source GHG emissions to a less than significant level.
No feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce these emissions to levels that are less-than-
significant. Project operational-source GHG emissions exceedances of applicable SCAQMD numeric
threshold are therefore considered significant and unavoidable. Moreover, approximately 50 percent of
all operational-source emissions (by weight) would be generated by Project mobile sources (traffic).
Neither future project applicants nor the Lead Agency can substantively or materially affect reductions in
project mobile-source emissions beyond the regulatory requirements and Mitigation Measures GHG-1,
GHG-2, and GHG-3. As such, project operational-source GHG emissions exceedances of the numeric
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-24 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
thresholds discussed above are considered to be significant and cumulatively considerable impacts in
regards to GHG impacts. However, it should be noted that the proposed Downtown Core Project would
provide for more residential and commercial development in proximity to each other, as well as in
proximity to transit. Further, Project implementation would provide for a denser urban environment with
improved amenities that support active (non-motorized) transportation opportunities within the Project
Area. When compared to the existing General Plan land use plan for the Project Area, the proposed
Downtown Core Project would result in a four percent reduction in VMT per service population.
Accordingly, as discussed further below, the Project is consistent with plans and policies designed to
achieve the State’s GHG reduction goals.
CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE GHG PLANS, POLICIES, OR REGULATIONS
2022 Scoping Plan Consistency
The goal to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (Executive Order S-3-05) was codified by the
California Legislature as AB 32. In 2008, CARB approved a Scoping Plan as required by AB 32. The Scoping
Plan has a range of GHG reduction actions which include direct regulations, alternative compliance
mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms such
as a cap-and-trade system, and an AB 32 implementation fee to fund the program. The 2022 Scoping Plan
identifies additional GHG reduction measures necessary to achieve the 2030 target, as well as to achieve
the State’s target of carbon neutrality by year 2045. These measures build upon those identified in the
previous Scoping Plan updates. Although a number of these measures are currently established as policies
and measures, some measures have not yet been formally proposed or adopted. It is expected that these
measures or similar actions to reduce GHG emissions will be adopted subsequently as required to achieve
Statewide GHG emissions targets.
Table 5.7-3, Project Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan, summarizes the Project’s consistency with
applicable policies and measures of the 2022 Scoping Plan. As indicated in Table 5.7-3, the Project would
not conflict with any of the provisions of the 2022 Scoping Plan and would support four of the action
categories through energy efficiency, water conservation, recycling, and landscaping.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-25 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 5.7-3
Project Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan
Sector/Source Category/Description Consistency Analysis
Area
SCAQMD Rule 445
(Wood Burning
Devices)
Restricts the installation of wood-burning
devices in new development.
Mandatory Compliance. Approximately 15
percent of California’s major anthropogenic
sources of black carbon include fireplaces
and woodstoves.1 The Project would not
include hearths (woodstove and fireplaces)
as mandated by this rule.
Energy
California
Renewables
Portfolio Standard,
Senate Bill 350 (SB
350) and Senate Bill
100 (SB 100)
Increases the proportion of electricity from
renewable sources to 33 percent
renewable power by 2020. SB 350 requires
50 percent by 2030. SB 100 requires 44
percent by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and
60 percent by 2030. It also requires the
State Energy Resources Conservation and
Development Commission to double the
energy efficiency savings in electricity and
natural gas final end uses of retail
customers through energy efficiency and
conservation.
No Conflict. The Project would utilize
electricity provided by Southern California
Edison (SCE), which is required to meet the
2020, 2030, 2045, and 2050 performance
standards. In 2018, 31 percent of SCE’s
electricity came from renewable resources.2
By 2030 SCE plans to achieve 80 percent
carbon-free energy.3
All Electric
Appliances for New
Residential and
Commercial
Buildings (AB 197)
All electric appliances beginning 2026
(residential) and 2029 (commercial),
contributing to 6 million heat pumps
installed statewide by 2030.
Mandatory Compliance. Project-specific
plans would be required to demonstrate
that only all electric appliances would be
installed for residential land uses starting in
2026, and for commercial uses starting in
2029, consistent with this requirement.
California Code of
Regulations, Title
24, Building
Standards Code
Requires compliance with energy
efficiency standards for residential and
nonresidential buildings.
Mandatory Compliance. Future
development associated with Project
implementation would be required to meet
the applicable requirements of the 2022
Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards, including installation of rooftop
solar panels and additional CALGreen
requirements (see discussion under
CALGreen Code requirements below).
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-26 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 5.7-3 (continued)
Project Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan
Sector/Source Category/Description Consistency Analysis
California Green
Building Standards
(CALGreen) Code
Requirements
All bathroom exhaust fans are
required to be ENERGY STAR
compliant.
Mandatory Compliance. Project-specific
construction plans would be required to
demonstrate that energy efficiency
appliances, including bathroom exhaust fans,
and equipment are ENERGY STAR compliant.
HVAC system designs are required to
meet American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) standards.
Mandatory Compliance. Project-specific
construction plans would be required to
demonstrate that the HVAC system meets
the ASHRAE standards.
Air filtration systems are required to
meet a minimum efficiency reporting
value (MERV) 8 or higher.
Mandatory Compliance. Specific
development projects would be required to
install air filtration systems (MERV 8 or
higher) as part of its compliance with the
2022 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards.
Refrigerants used in newly installed
HVAC systems shall not contain any
chlorofluorocarbons.
Mandatory Compliance. Specific
development projects would be required to
meet this requirement as part of its
compliance with the CALGreen Code.
Parking spaces shall be designed for
carpool or alternative fueled vehicles.
Up to eight percent of total parking
spaces is required for such vehicles.
Mandatory Compliance. Specific
development projects would be required to
meet this requirement as part of its
compliance the CALGreen Code.
Mobile Sources
Mobile Source Strategy
(Cleaner Technology
and Fuels)
Reduce GHGs and other pollutants
from the transportation sector
through transition to zero-emission
and low-emission vehicles, cleaner
transit systems, and reduction of
vehicle miles traveled.
Consistent. The Project would be consistent
with this strategy by supporting the use of
zero-emission and low-emission vehicles;
refer to CALGreen Code discussion above.
Senate Bill (SB) 375
SB 375 establishes mechanisms for the
development of regional targets for
reducing passenger vehicle GHG
emissions. Under SB 375, CARB is
required, in consultation with the
State’s Metropolitan Planning
Organizations, to set regional GHG
reduction targets for the passenger
vehicle and light-duty truck sector for
2020 and 2035.
Consistent. As demonstrated in Table 5.7-4,
the Project would comply with the Southern
California Association of Governments
(SCAG) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(2020-2045 RTP/SCS), and therefore, the
Project would be consistent with SB 375.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-27 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 5.7-3 (continued)
Project Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan
Sector/Source Category/Description Consistency Analysis
Water
CCR, Title 24, Building
Standards Code
Title 24 includes water efficiency
requirements for new residential and
non- residential uses.
Mandatory Compliance. Refer to the
discussion under 2022 Title 24 Building
Standards Code and CALGreen Code, above.
Water Conservation
Act of 2009 (Senate Bill
X7-7)
The Water Conservation Act of 2009
sets an overall goal of reducing per
capita urban water use by 20 percent
by December 31, 2020. Each urban
retail water supplier shall develop
water use targets to meet this goal.
This is an implementing measure of
the Water Sector of the AB 32 Scoping
Plan. Reduction in water consumption
directly reduces the energy necessary
and the associated emissions to
convene, treat, and distribute the
water; it also reduces emissions from
wastewater treatment.
Consistent. Refer to the discussion under
2022 Title 24 Building Standards Code and
CALGreen Code, above. Also, refer to Section
5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.
Solid Waste
California Integrated
Waste Management
Act (IWMA) of 1989
and Assembly Bill (AB)
341
The IWMA mandates that State
agencies develop and implement an
integrated waste management plan
which outlines the steps to divert at
least 50 percent of solid waste from
disposal facilities. AB 341 directs the
California Department of Resources
Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to
develop and adopt regulations for
mandatory commercial recycling and
sets a Statewide goal for 75 percent
disposal reduction by the year 2020.
Mandatory Compliance. The Project would
be required to comply with AB 341 which
requires multifamily residential dwelling of
five units or more to arrange for recycling
services. This would reduce the overall
amount of solid waste disposed of at landfills.
The decrease in solid waste would in return
decrease the amount of methane released
from decomposing solid waste.
Notes:
1. California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, Figure 4: California 2013 Anthropogenic
Black Carbon Emission Sources, November 2017.
2. California Energy Commission, 2018 Power Content Label Southern California Edison,
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-01/2018_PCL_Southern_California_Edison.pdf, accessed June 24,
2020.
3. Southern California Edison, The Clean Power and Electrification Pathway,
https://newsroom.edison.com/internal_redirect/cms.ipressroom.com.s3.amazonaws.com/166/files/20187/g17-
pathway-to-2030-white-paper.pdf, accessed June 24, 2020.
4. California Energy Commission, 2013 California Energy Efficiency Potential and Goals Study, Appendix Volume I, August
15, 2013.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-28 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
SCAG RTP/SCS Consistency
On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal (2020-2045 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [2020 RTP/SCS]). The RTP/SCS is a long-range
visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public
health goals. The RTP/SCS embodies a collective vision for the region’s future and is developed with input
from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, nonprofit organizations,
businesses, and local stakeholders in the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, and Ventura. SCAG’s RTP/SCS establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light-duty
trucks for 2020 and 2035 as well as an overall GHG target for the Project region consistent with both the
target date of AB 32 and the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of Executive Orders 5-03-05 and B-30-15.
The RTP/SCS contains over 4,000 transportation projects, ranging from highway improvements, railroad
grade separations, bicycle lanes, new transit hubs and replacement bridges. These future investments
were included in county plans developed by the six county transportation commissions and seek to reduce
traffic bottlenecks, improve the efficiency of the region’s network, and expand mobility choices for
everyone. The RTP/SCS is an important planning document for the region, allowing project sponsors to
qualify for federal funding.
The plan accounts for operations and maintenance costs to ensure reliability, longevity, and cost
effectiveness. The RTP/SCS is also supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies
that help the region achieve State GHG emissions reduction goals and Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA)
requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, support our vital
goods movement industry, and utilize resources more efficiently. GHG emissions resulting from
development-related mobile sources are the most potent source of emissions, and therefore Project
comparison to the RTP/SCS is an appropriate indicator of whether the Project would inhibit the post-2020
GHG reduction goals promulgated by the State. The Project’s consistency with the RTP/SCS goals is
analyzed in detail in Table 5.7-4, Project Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-29 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 5.7-4
Project Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
SCAG Goals Consistency Analysis
Goal 1: Encourage regional
economic prosperity and global
competitiveness.
Consistent. The proposed Project would promote economic prosperity and
development of the Project Area in an orderly and market-driven manner,
consistent with local priorities.
Goal 2: Improve mobility,
accessibility, reliability, and travel
safety for people and goods.
Consistent. Although this Project is not a transportation improvement
project, the Project is located near existing transit routes. The Fontana
Metrolink station is located within the Project Area and accessible from
Sierra Avenue and Orange Way. The availability of public transportation and
the focus on increasing density relative to the existing public transportation,
enables Project implementation to reduce VMT per service population, and
associated transportation-related emissions, compared to existing
conditions and the existing land use plan for the Project Area.
Goal 3: Enhance the preservation,
security, and resilience of the
regional transportation system.
Not applicable. This is not a transportation improvement project and is
therefore not applicable.
Goal 4: Increase person and
goods movement and travel
choices within the transportation
system.
Not applicable. This is not a transportation improvement project and is
therefore not applicable. However, the Project would not reduce person and
goods movement and travel choices within the transportation system.
Goal 5: Reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and improve air
quality.
Consistent. The Project Area is located within an urban area. The location of
the Project Area within an urbanized area served by existing transit and
implementation of the proposed Downtown Core Project land uses and
development potential would reduce VMT per service population compared
to the existing condition and the existing land use plan for the Project Area,
which would reduce GHG and air quality emissions.
Goal 6: Support healthy and
equitable communities
Consistent. The Project would provide for more residential and commercial
development in proximity to each other, as well as in proximity to transit.
Further, Project implementation would provide for a denser urban
environment with improved amenities that support active (non-motorized)
transportation opportunities, including walking and bicycling within the
Project Area. Additionally, the Project would reduce VMT per service
population compared to the existing condition and the existing land use plan
for the Project Area, which would reduce GHG and air quality emissions.
Therefore, overall, the Project would support the goal of supporting healthy
and equitable communities.
Goal 7: Adapt to a changing
climate and support an
integrated regional development
pattern and transportation
network.
Not applicable. This is not a project-specific policy and is therefore not
applicable.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-30 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 5.7-4 (continued)
Project Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
SCAG Goals Consistency Analysis
Goal 8: Leverage new
transportation technologies and
data-driven solutions that result
in more efficient travel.
Not applicable. This is not a project-specific policy and is therefore not
applicable.
Goal 9: Encourage development
of diverse housing types in areas
that are supported by multiple
transportation options.
Consistent. The Project includes a variety of housing types, including single
family and multi-family housing, based around various districts, which are
supported by a variety of transportation options, including local bus routes
and the Metrolink station accessible through Sierra Avenue and Orange Way.
Goal 10: Promote conservation of
natural and agricultural lands and
restoration of habitats.
Not applicable. The Project Area is urbanized and primarily developed with
minimal vacant lots. The Project Area does not include any natural or
agricultural lands.
Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal – The Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy, 2020.
Compliance with applicable State standards would ensure consistency with State and regional GHG
reduction planning efforts. The goals stated in the RTP/SCS were used to determine consistency with the
planning efforts previously stated. As shown in Table 5.7-4, the proposed Project would be consistent with
the stated goals of the RTP/SCS. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any significant
impacts or interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s post-2020 mobile source GHG reduction
targets.
Conclusion
Though the proposed Project would be required to comply with regulations imposed by the State of
California and the SCAQMD aimed at the reduction of air pollutant emissions, as described above, the
proposed Project would generate emissions beyond the identified threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year for
residential and commercial land uses, and as such, would have a cumulatively significant and unavoidable
adverse impact.
Mitigation Measures:
GHG-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, future development projects shall demonstrate
compliance with the SCAQMD threshold for greenhouse gas emissions in place at the time of
individual project development, or if exceeding the applicable threshold, demonstrate the
incorporation of project design features that achieve compliance with the SCAQMD threshold for
greenhouse emissions in place at the time of individual project development to the maximum
extent feasible. With regard to expansions/modifications of existing facilities, this mitigation
measure shall be applied to the resulting incremental net increase in enclosed floor area. Future
projects that exceed the SCAQMD threshold for greenhouse gas emissions in place at the time of
individual project development shall include measures to reduce emissions, that may include, but
not be limited to, the following list of potential design features (which includes measures for
reducing GHG emissions related to Transportation and Motor Vehicles).
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-31 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Energy Efficiency
• Design buildings to be energy efficient and exceed Title 24 requirements by at least 5
percent.
• Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Site and design buildings to take
advantage of daylight.
• Use trees, landscaping and sun screens on west and south exterior building walls to
reduce energy use.
• Install light colored “cool” roofs and cool pavements.
• Provide information on energy management services for large energy users.
• Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems (e.g., minimum of Energy Star rated
equipment).
• Implement design features to increase the efficiency of the building envelope (i.e., the
barrier between conditioned and unconditioned spaces).
• Install light emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffic, street and other outdoor lighting.
• Limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting.
Renewable Energy
• Install solar panels on carports and over parking areas.
• Use combined heat and power in appropriate applications.
Water Conservation and Efficiency
• Create water-efficient landscapes with a preference for a xeriscape landscape palette.
• Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based
irrigation controls.
• Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures and appliances (e.g.,
EPA WaterSense labeled products).
• Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to non-vegetated
surfaces) and control runoff.
• Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles.
• Implement low-impact development practices that maintain the existing hydrologic
character of the site to manage storm water and protect the environment (retaining
storm water runoff on-site can drastically reduce the need for energy-intensive imported
water at the site).
• Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and
location. The strategy may include many of the specific items listed above, plus other
innovative measures that are appropriate to the specific project.
• Provide education about water conservation and available programs and incentives.
Solid Waste Measures
• Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not limited to, soil,
vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and carboard).
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-32 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate
recycling containers located in public areas.
• Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available recycling services.
Transportation and Motor Vehicles
• Limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction vehicles.
• Promote ride sharing programs (e.g., by designating certain percentage of parking spaces
for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and
waiting areas for ride sharing vehicles, and providing a web site or message board for
coordinating rides).
• Creating local “light vehicle” networks, such as neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV)
systems.
• Provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure to encourage the use of low or zero-
emission vehicles (e.g., electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located
alternative fueling stations).
• Promote “least polluting” ways to connect people and goods to their destinations.
• Incorporate bicycle lanes and routes into street systems, new subdivisions, and large
developments.
• Incorporate bicycle-friendly intersections into street design.
• For commercial projects, provide adequate bicycle parking near building entrances to
promote cyclist safety, security, and convenience. For large employers, provide facilities
that encourage bicycle commuting (e.g., locked bicycle storage or covered or indoor
bicycle parking).
• Create bicycle lanes and walking paths directed to the location of schools, parks and other
destination points. (General Plan EIR MM-GHG-1, updated)
GHG-2: All future individual projects with the Project Area shall be required to construct future buildings
to be solar or other clean energy technology compatible, and clean energy ready. Further, for
individual structures proposed within the Project Area that are greater than 50,000 square feet,
the developer shall ensure that the structure provides solar photovoltaic panel system(s) within
2 years of commencing operations where feasible.
GHG-3: Prior to issuance of building permits, future individual project developers with more than 10
employees or more than 10 company vehicles shall submit a GHG Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP)
to the City of Fontana for review and approval. The objective of the plan shall be to reduce GHG
emissions by a minimum of 10 percent. The GHG ERP shall consider and identify GHG emission
reductions from the following emission source categories as part of the ERP:
• Energy source reduction from measure GHG-1
• Implementation of Ride Sharing Program (Mobile Source)
• Provision of electric vehicle charging stations (Level 2 or Level 3, Mobile Source)
• Maintenance of an onsite bicycle sharing program (Mobile Source)
• Establishment and support of a mass transit use program (including adjusting hours of
operations to complement local mass transit operations, Mobile Source)
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-33 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Provision of secure bicycle parking facilities (Mobile Source)
• Acquisition of a minimum of one company electric vehicle or low NOx emission CNG vehicle,
including truck(s) (Mobile source)
• Install low demand water consumption systems, internally and outdoors (Water Usage
source)
• Implement a solid waste management system that achieves greater than 50 percent recycling
(Waste Management Source)
• Utilize construction equipment that can reduce GHG and NOx emissions a minimum of 5
percent (Construction Emissions Source).
Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
5.7.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Analysis: The topic of GHG emissions is inherently a cumulative impact. Though significance
thresholds can be developed by air districts, as well as State and federal regulatory agencies, these
thresholds and their related goals are ultimately designed to effect change at a global level. In 2018,
California greenhouse gas emissions totaled 425 million metric tons CO2e.1,2 The Future development
associated with implementation of the proposed Project would generate approximately 54,629 metric
tons CO2e per year, or about 0.012854 percent of the total amount of GHG emissions in California in 2018.
The proposed Project may contribute to global climate change through an incremental contribution of
greenhouse gases. Even with implementation of Air Quality Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-28 and
GHG-1 through GHG-3, implementation of the proposed Project exceeds the SCAQMD recommended
numeric threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year. Project GHG impacts are mitigated to the greatest extent
feasible, but the Project would still contribute to global climate change through a cumulatively
considerable contribution of greenhouse gases. As such, the proposed Project would result in a
cumulatively considerable and significant adverse GHG emissions impact.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure GHG-1, Mitigation Measure GHG-2, and Mitigation
Measure GHG-3. No additional mitigation measures are feasible.
Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
5.7.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Implementation of the Downtown Core Project would result in significant unavoidable GHG impacts.
If the City approves the proposed Project, the City will be required to make findings in accordance with
Section 15091 of CEQA and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations for consideration by the
City’s decisionmakers in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
1 https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm
2 https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2018/ghg_inventory_trends_00-18.pdf
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.7-34 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
5.7.8 REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019: Trends of
Emissions and Other Indicators,
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2019/ghg_inventory_trends_00-
19.pdf, July 2021, accessed October 25, 2022.
California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan),
2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/2022-scoping-plan-documents
California Climate Change Assessment, California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, 2019.
Southern California Council of Governments (SCAG), 2020-245 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal), 2020.
https://scag.ca.gov/post/2020-2045-rtpscs-connect-socal-transportation-conformity-
determination
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Draft Guidance Document - Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) Significance Threshold, 2008. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-
thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf?sfvrsn=2
U.S. Department of State, The Long-Term Strategy of the United States: Pathways to Net-Zero
Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050, November 2021.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
2009, April 2011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change and Extreme Heat, What You Can Do to Prepare,
October 2016.
U.S. Green Building Council, Press Room: Benefits of Green Building,
https://www.usgbc.org/press/benefits-of-green-building, accessed October 25, 2022.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), Disappearing Beaches: Modeling Shoreline Change in Southern
California, https://www.usgs.gov/programs/cmhrp/news/disappearing-beaches-modeling-
shoreline-change-southern-california, May 2017, accessed October 25, 2022.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.8-1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
5.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
5.8.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing conditions and regulatory environment related to
hazards and hazardous materials and identify potential impacts that could result from Project
implementation.
For the purpose of this analysis, the term “hazardous material” refers to both hazardous substances and
hazardous waste. A material is defined as “hazardous” if it appears on a list of hazardous materials
prepared by a federal, tribal, State, or local regulatory agency, or if it possesses characteristics defined as
“hazardous” by such an agency. A “hazardous waste” is a solid waste that exhibits toxic or hazardous
characteristics (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and/or toxicity). Other hazards, such as potential
airport-related safety hazards for people residing/working in the Project Area, interference with an
adopted emergency response plan, and exposure of people/structures to risk involving wildland fires, are
also addressed in this section.
5.8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE
Hazardous Materials
A hazardous material is a substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity,
concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either (1) cause or significantly
contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating irreversible
illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and safety, or the
environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of. Hazardous materials are
mainly present because of industries involving chemical byproducts from manufacturing, petrochemicals,
and hazardous building materials.
Hazardous Waste
Hazardous waste is the subset of hazardous materials that have been abandoned, discarded, or recycled
and is not properly contained, including contaminated soil or groundwater with concentrations of
chemicals, infectious agents, or toxic elements sufficiently high to increase human mortality or to destroy
the ecological environment. If a hazardous material is spilled and cannot be effectively picked up and used
as a product, it is considered to be hazardous waste. If a hazardous material site is unused, and it is obvious
there is no realistic intent to use the material, it is also considered to be a hazardous waste. Examples of
hazardous materials include flammable and combustible materials, corrosives, explosives, oxidizers,
poisons, materials that react violently with water, radioactive materials, and chemicals.
Transportation of Hazardous Materials
The transportation of hazardous materials within California is subject to various federal, State, and local
regulations. The City has no direct authority to regulate the transport of hazardous materials on State
highways or rail lines. Transportation of hazardous materials by truck and rail is regulated by the U.S.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.8-2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Department of Transportation (DOT). DOT regulations establish criteria for safe handling procedures. It is
illegal to transport explosives or inhalation hazards on any public highway not designated for that purpose,
unless the use of the highway is required to permit delivery, or the loading of such materials (California
Vehicle Code Section 31602(b), 32104(a)). The California Highway Patrol (CHP) designates through routes
to be used for the transportation of hazardous materials. Transportation of hazardous materials is
restricted to these routes except in cases where additional travel is required from that route to deliver or
receive hazardous materials to and from users.
HAZARDOUS SITES
EnviroStor Data Management System
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintains the EnviroStor Data
Management System, which provides information on hazardous waste facilities (both permitted and
corrective action) as well as any available site cleanup information. This site cleanup information includes:
Federal Superfund Sites (NPL), State Response Sites, Voluntary Cleanup Sites, School Cleanup Sites,
Corrective Action Sites, Tiered Permit Sites, and Evaluation/Investigation Sites. The hazardous waste
facilities include: Permitted–Operating, Post-Closure Permitted, and Historical Non-Operating.
There are no “Active” status sites listed in the EnviroStor database within the Project Area (DTSC, 2022a).
The former site of the Southern California Edison (SCE) Flanco substation, located adjacent to the Project
Area at the southwestern corner of Orange Way and Juniper Street, is listed with a status of “Active” as
of May 2, 2019 (DTSC, 2022b). The site was used as an electrical substation until it was decommissioned
in 2018; it is currently vacant. Potential contaminants of concern include metals, petroleum, and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). A voluntary cleanup agreement for the site was executed on October
10, 2019.
Cortese List
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State, local
agencies, and developers to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements
in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. Government Code
Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) to develop at least
annually an updated Cortese List. The DTSC is responsible for a portion of the information contained in
the Cortese List. Other State and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous
material release information for the Cortese List. There are no hazardous materials release sites located
in the City of Fontana on the Cortese List (DTSC, 2022c).
GeoTracker
GeoTracker is the California State Water Resource Control Board’s (SWRCB’s) data management system
for managing sites that impact groundwater, especially those that require groundwater cleanup
(Underground Storage Tanks, Department of Defense, Site Cleanup Program).
There are 67 locations with a Fontana address that are listed in the GeoTracker database for Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST); of these, 65 have a status of “Completed – Case Closed” (SWRCB,
2022). There are no LUST cleanup sites with a status of “Open” located within or adjacent to the Project
Area.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.8-3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Solid Waste Information System (SWIS)
The Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) is a database of solid waste facilities that is maintained by
California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). The SWIS database identifies
active, planned and closed sites. There are two active facilities listed in the SWIS database located within
Fontana: Andre Landscape Services Inc. (36-AA-0482), located at 14005 Rancho Court; and West Valley
Materials Recovery Facility (36-AA-0341), located at 13373 Napa Street (CalRecycle, 2022). There are no
listed facilities within the Project Area.
HAZARDS FROM AIR TRAFFIC
The San Bernardino County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopts plans to protect and promote
the safety and welfare of airport users and residents in the airport vicinity. Specifically, these plans seek
to protect the public from the adverse effects of aircraft noise, to ensure that people and facilities are not
concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and to ensure that no structures or activities
encroach upon or adversely affect the use of navigable airspace.
The Project Area is not located within two miles of any public airport or public use airport. Several airports
are located within a 10-mile radius of the Project Area and are described further below.
Local Airport Facilities
Ontario International Airport (ONT): ONT is owned by the City of Ontario and the County of San
Bernardino, under a Joint Powers Agreement, as of November 1, 2016. This airport primarily serves the
Inland Empire, and is approximately eight miles southwest of the Project Area. The Project Area is not
located within the boundaries of the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the Ontario International Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan (City of Ontario, 2018).
Flabob Airport: A public-use airport located in the City of Riverside, Riverside County, approximately
seven miles south of the Project Area. This airport covers an area of 80 acres and has one runway. The
Project Area is not located within the boundaries of the AIA of the Flabob Airport (Riverside County Airport
Land Use Commission, 2004).
Major Regional Airport Facilities
San Bernardino International Airport (SBD): SBD is in San Bernardino. It is the former Norton Air Force
Base. The airport serves the inland empire and is in close proximity to both the Interstate 210 and
Interstate 10, and to historic Route 66. SBD is approximately 10 miles east of the Project Area. The Project
Area is not located within the boundaries of the AIA of the SBD.
National Transportation Safety Board Aviation Accident Database
The National Transportation Safety Board Aviation Accident Database identifies a total of 10 aircraft
accidents in Fontana. The earliest record for an aircraft accident in Fontana is from July 13, 1983 (one
fatality). The most recent incident is from May 4, 2013 (nonfatal). Out of the ten recorded aircraft
accidents in Fontana, four were fatal accidents causing a total of five deaths (NTSB, 2022). These incidents
were non-commercial, small-scale personal aircraft (primarily prop planes and other small planes)
occurring due to mechanical failure, weather, or pilot error.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.8-4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
OTHER POTENTIAL HAZARDS
Wildland Fire Hazards
The State has charged the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) with the
identification of Fire Hazard Severity Zones within State Responsibility Areas (SRA). In addition, CALFIRE
must recommend Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones identified within any Local Responsibility Areas
(LRA). The FHSZ maps are used by the State Fire Marshall as a basis for the adoption of applicable building
code standards. According to the CALFIRE FHSZ Maps, the Project Area is not located within a Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CALFIRE, 2022).
Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACM)
Asbestos, a natural fiber used in the manufacturing of different building materials, has been identified as
a human carcinogen. Most friable (i.e., easily broken or crushed) asbestos-containing materials (ACM)
were banned in building materials by 1978. By 1989, most major manufacturers had voluntarily removed
non-friable ACM (i.e., flooring, roofing, and mastics/sealants) from the market. These materials, however,
were not banned completely. The Project Area includes existing development from and prior to the 1960s;
therefore, the presence of ACM is likely in some structures.
Lead-Based Paint
Lead-based paint has been identified by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
as a potential health risk to humans, particularly children, based on its effects to the central nervous
system, kidneys, and bloodstream. The risk of lead-based paint has been classified by HUD based upon
the age and condition of the painted surface. The Project Area includes existing development from and
prior to the 1960s; therefore, the presence of lead-based paint is likely in some structures.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
The Fontana General Plan Noise and Safety Element establishes goals and policies specific to emergency
preparedness. The overall goal for emergency preparedness is to maintain regulations, plans, protocols
and emergency training to reduce hazards and risks, and meet State and federal requirements for
emergency assistance. This includes through implementation of plans and programs that directly relate
to the goals of the Noise and Safety Element, such as the City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
(LHMP).
The Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD) provides emergency, preventive, and administrative services
in the City and SOI through a contract with the San Bernardino County Fire Department (City of Fontana,
2018). The City of Fontana Emergency Management Program is a function of the City Manager’s Office in
cooperation with the San Bernardino County Fire, Office of Emergency Services (City of Fontana, 2022a).
City personnel prepare for disaster situations by developing effective plans, conducting training and
exercises, and ensuring facilities and equipment are ready for response. The City of Fontana Emergency
Management Program utilizes the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and the National
Incident Management System (NIMS). Both SEMS and NIMS are emergency management systems that
provide a consistent template for all levels of government, non-governmental organizations, and the
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.8-5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
private sector to work together to prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the
effects of incidents, regardless of their cause, size, location, or complexity.
The City is a participant in the San Bernardino County Operational Area Coordinating Council. The San
Bernardino County Fire, Office of Emergency Services provides Emergency Management services to the
City of Fontana through the provision of an Emergency Services Officer (ESO). This ESO is responsible for
the development of the City’s disaster plans, disaster training and exercise program, and oversight of the
City’s Emergency Operations Center.
5.8.3 REGULATORY SETTING
FEDERAL
Toxic Substances Control Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act/Hazardous and Solid Waste Act
The Federal Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
established a program administered by the U.S. EPA for the regulation of the generation, transportation,
treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Act (HSWA), which affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of regulating
hazardous wastes.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) is a law
developed to protect the water, air, and soil resources from the risks created by past chemical disposal
practices. This law is also referred to as the Superfund Act and regulates sites on the National Priority List
(also known as Superfund sites). This law (U.S. Code Title 42, Chapter 103) provides broad Federal
authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may
endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA establishes requirements concerning closed and
abandoned hazardous waste sites; provides for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous
waste at these sites; and establishes a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party can be
identified.
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
The federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) was enacted to inform
communities and residents of chemical hazards in their area. Businesses are required to report the
locations and quantities of chemicals stored onsite to both State and local agencies. EPCRA requires the
U.S. EPA to maintain and publish a digital database list of toxic chemical releases and other waste
management activities reported by certain industry groups and Federal facilities. This database, known as
the Toxic Release Inventory, gives the community more power to hold companies accountable for their
chemical management.
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is a 1977 amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. The
CWA is the principal statute governing water quality. It establishes the basic structure for regulating
discharges of pollutants into the Waters of the United States and gives the EPA the authority to implement
pollution control programs, such as setting wastewater standards for the industry. Under the CWA, the
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.8-6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
EPA has developed national water quality criteria recommendations for pollutants in surface waters. The
statute’s goal is to end all discharges entirely and to restore, maintain, and preserve the integrity of the
Nation’s waters. The CWA regulates both the direct and indirect discharge of pollutants into the Nation’s
waters. The CWA sets water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters and makes it unlawful
for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit is
obtained under its provisions. The CWA mandates permits for wastewater and stormwater discharges,
requires States to establish site-specific water quality standards for navigable bodies of water, and
regulates other activities that affect water quality, such as dredging and the filling of wetlands. The CWA
also funded the construction of sewage treatment plants and recognized the need for planning to address
nonpoint sources of pollution.
Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standards
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued the Hazardous Waste Operations and
Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standards, 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.120 and 29 CFR
1926.65, to protect workers and enable them to handle hazardous substances safely and effectively. The
latter standard is for the construction industry and is identical to 29 CFR 1910.120. The HAZWOPER
standard covers employers performing the following general categories of work operations: hazardous
waste site cleanup operations; operations involving hazardous waste that are conducted at treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities; and emergency response operations involving hazardous substance
releases. The HAZWOPER standards provide information and training criteria to employers, emergency
response workers, and other workers potentially exposed to hazardous substances to improve workplace
safety and health and reduce workplace injuries and illnesses from exposures to hazardous substances. It
is critical that employers and their workers understand the scope and application of HAZWOPER and can
determine which sections apply to their specific work operations.
Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 61 Subpart M
Title 40 CFR Section 61 Subpart M, National Emissions Standards for Asbestos, sets forth emissions
standards for asbestos from demolition and renovation activities, and for waste disposal from such
activities.
Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 761.61
Title 40 CFR Section 761.61, PCB Remediation Waste, provides cleanup and disposal options for PCB
remediation waste. Any person cleaning up and disposing of PCBs managed under Title 40 CFR Section
761.61 is required to do so based on the concentration at which the PCBs are found. This section does not
prohibit any person from implementing temporary emergency measures to prevent, treat, or contain
further releases or mitigate migration to the environment of PCBs or PCB remediation waste.
Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1926.62
Title 29 CFR Section 1926.62, Lead, sets standards for occupational health and environmental controls for
lead exposure in construction, regardless of the lead content of paints and other materials. The standards
include requirements addressing exposure assessment, methods of compliance, respiratory protection,
protective clothing and equipment, hygiene facilities and practices, medical surveillance, medical removal
protection, employee information and training, signs, recordkeeping, and observation and monitoring.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.8-7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program Rules
EPA’s 2008 Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (as amended in 2010 and 2011) aims
to protect the public from LBP hazards associated with renovation, repair, and painting activities. These
activities can create hazardous lead dust when surfaces with lead paint, even from many decades ago, are
disturbed. The rule requires workers to be certified and trained in the use of lead-safe work practices, and
requires renovation, repair, and painting professionals to be EPA-certified. These requirements became
fully effective April 22, 2010.
STATE
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
Brownfields are underutilized properties where reuse is hindered by the actual or suspected presence of
pollution or contamination. The goals of the SWRCB’s Brownfield Program are to:
• Expedite and facilitate site cleanups and closures for Brownfields sites to support reuse of those
sites;
• Preserve open space and greenfields;
• Protect groundwater and surface water resources, safeguard public health, and promote
environmental justice; and
• Streamline site assessment, clean up, monitoring, and closure requirements and procedures
within the various SWRCB site cleanup programs.
Site cleanup responsibilities for brownfields primarily reside within four main programs at the SWRCB:
the Underground Storage Tank Program, the Site Cleanup Program, the Department of Defense Program
and the Land Disposal Program. These SWRCB cleanup programs are charged with ensuring sites are
remediated to protect the State of California’s surface and groundwater and return it to beneficial use.
California Hazardous Waste Control Act
California’s Hazardous Waste Control Act of 1972 created the framework under which hazardous wastes
are managed in California. Title 22, Division 4.5 of the California Code of Regulations, sets forth definitions
of hazardous waste and special waste and is implemented by the DTSC. The section also identifies
hazardous waste criteria and establishes regulations pertaining to the storage, transport, and disposal of
hazardous waste.
California Health and Safety Code
Division 11 of the Health and Safety Code establishes regulations related to a variety of explosive
substances and devices, including high explosives and fireworks. Section 12000 et seq. establishes
regulations related to explosives and explosive devices, including permitting, handling, storage, and
transport (in quantities greater than 1,000 pounds).
Division 12 establishes requirements for buildings used by the public, including essential services
buildings, earthquake hazard mitigation technologies, school buildings, and postsecondary buildings.
Section 13000 et seq. establishes State fire regulations and broadly applicable regulations, such as
standards for buildings and fire protection devices, in addition to regulations for specific land uses, such
as childcare facilities and high-rise structures.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.8-8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Division 20 establishes DTSC authority and sets forth hazardous waste and underground storage tank
regulations. Under Chapter 6.95, Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory, facilities
handling hazardous materials are required to prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan. Hazardous
Materials Business Plans contain basic information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks of
hazardous materials stored, used, or disposed of. In addition, in the event that a facility stores quantities
of specific acutely hazardous materials above the thresholds set forth by the California Health and Safety
Code, facilities are also required to prepare a Risk Management Plan and California Accidental Release
Plan.
Division 26 establishes California Air Resources Board (CARB) authority. The division designates CARB as
the air pollution control agency per Federal regulations and charges the Board with meeting Clean Air Act
requirements.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), in coordination with the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for developing and implementing rules and regulations regarding
air toxics on a local level. SCAQMD establishes permitting requirements, inspects emission sources, and
enforces measures through educational programs and/or fines.
SCAQMD Rule 1403 governs the demolition of buildings containing asbestos materials. Rule 1403 specifies
work practices with the goal of minimizing asbestos emissions during building demolition and renovation
activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of ACBMs. The requirements for demolition
and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACBMs removal procedures and time
schedules, ACBMs handling and cleanup procedures, and storage and disposal requirements for asbestos-
containing waste materials.
Rule 1166 governs the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from excavating, grading, handling,
and treating VOC-contaminated soil as a result of leakage from storage or transfer operations, accidental
spillage, or other deposition. The requirements for excavating an UST, transfer pipe, or VOC-contaminated
soils include operating pursuant to an approved mitigation plan, notification, VOC monitoring, and
procedure for handling and transporting contaminated soils.
Rule 1401 governs any new, modified, or relocation of permit units (article, machine, equipment, or
facility) that emit toxic air contaminants. The rule establishes allowable risks (maximum individual cancer
risk, cancer burden, and noncancer acute and chronic hazard index) from operating permit units.
Regulation 13 (Rules 1300 – 1325) establishes pre-construction review requirements for the installation
or modification of a source facility (i.e., power plant, engine, equipment) of nonattainment air
contaminant, ozone-depleting compounds (ODCs), or ammonia.
LOCAL
Certified Unified Program Agency
The Hazardous Materials Division of the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District is designated by
the State Secretary for Environmental Protection as the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the
County of San Bernardino (San Bernardino County Fire Protection District, 2022). The CUPA program is
designed to consolidate, coordinate, and uniformly and consistently administer permits, inspection
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.8-9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
activities, and enforcement activities throughout San Bernardino County. The purpose of the Hazardous
Materials Division is to protect the health and safety of the public and the environment of the County of
San Bernardino by assuring that hazardous materials are properly handled and stored (City of Fontana,
2022b). The Division accomplishes this through inspection, emergency response, site remediation, and
hazardous waste management services.
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce potential impacts associated with
hazards and hazardous materials. Chapter 11, Noise and Safety Element contains the following goals and
policies potentially relevant to the proposed Project:
Chapter 11 – Noise and Safety
• Goal 8: The potential for hazardous contamination is reduced in the City of Fontana.
o Policy: The City shall strive to reduce the potential for residents, workers, and visitors to
Fontana being exposed to hazardous materials and wastes.
• Goal 9: The City maintains regulations, plans, protocols and emergency training to reduce hazards
and risks and to meet state and federal requirements for emergency assistance.
o Policy: Keep hazard mitigation and emergency services programs up to date.
o Policy: Continue to provide hazard and risk mitigation and emergency training to public
employees and the public at large.
Fontana General Plan Exhibit 9.7, Truck Routes, designates truck routes within the City. Within the Project
Area, Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Boulevard are designated as truck routes.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
The City of Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 8, Emergency Preparedness, provides for the preparation and
carrying out of plans for the protection of persons and property within the City in the event of an
emergency; the direction of the emergency organization; and the coordination of the emergency
functions of the City with all other public agencies, corporations, organizations and affected private
persons.
Municipal Code Chapter 9, Article II, Hazardous Waste Management Plan, adopts the County Hazardous
Waste Management Plan and Environmental Impact Report.
Municipal Code Chapter 17, Article X, Truck Routes, identifies street segments that are part of City’s
commercial truck route system. Within the Project Area, Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Boulevard are
designated as truck routes.
Municipal Code Chapter 23, Sewers and Sewage Disposal, addresses wastewater and storm drains within
the City. Article II, Industrial Waste, sets forth uniform requirements for all users of the City wastewater
collection and treatment system; provides for regulation through issuance of permits to certain industrial
users and enforcement of general requirements for the other users; and authorizes monitoring and
enforcement activities and user reporting, and provides for the setting of fees for the equitable
distribution of costs for sewer service. Section 23-117 prohibits the discharge of hazardous materials into
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.8-10 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
the wastewater system. Article IX, Preventing Discharge of Pollutants into Storm Drains, provides
requirements for all uses of the City's storm drain system to prevent illegal discharges of pollutants into
the storm drain system and to control and contain spills of hazardous or toxic substances which could
pollute the storm drain system if not contained.
Municipal Code Chapter 24, Solid Waste and Recycling, regulates solid waste handling, including
hazardous waste, in order to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), identifies hazards, reviews and assesses past disaster
occurrences, estimates the probability of future occurrences, and sets goals to mitigate potential risks to
reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural and man-made hazards. The 2017
LHMP was approved and adopted by City Council on August 14, 2018.
5.8.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Initial Study
Environmental Checklist, which includes questions related to hazards and hazardous materials. A project
would result in a significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials if it would:
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials (refer to Impact Statement 5.8-1);
• 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 (refer
to Impact Statement 5.8-2);
• Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school (refer to Impact Statement 5.8-
3);
• Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment (refer to Impact Statement 5.8-4);
• For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive
noise for people residing or working in the project area (refer to Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To
Be Significant);
• Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan (refer to Impact Statement 5.8-5); and/or
• Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires (refer to Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant).
Based on these standards and significance thresholds and criteria, the Project’s effects have been
categorized as either “no impact,” a “less than significant impact,” or a “potentially significant impact.”
Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.8-11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant impact through the application of mitigation, it is
categorized as a “significant unavoidable impact.”
5.8.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 5.8-1: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Impact Analysis: Many types of businesses utilize various chemicals and hazardous materials, and their
routine business operations involve chemicals that are transported, stored and used on-site.
Implementation of the proposed Project would accommodate future development of both residential and
non-residential (primarily commercial) uses. The types of uses supported within the Downtown Core could
involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials, such as cleansers, paints, fertilizers, and
pesticides for cleaning and maintenance purposes and are not typically associated with uses that use,
generate, store or transport large quantities of hazardous materials such as those utilized in
manufacturing and industrial uses.
The use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials is regulated and monitored by local fire
departments, CUPAs, Cal OSHA, and the DTSC consistent with the requirements of federal, State, and local
regulations and policies. Facilities that store hazardous materials on-site are required to maintain a
Hazardous Materials Business Plan in accordance with State regulations. In the event of an accidental
release of hazardous materials, the local CUPA and emergency management agencies (e.g., Police and
Fire) would respond. The Downtown Core Project does not include any specific development proposals
and future development is not anticipated to include the storage and/or use of significant amounts of
hazardous materials. All future development that would include the storage and/or use of hazardous
materials within the Project Area would be required to comply with the provisions of federal, State, and
local requirements related to hazardous materials, including compliance with General Plan EIR mitigation
measures MM-HAZ-1 and MM-HAZ-3 (included herein as Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2).
Specifically, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would require that new proposed facilities involved in the
production, use, storage, transport or disposal of hazardous materials be located a safe distance from
land uses that may be adversely impacted by such activities, and that new sensitive facilities would not
be located near existing sites that use, store, or generate hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-
2 would require all businesses that handle hazardous materials above the reportable quantity to submit
an inventory of the hazardous materials that they manage to the San Bernardino County Fire Department
Hazardous Materials Division in coordination with the FFPD.
The Fontana General Plan and LHMP identify Hazardous Material Transportation Routes within the City.
Within the Project Area, the Metrolink rail line is identified as a Hazardous Material Transportation Route.
Additionally, transportation of hazardous materials could occur on designated truck routes or railways
within the City. Within the Project Area, Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Boulevard are designated truck
routes. Vehicles and/or trains transporting hazardous materials would be required to comply with the
provisions of federal, State, and local requirements related to the transportation of hazardous materials.
As described previously, hazardous materials regulations related to the use, handling, and transport of
hazardous materials are codified in Titles 8, 22, and 26 of the CCR, and their enabling legislation set forth
in the California Health and Safety Code. These laws were established at the State level to ensure
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.8-12 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
compliance with federal regulations to reduce the risk to human health and the environment from the
routine use of hazardous substances. These regulations must be implemented by employers/businesses,
as appropriate, and are monitored by the State (e.g., Cal OSHA in the workplace or DTSC for hazardous
waste) and/or the County. The haulers and users of hazardous materials are listed with and regulated and
monitored by the County CUPA. Compliance with the requirements of federal, State, and local laws and
regulations, including Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, regarding the use and storage of hazardous
materials would ensure that risks resulting from the routine transportation, use, storage, or disposal of
hazardous materials or hazardous wastes associated with implementation of the proposed Project would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
HAZ-1: The City shall require that new proposed facilities involved in the production, use, storage,
transport or disposal of hazardous materials be located a safe distance from land uses that may
be adversely impacted by such activities. Conversely, new sensitive facilities, such as child-care
centers and senior centers, shall not to be located near existing sites that use, store, or generate
hazardous materials. (General Plan EIR MM-HAZ-1, updated)
HAZ-2: The City shall require all businesses that handle hazardous materials above the reportable
quantity to submit an inventory of the hazardous materials that they manage to the San
Bernardino County Fire Department - Hazardous Materials Division in coordination with the
Fontana Fire Protection District. (General Plan EIR MM-HAZ-3)
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Impact 5.8-2: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
Impact Analysis:
Short-Term Construction-Related Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials
The proposed Project would enable development of new residential and non-residential uses.
Construction activities associated with new development could result in upset and/or accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Specific development projects have not been identified as part of the proposed Project. However, future
development accommodated through Project implementation could involve the demolition of existing
structures and buildings as areas within the Project Area are redeveloped. As discussed above, the Project
Area includes existing development from and prior to the 1960s; therefore, the presence of lead-based
paint, ACM, and/or other contaminants, which are typically present in buildings and structures
constructed prior to 1978, are likely present in some structures. All demolition that could result in the
release of ACMs or lead-based paint would be conducted according to federal and State regulations which
govern the renovation and demolition of structures where ACMs and lead-based paint are present. The
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants mandates that building owners conduct an
asbestos survey to determine the presence of ACMs prior to the commencement of any remedial work,
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.8-13 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
including demolition. In accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1403, if ACM material is found, abatement of
asbestos would be required prior to any demolition activities. If paint is separated from building materials
(chemically or physically) during demolition of the structures, the paint waste would be required to be
evaluated independently from the building material by a qualified Environmental Professional in
accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 1532.1. If lead-based paint is found,
abatement would be required to be completed by a qualified Lead Specialist prior to any demolition
activities. Compliance with existing regulations related to ACM and lead-based paint would reduce
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
In addition to potential demolition, future development would involve grading and construction of new
buildings. Potentially hazardous materials used during construction include substances such as paints,
sealants, lubricants, solvents, adhesives, cleaners, and diesel fuel. There is potential for these materials
to spill or to create hazardous conditions. The materials used, however, would not be in such quantities
or stored in such a manner as to pose a significant safety hazard. These activities would also be short-term
and would cease upon completion of construction.
To prevent hazardous conditions, existing local, State, and federal laws such as those listed under Section
5.8.3, Regulatory Setting, are to be enforced at the construction sites. For example, compliance with
existing regulations would ensure construction workers and the general public are not exposed to any
risks related to hazardous materials during demolition and construction activities. Cal/OSHA has
regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials, including requirements for safety training,
exposure warnings, availability of safety equipment, and preparation of emergency action/prevention
plans. For example, all spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities are required
to be immediately contained, the hazardous material identified, and the material remediated in
compliance with applicable State and local regulations for the cleanup and disposal of that contaminant.
All contaminated waste encountered would be required to be collected and disposed of at an
appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility.
Future development accommodated through implementation of the proposed Project could involve
grading and excavation activities which could expose construction workers and the public to previously
unknown hazardous substances present in the soil or groundwater. Grading and excavation activities
could also reveal previously unidentified underground storage tanks. Although underground storage tank
removal activities could pose risks to workers and the public, potential risks would be minimized by
managing the tank according to existing the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District Hazardous
Materials Division standards. Potential impacts to groundwater would be dependent upon the type of
contaminant, the amount released, and depth to groundwater at the time of the release.
The public could also be exposed to hazardous materials if new development or redevelopment were to
be located on a current or historical hazardous material site. There are no active cleanup sites within the
Project Area listed in the EnviroStor database. Further, there are no open LUST sites in the Project Area.
Future development associated with implementation of the Project would be reviewed at the project-
level to determine whether any development sites are listed on a hazardous materials site. Any
development activities that may occur on documented hazardous materials sites would be required to
undergo remediation and cleanup under the supervision of the regulatory agencies, such as DTSC and the
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Fontana General Plan includes goals,
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.8-14 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
policies, and actions to reduce threats to public health and safety involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment. Compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations would
reduce potential impacts involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment as a result of
on-site contamination to a less than significant level.
Long-Term Operations-Related Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials
Long-term operation activities associated with new development could result in upset and/or accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The Project does not
propose site-specific development; thus, specific hazardous materials that could be accidentally released
cannot be predicted at this time. However, as stated, the types of uses supported within the Downtown
Core would typically involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials, such as cleansers, paints,
fertilizers, and pesticides for cleaning and maintenance purposes and are not typically associated with
uses that use, generate, store or transport large quantities of hazardous materials such as those utilized
in manufacturing and industrial uses.
The transport, storage, and handling of hazardous materials by developers, contractors, business owners,
and others are required to comply with federal, State, and local regulations during project construction
and operation. Facilities that use hazardous materials are required to obtain permits from the EPA under
the RCRA, which gives the EPA the authority to control the generation, transportation, treatment, storage,
and disposal of hazardous waste. Additionally, the hazardous materials regulations included in federal law
govern the transportation of hazardous materials. Locally, the San Bernardino County Fire Protection
District Hazardous Materials Division is the CUPA for San Bernardino County and is responsible for
consolidating, coordinating, and making consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections,
and enforcement activities of state standards regarding the transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous
materials in the County, including the Project Area. As stated, all future development that would include
the storage and/or use of hazardous materials within the Project Area would be required to comply with
the provisions of federal, State, and local requirements related to hazardous materials, including
compliance with Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would require that
new proposed facilities involved in the production, use, storage, transport or disposal of hazardous
materials be located a safe distance from land uses that may be adversely impacted by such activities, and
that new sensitive facilities would not be located near existing sites that use, store, or generate hazardous
materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would require all businesses that handle hazardous materials above
the reportable quantity to submit an inventory of the hazardous materials that they manage to the San
Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division in coordination with the FFPD.
Compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations related to the transport, storage, and
handling of hazardous materials, and compliance Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would reduce the
likelihood and severity of accidents, and impacts involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, above.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.8-15 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 5.8-3: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
Impact Analysis: The nearest schools to the Project Area are Fontana Middle School, located
approximately 100 feet to the east of the Project Area (on the eastern side of Mango Avenue); Randall
Pepper Elementary School, located approximately 0.08 miles from the southwestern corner of the Project
Area (intersection of Juniper Avenue and Randall Avenue); and Palmetto Elementary School, located
approximately 0.28 miles from the southeastern corner of the Project Area (intersection of Mango Avenue
and Randall Avenue). As noted above, future development under the Project could utilize, transport,
store, or dispose of hazardous materials during construction or operation. Excavation and grading
activities associated with future development could expose the public to unknown hazardous materials
present in soil or groundwater, which would require remediation activities. Remediation, if any, would
include potential transport of hazardous materials to an approved landfill facility. As a result, future
development within the Project Area could potentially emit or handle hazardous materials within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15186, School Facilities, requires that school projects, as well as projects
proposed to be located near schools, examine potential health impacts resulting from exposure to
hazardous materials, wastes, and substances. Furthermore, permitting requirements for individual
hazardous material handlers or emitters would require evaluation and notification where potential
hazardous materials handling and emissions could occur in proximity to existing schools.
The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce threats to public health and safety
due to hazards and hazardous materials. As discussed above, the types of uses supported within the
Downtown Core would typically involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials, such as
cleansers, paints, fertilizers, and pesticides for cleaning and maintenance purposes and are not typically
associated with uses that use, generate, store or transport large quantities of hazardous materials such
as those utilized in manufacturing and industrial uses. Future development associated with
implementation of the proposed Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-1,
which would require that new proposed facilities involved in the production, use, storage, transport or
disposal of hazardous materials be located a safe distance from land uses that may be adversely impacted
by such activities, and that new sensitive facilities not to be located near existing sites that use, store, or
generate hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would require all businesses that handle
hazardous materials above the reportable quantity to submit an inventory of the hazardous materials that
they manage to the San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division in coordination
with the FFPD. Implementation of the safety procedures and regulations mandated by applicable federal,
State, and local laws and Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would ensure that potential risks resulting
from the routine transportation, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes in
proximity to a school associated with implementation of the Project would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.8-16 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 5.8-4: Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Impact Analysis: There are no hazardous materials release sites located in the City of Fontana on the
Cortese List (DTSC, 2022c). Future development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core
Project would be evaluated at the project-level to determine whether any development sites are listed on
a hazardous materials site. Any development activities occurring on documented hazardous materials
sites would be required to undergo remediation and cleanup under the supervision of the DTSC and/or
the Santa Ana RWQCB prior to construction. The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions
to reduce threats to public health and safety due to hazards and hazardous materials. Compliance with
existing federal, State, and local regulations would reduce potential impacts involving potential hazardous
materials sites.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Impact 5.8-5: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Impact Analysis: The proposed Downtown Core Project would provide for increased residential and non-
residential uses within the Project Area. Additionally, the Project proposes roadway modifications that
would ultimately close a quarter-mile portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic. This would occur in
two phases. Phase I (interim condition) would reduce the number of travel lanes on Sierra Avenue from
two lanes in each direction to one lane in each direction, convert Wheeler Avenue to a one-way
northbound street, and convert Nuevo Avenue to a one-way southbound street. Phase II (the ultimate
condition) would close Sierra Avenue between Arrow Boulevard and Orange Way to vehicular traffic,
diverting traffic to parallel streets.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. As described in Section 5.13, Public Services and
Recreation, the FFPD provides fire and emergency response service to the City of Fontana, including the
Project Area. Future development within the Downtown Core 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 ultimate closure of a quarter-mile portion of Sierra Avenue
to vehicular traffic would not impair or interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan. Closure of a portion of Sierra Avenue would also involve the conversion of Wheeler
Avenue to a one-way northbound street, and Nuevo Avenue to a one-way southbound street, providing
continued emergency access within the area. Further, the proposed closure and ultimate design of Sierra
Avenue would be reviewed by the FFPD to ensure that adequate emergency access would be maintained
within the area.
The Project does not include any site-specific development. However, future development would be
designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with applicable standards, including vehicular
access to ensure that adequate emergency access and evacuation would be maintained. The City has
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.8-17 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
adopted the current edition of the California Fire Code and access for emergency vehicles would be
required to be incorporated into project design. Construction activities that may temporarily restrict
vehicular traffic would be required to implement appropriate measures to facilitate the passage of
persons and vehicles through/around any required road closures.
Primary access to all major roads would be maintained during construction of future developments within
the Project Area. As part of the site review process, future development projects would be reviewed for
adequate infrastructure and access as well as consistency with adopted emergency and evacuation plans
in order to ensure adequate emergency response and emergency evacuation would not be impaired.
Therefore, impacts associated with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.8.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Analysis: Construction of individual development projects associated with implementation of the
Downtown Core Project may involve the transportation, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials, or
the transportation of excavated soil and/or groundwater containing contaminants associated with
development and redevelopment activities. Furthermore, some future land uses could transport or use
hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school, or other sensitive receptors such as residences.
As with site-specific development projects resulting from implementation of the Project, cumulative
development would be required to evaluate individual hazards and hazardous materials impacts at the
project-level. While some cumulative impacts would potentially occur in the Project Area as individual
projects are constructed, federal, State, and local regulations, including the General Plan policies, actions,
and Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, would reduce the risk to people associated with hazards and
hazardous materials in the region. Considering the protection granted by local, State, and federal agencies
and their requirements for the use of hazardous materials and other potential hazards in the region, as
described above, the overall cumulative impact for hazards impacts would not be significant. Future
closure of a quarter-mile of Sierra Avenue and development within the Project Area would not impair or
interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed closure and
ultimate design of Sierra Avenue would be reviewed by the FFPD to ensure that adequate emergency
access would be maintained within the area. All development projects within the City are reviewed for
California Fire Code compliance, including adequate emergency access. As a result, the Project’s
incremental contribution to cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be less than
cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.8.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would occur with
the proposed Project.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.8-18 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
5.8.8 REFERENCES
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE), FHSZ Viewer,
http://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, accessed November 9, 2022.
California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), SWIS Facility/Site Search,
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search, accessed November 10, 2022.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Project Search Results,
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?CMD=search&city=Fontana&zip=&county=&
case_number=&business_name=&FEDERAL_SUPERFUND=True&STATE_RESPONSE=True&VOLU
NTARY_CLEANUP=True&SCHOOL_CLEANUP=True&CORRECTIVE_ACTION=True&tiered_permit=T
rue&evaluation=True&operating=True&post_closure=True&non_operating=True&inspections=T
rue&inspectionsother=True, accessed November 10, 2022a.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), SCE - FLANCO (60002815),
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report?global_id=60002815, accessed
November 10, 2022b.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List
(Cortese),
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_typ
e=CSITES,FUDS&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+S
ITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29, accessed November 9, 2022c.
California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, California Airport Land Use Planning
Handbook, 2001.
City of Fontana, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, June 2017.
City of Fontana, Fontana Forward: General Plan Update 2015-2035, November 2018.
City of Fontana, About Ready Fontana, https://www.fontana.org/3257/About-Ready-Fontana, accessed
November 9, 2022a.
City of Fontana, CUPA / Hazardous Materials, https://www.fontana.org/1102/CUPA-Hazardous-
Materials, accessed November 10, 2022b.
City of Ontario, Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, July 2018 (amended).
Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan,
October 2004.
San Bernardino County Fire Protection District, About Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA),
https://sbcfire.org/hazmatcupa/, accessed November 10, 2022.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Project Search Results,
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/search?page=1&cmd=search&business_name=&main_s
treet_name=&city=FONTANA&zip=&county=&status=&branch=&site_type=LUFT&npl=&funding
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.8-19 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
=&reporttitle=PROJECT+SEARCH+RESULTS&reporttype=&federal_superfund=&state_response=
&voluntary_cleanup=&school_cleanup=&permitted=&corrective_action=&spec_prog=&national
_priority_list=&senate=&assembly=&critical_pol=&business_type=&case_type=&searchtype=&
hwmp_site_type=&cleanup_type=&watershed=&gwbasin=&excludenc=False&orderby=status%
5Fdescription, accessed November 10, 2022.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.8-20 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This page intentionally left blank.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.9-1 Hydrology and Water Quality
5.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
5.9.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing hydrology and water quality conditions and
regulatory environment and to identify potential impacts that could result from Project implementation.
5.9.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Watersheds
A watershed is a region that is bound by a divide that drains to a common watercourse or body of water.
The State uses a hierarchical naming and numbering convention to define watershed areas for
management purposes. This means that boundaries are defined according to size and topography, with
multiple sub-watersheds within larger watersheds.
The Project Area is within the South Coast Hydrologic Region, which encompasses almost 11,000 square
miles from the Pacific Ocean to Riverside County and from Ventura County south to San Diego County.
Annual precipitation ranges from more than 40 inches in the mountains to less than 10 inches in some
valleys, with an overall average of 17.6 inches for the region (California Department of Water Resources,
2021). 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, 2003).
Within the South Coast Hydrologic Region, the Project Area is within the Santa Ana River Watershed. At
the sub-watershed level, the Project Area is located within the East Etiwanda Creek-Santa Ana River
hydrologic sub-area.
The City of Fontana 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 (Basin Plan), which
includes the Project Area.
Groundwater
The City of Fontana is located within the Upper Santa Ana Basin. Most of the City of Fontana, including
the Project Area, is underlain by the Chino Subbasin. The northern portion of the City is underlain by the
Rialto-Colton Subbasin. The Chino Subbasin (Basin) is bounded on the east by the Rialto-Colton fault; on
the southeast by the Jurupa Mountains; on the south by the Puente Hills and Chino fault; on the northwest
by the San Jose fault; and on the north by the San Gabriel Mountains and by the Cucamonga fault
(California Department of Water Resources, 2003). San Antonio Creek and Cucamonga Creek drain the
surface of the subbasin southward to join the Santa Ana River. Annual mean precipitation ranges from 13
to 29 inches across the surface of the subbasin and averages about 17 inches (California Department of
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.9-2 Hydrology and Water Quality
Water Resources, 2003). The Basin contains approximately 5,000,000 acre-feet (AF) of water with an
unused storage capacity of approximately 1,000,000 AF (Kennedy Jenks, 2021).
The Basin was adjudicated in 1978; pumping is managed and reported by the Chino Basin Watermaster.
The Basin was designated a very low priority basin in the Department of Water Resources (DWR) 2019
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Basin Prioritization report (California Department of
Water Resources, 2020).
Water Quality Objectives and Impaired Water Bodies
As described above, the Project Area is tributary to the Santa Ana River Watershed that, in turn, drains to
the Santa Ana River Reach 3, Prado Dam, Santa Ana River Reach 2, Santa Ana River Reach 1, and Pacific
Ocean. The Santa Ana River runs southwesterly across San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties,
where it discharges into the Pacific Ocean at the City of Huntington Beach. Based on the Santa Ana River
Basin Plan (Basin Plan Table 3-1), the potential beneficial uses of the Santa Ana River Reach 3 are:
municipal and domestic water supply (excepted in accordance with the criteria specified in the “Sources
of Drinking Water Policy”); agricultural supply; groundwater recharge; water contact recreation; non-
contact water recreation; warm freshwater habitat; wildlife habitat, rare, threatened, or endangered
species; and spawning, reproduction and development. The potential beneficial uses of the Santa Ana
River Reach 2 are municipal and domestic water supply (excepted); agricultural supply; groundwater
recharge; water contact recreation; non-contact water recreation; warm freshwater habitat; and wildlife
habitat, rare, threatened, or endangered species. The existing beneficial uses of the Santa Ana River Reach
1 are municipal and domestic water supply (excepted); water contact recreation; non-contact water
recreation; warm freshwater habitat (intermittent); and wildlife habitat, rare, threatened, or endangered
species (intermittent).
CWA 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments
Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), states are required to identify water bodies that do
not meet their water quality standards. Biennially, the Santa Ana RWQCB prepares a list of impaired
waterbodies in the region, referred to as the 303(d) list. The 303(d) list outlines the impaired waterbody
and the specific pollutant(s) for which it is impaired. All waterbodies on the 303(d) list are subject to the
development of a total maximum daily load (TMDL).
Of the Project Area’s receiving waterbodies, the Santa Ana River Reach 3 is included on the CWA’s Section
303(d) list of impaired waters because of excessive concentrations of copper, indicator bacteria, and lead,
and the Prado Basin Management Zone is included because of pH (State Water Resources Control Board,
2022a).
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
Once a water body has been listed as impaired on the 303(d) list, a TMDL for the constituent of concern
(pollutant) must be developed for that water body. A TMDL is an estimate of the daily load of pollutants
that a water body may receive from point sources, non-point sources, and natural background conditions
(including an appropriate margin of safety), without exceeding its water quality standard. Those facilities
and activities that are discharging into the water body, collectively, must not exceed the TMDL. In general
terms, municipal, small MS4, and other dischargers within each watershed are collectively responsible for
meeting the required reductions and other TMDL requirements by the assigned deadline.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.9-3 Hydrology and Water Quality
TMDLs for the Santa River Reach 3 have been established for indicator bacteria and nitrates (State Water
Resources Control Board, 2022b).
LOCAL DRAINAGE AND HYDROLOGY
Local Storm Drainage Infrastructure
The City of Fontana and the San Bernardino Flood Control District (SBCFCD) share responsibility of the
stormwater system in the City of Fontana (City of Fontana, 2018). The SBCFCD is responsible for
operations and maintenance of the regional flood control facilities. The City is responsible for the local
drainage system, detention basins, and storm drain lines that connect to the regional facilities. The City is
located within Flood Control District Zone 2.
The City of Fontana’s storm drain system eventually empties into the Santa Ana River without being
cleaned at treatment plants (City of Fontana, 2018). As described above, the Santa Ana River flows in a
southwesterly direction and eventually drains to the Pacific Ocean.
FLOODPLAIN MAPPING
FEMA Flood Zones
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has a database that maps flood potential across the
United States. FEMA mapping provides important guidance for the City in planning for flooding events
and regulating development within identified flood hazard areas. FEMA’s National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) is intended to encourage State and local governments to adopt responsible floodplain
management programs and flood measures. As part of the program, the NFIP defines floodplain and
floodway boundaries that are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). The Project Area is located
within Zone X, which is an area determined to be outside the 0.2 percent annual chance (500-year)
floodplain (FEMA, 2022).
Dam Inundation
Earthquakes centered close to a dam are typically the most likely cause of dam failure. Dam inundation
maps have been required in California since 1972, following the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake and near
failure of the Lower Van Norman Dam. There are a number of dams in the vicinity of the City but none
have the potential to inundate portions of the Project Area according to the Department of Water
Resources (DWR) Division of Safety of Dams Dam Breach Inundation Maps (California Department of
Water Resources, 2022).
5.9.3 REGULATORY SETTING
FEDERAL
Clean Water Act
The CWA, initially passed in 1972, regulates the discharge of pollutants into watersheds throughout the
nation. Section 402(p) of the act establishes a framework for regulating municipal and industrial
stormwater discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program.
Section 402(p) requires that stormwater associated with industrial activity that discharges either directly
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.9-4 Hydrology and Water Quality
to surface waters or indirectly through municipal separate storm sewers must be regulated by an NPDES
permit.
The CWA establishes the basic structure for regulating the discharges of pollutants into the waters of the
United States and gives the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to implement
pollution control programs. The statute’s goal is to regulate all discharges into the nation’s waters and to
restore, maintain, and preserve the integrity of those waters. The CWA sets water quality standards for
all contaminants in surface waters and mandates permits for wastewater and stormwater discharges.
The CWA also requires states to establish site-specific water quality standards for navigable bodies of
water and regulates other activities that affect water quality, such as dredging and the filling of wetlands.
The following CWA sections assist in ensuring water quality for the water of the United States.
CWA Section 208 requires the use of best management practices (BMPs) to control the discharge of
pollutants in stormwater during construction. CWA Section 303(d) requires the creation of a list of
impaired water bodies by states, territories, and authorized tribes; evaluation of lawful activities that may
impact impaired water bodies, and preparation of plans to improve the quality of these water bodies.
CWA Section 303(d) also establishes TMDLs, which is the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water
body can receive and still safely meet water quality standards. CWA Section 404 authorizes the US Army
Corps of Engineers to require permits that will discharge dredge or fill materials into waters in the US,
including wetlands.
In California, the EPA has designated the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its nine
RWQCBs) with the authority to identify beneficial uses and adopt applicable water quality objectives.
The SWRCB is responsible for implementing the CWA and does so through issuing NPDES permits to cities
and counties through regional water quality control boards. Federal regulations allow two permitting
options for storm water discharges (individual permits and general permits).
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPDES permits are required for discharges to navigable waters of the United States, which includes any
discharge to surface waters, including lakes, rivers, streams, bays, oceans, dry stream beds, wetlands, and
storm sewers that are tributary to any surface water body. NPDES permits are issued under the Federal
CWA, Title IV, Permits and Licenses, Section 402 (33 USC 466 et seq.).
The RWQCB issues these permits in lieu of direct issuance by the EPA, subject to review and approval by
the EPA Regional Administrator (EPA Region 9). The terms of these NPDES permits implement pertinent
provisions of the Federal CWA and the Act’s implementing regulations, including pre-treatment, sludge
management, effluent limitations for specific industries, and anti-degradation. In general, the discharge
of pollutants is to be eliminated or reduced as much as practicable so as to achieve the CWA’s goal of
“fishable and swimmable” navigable (surface) waters. Technically, all NPDES permits issued by the RWQCB
are also Waste Discharge Requirements issued under the authority of the CWA.
These NPDES permits regulate discharges from publicly owned treatment works, industrial discharges,
stormwater runoff, dewatering operations, and groundwater cleanup discharges. NPDES permits are
issued for five years or less, and are therefore to be updated regularly. Individual projects in the City that
disturb more than one acre would be required to obtain NPDES coverage under the California General
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.9-5 Hydrology and Water Quality
Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities
(Construction General Permit). The Construction General Permit requires the development and
implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) describing BMPs the discharger
would use to prevent and retain storm water runoff. The SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring
program; a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a
failure of BMPs; and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a waterbody listed on
the 303(d) list for sediment.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA operates the NFIP. Participants in the NFIP must satisfy certain mandated floodplain management
criteria. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 has adopted as a desired level of protection, an
expectation that developments should be protected from floodwater damage of the Intermediate
Regional Flood (IRF). The IRF is defined as a flood that has an average frequency of occurrence on the
order of once in 100 years, although such a flood may occur in any given year. Communities are
occasionally audited by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to ensure the proper
implementation of FEMA floodplain management regulations.
Flood Disaster Protection Act
The Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA) of 1973 was a response to the shortcomings of the NFIP, which
were experienced during the flood season of 1972. The FDPA prohibited federal assistance, including
acquisition, construction, and financial assistance, within delineated floodplains in non-participating NFIP
communities. Furthermore, all federal agencies and/or federally insured and federally regulated lenders
must require flood insurance for all acquisitions or developments in designated Special Flood Hazard
Areas (SFHAs) in communities that participate in the NFIP.
Improvements, construction, and developments within SFHAs are generally subject to the following
standards:
• All new construction and substantial improvements of residential buildings must have the lowest
floor (including basement) elevated to or above the base flood elevation (BFE).
• All new construction and substantial improvements of non-residential buildings must either have
the lowest floor (including basement) elevated to or above the BFE or dry-floodproofed to the
BFE.
• Buildings can be elevated to or above the BFE using fill, or they can be elevated on extended
foundation walls or other enclosure walls, on piles, or on columns.
• Extended foundation or other enclosure walls must be designed and constructed to withstand
hydrostatic pressure and be constructed with flood-resistant materials and contain openings that
will permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters. Any enclosed area below the BFE can only
be used for the parking of vehicles, building access, or storage.
National Flood Insurance Program
Per the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, the NFIP has three fundamental purposes: Better indemnify
individuals for flood losses through insurance; Reduce future flood damages through State and
community floodplain management regulations; and Reduce Federal expenditures for disaster assistance
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.9-6 Hydrology and Water Quality
and flood control. While the Act provided for subsidized flood insurance for existing structures, the
provision of flood insurance by FEMA became contingent on the adoption of floodplain regulations at the
local level.
STATE
California Code of Regulations
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, Chapter 15, Article 20 requires all public water systems to
prepare a Consumer Confidence Report for distribution to its customers and to the Department of Health
Services. The Consumer Confidence Report provides information regarding the quality of potable water
provided by the water system. It includes information on the sources of the water, any detected
contaminants in the water, the maximum contaminants levels set by regulation, violations and actions
taken to correct them, and opportunities for public participation in decisions that may affect the quality
of the water provided.
California Government Code
Relevant sections of the California Government Code are identified below.
Section 65584.04
Any land having inadequate flood protection, as determined by FEMA or DWR, must be excluded from
land identified as suitable for urban development.
Section 8589.4
California Government Code §8589.4, commonly referred to as the Potential Flooding-Dam Inundation
Act, requires owners of dams to prepare maps showing potential inundation areas in the event of dam
failure. A dam failure inundation zone is different from a flood hazard zone under the NFIP. NFIP flood
zones are areas along streams or coasts where storm flooding is possible from a “100-year flood.” In
contrast, a dam failure inundation zone is the area downstream from a dam that could be flooded in the
event of dam failure due to an earthquake or other catastrophe. Dam failure inundation maps are
reviewed and approved by the California Office of Emergency Services (OES). Sellers of real estate within
inundation zones are required to disclose this information to prospective buyers.
California Department of Health Services
The Department of Health Services, Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management, oversees
the Drinking Water Program. The Drinking Water Program regulates public water systems and certifies
drinking water treatment and distribution operators. It provides support for small water systems and for
improving their technical, managerial, and financial capacity. It provides subsidized funding for water
system improvements under the State Revolving Fund (“SRF”) and Proposition 50 programs. The Drinking
Water Program also oversees water recycling projects, permits water treatment devices, supports and
promotes water system security, and oversees the Drinking Water Treatment and Research Fund for
methyl tertiary butyl either (MTBE) and other oxygenates.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.9-7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Consumer Confidence Report Requirements
CCR Title 22, Chapter 15, Article 20 requires all public water systems to prepare a Consumer Confidence
Report for distribution to its customers and to the Department of Health Services. The Consumer
Confidence Report provides information regarding the quality of potable water provided by the water
system. It includes information on the sources of the water, any detected contaminants in the water, the
maximum contaminant levels set by regulation, violations and actions taken to correct them, and
opportunities for public participation in decisions that may affect the quality of the water provided.
California Water Code
California’s primary statute governing water quality and water pollution issues with respect to both
surface waters and groundwater is the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 (Division 7 of
the California Water Code) (Porter-Cologne Act). The Porter-Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and each of
the RWQCBs power to protect water quality, and is the primary vehicle for implementation of California’s
responsibilities under the Federal CWA. The Porter-Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and the RWQCBs
authority and responsibility to adopt plans and policies, to regulate discharges to surface and
groundwater, to regulate waste disposal sites, and to require cleanup of discharges of hazardous materials
and other pollutants. The Porter-Cologne Act also establishes reporting requirements for unintended
discharges of any hazardous substance, sewage, or oil or petroleum product.
Each RWQCB must formulate and adopt a Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for its region. The
regional plans are to conform to the policies set forth in the Porter-Cologne Act and established by the
SWRCB in its State water policy. The Porter-Cologne Act also provides that a RWQCB may include within
its regional plan water discharge prohibitions applicable to particular conditions, areas, or types of waste.
State Water Resources Control Board Storm Water Strategy
The Storm Water Strategy is founded on the results of the Storm Water Strategic Initiative, which served
to direct the State Water Board’s role in storm water resources management and evolve the Storm Water
Program by a) developing guiding principles to serve as the foundation of the storm water program, b)
identifying issues that support or inhibit the program from aligning with the guiding principles, and c)
proposing and prioritizing projects that the Water Boards could implement to address those issues.
The State Water Board staff created a strategy-based document called the Strategy to Optimize
Management of Storm Water (STORMS). STORMS includes a program vision, missions, goals, objectives,
projects, timelines, and consideration of the most effective integration of project outcomes into the
Water Board’s Storm Water Program.
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SGMA established a framework for sustainable, local groundwater management. SGMA requires
groundwater-dependent regions to halt overdraft and bring basins into balanced levels of pumping and
recharge. With passage of the SGMA, the DWR launched the Sustainable Groundwater Management
Program to implement the law and provide ongoing support to local agencies around the State. The
SGMA:
• Establishes a definition of “sustainable groundwater management;”
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.9-8 Hydrology and Water Quality
• Requires that a Groundwater Sustainability Plan be adopted for the most important groundwater
basins in California;
• Establishes a timetable for adoption of Groundwater Sustainability Plans;
• Empowers local agencies to manage basins sustainably;
• Establishes basic requirements for Groundwater Sustainability Plans; and
• Provides for a limited State role.
LOCAL
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Santa Ana River Basin
A Basin Plan is designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all
regional waters. The Basin Plan is a resource for the Regional Board and others who use water and/or
discharge wastewater in the region that the Basin Plan is designed to cover. Other agencies and
organizations involved in environmental permitting and resource management activities also use the
Basin Plan. Finally, the Basin Plan provides valuable information to the public about local water quality
issues.
The Santa Ana Region (Region 8) includes the upper and lower Santa Ana River watersheds, the San Jacinto
River Watershed, and several other small drainage areas. The Santa Ana Region covers parts of
southwestern San Bernardino County, western Riverside County, and northwestern Orange County. The
Project Area is located within this region.
Municipal NPDES Permit Waste Discharge Requirements
On January 29, 2010, the RWQCB adopted Order R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS 618036) Area wide Urban
Storm Water Runoff Management Program (MS4 Permit). Order R8-2010-0036 serves as the NPDES
permit for San Bernardino County within the Santa Ana Region. The permit covers the land areas in the
San Bernardino County Flood Control District jurisdiction, unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County,
and incorporated cities of San Bernardino County within the Santa Ana Region. The City of Fontana is
included in the MS4 Permit as a permittee under Order R8-2010-0036.
The MS4 Permit requires individual priority projects to prepare and implement a water quality
management plan that may include source control BMPs, mitigation measures, and treatment control
BMPs.
San Bernardino County Santa Ana River Watershed Stormwater Resource Plan
The San Bernardino County Santa Ana River Watershed Stormwater Resource Plan (SWRP) is a regional,
watershed-based plan for management and improvement of stormwater resources within the Santa Ana
River Watershed portion of San Bernardino County. The SWRP establishes stormwater and dry-weather
runoff goals and objectives to provide water quality, water supply, flood management, environmental,
and community benefits. The SWRP also identifies potential projects to meet the goals and objectives and
includes an implementation strategy to implement the projects and programs.
Chino Basin Management Plan
The 1978 Chino Basin Judgment adjudicated water rights within the Chino Subbasin and established the
Chino Basin Watermaster to develop and implement the Optimum Basin Management Program (OBMP).
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.9-9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Water rights in the Chino Basin are held by representatives of three stakeholder groups, called Pools. The
three Pools are: the Overlying Agricultural Pool, representing dairymen, farmers, and the State of
California; the Overlying Non-agricultural Pool, representing area industries; and the Appropriative Pool,
representing local cities, public water districts, and private water companies (Kennedy Jenks, 2021). The
court judgment allocates groundwater rights by establishing an annual pumping “safe yield” for each Pool.
To the extent that pumping exceeds the share of the safe yield, assessments are levied by the
Watermaster to replace the overproduction. The assessments are used to purchase untreated imported
water to recharge the groundwater basin. The Judgment established a safe yield of 140,000 AF per year
for the entire Basin, which was reset to 131,000 AF per year effective 2021. In compliance with the
Judgment, the Chino Basin Watermaster submits an Annual Report to the RWQCB. The Annual Report
provides an accounting and audit for the previous year.
Since 2000, the OBMP has been the planning document guiding management of the basin. The Chino
Basin Watermaster recently completed the 2020 OBMP Update; environmental review of the 2020 OBMP
Update has not yet been completed (Kennedy Jenks, 2021). According to the Chino Basin Watermaster
website, the Draft SEIR is anticipated to be recirculated in Spring 2023.
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce potential impacts associated with
hydrology and water quality. Chapter 10, Infrastructure and Green Systems, Chapter 11, Noise and Safety,
and Chapter 12, Sustainability and Resilience Elements contain the following goals and policies specific to
hydrology and water quality:
Chapter 10 – Infrastructure and Green Systems
• Goal 1: Fontana collaborates with public and private agencies for an integrated and sustainable
water resource management program.
o Policy: Support initiatives to provide a long-term supply of the right water for the right
use through working with regional providers and the One Water One Watershed Plan.
• Goal 2: Fontana promotes use of non-potable water for uses where drinking water is not needed.
o Policy: Encourage use of processed water from the IEUA systems using recycled water for
all non-drinking water purposes.
o Policy: Promote laundry-to-landscape greywater systems for single-family housing units.
• Goal 3: The city continues to have an effective water conservation program.
o Policy: Support landscaping in public and private spaces with drought resistant plants.
o Policy: Continue successful city water conservation programs and partnerships.
• Goal 4: The City of Fontana consistently seeks reasonable rates from the city’s drinking water
providers.
o Policy: Support City negotiations to keep drinking water rates reasonable for residents
and other users.
• Goal 6: Fontana has a stormwater drainage system that is environmentally and economically
sustainable and compatible with regional one water one watershed standards.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.9-10 Hydrology and Water Quality
o Policy: Continue to implement the Water Quality Management Plan for stormwater
management that incorporates low-impact and green infrastructure standards.
o Policy: Promote natural drainage approaches (green infrastructure) and other alternative
non-structural and structural best practices to manage and treat stormwater.
Chapter 11 – Noise and Safety
• Goal 6: Injury, loss of life, property damage, and economic and social disruption caused by flood
and inundation hazards are minimized in Fontana.
o Policy: The city shall discourage new development in flood-hazard areas and implement
mitigation measures to reduce the hazard to existing developments located within the
100- and 500-year flood zones.
Chapter 12 – Sustainability and Resilience
• Goal 7: Conservation of water resources with best practices such as drought-tolerant plant
species, recycled water, greywater systems, has become a way of life in Fontana.
o Policy: Continue to promote and implement best practices to conserve water.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 23, Article IX, Preventing Discharge of Pollutants into Storm Drains,
provides requirements for all uses of the City's storm drain system to protect and enhance water quality
and implement the requirements of the City's NPDES permit. Pursuant to this chapter, the City requires
all development activities subject to the City’s NPDES permit to prepare and implement a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which is required to identify proposed structural BMPs and source and
treatment control BMPs to infiltrate and/or adequately treat the projected stormwater and urban runoff
from the development site.
Chapter 28, Article IV, Section 28-111, Stormwater Management and Rainwater Retention, relates to the
integration of stormwater BMPs into landscape and grading design plans to minimize runoff and to
increase on-site rainwater retention and infiltration.
Chapter 9, Article III, Control of Blowing Sand and Soil Erosion, adopts the County’s dust control measures
to minimize water quality-related impacts.
City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), identifies hazards, reviews and assesses past disaster
occurrences, estimates the probability of future occurrences, and sets goals to mitigate potential risks to
reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural and man-made hazards. The 2017
LHMP was approved and adopted by City Council on August 14, 2018. The LHMP addresses flood hazards
and includes mitigation goals, objectives, and projects related to flood hazards.
5.9.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Initial Study
Environmental Checklist, which includes questions related to hydrology and water quality. A project would
result in a significant impact related to hydrology and water quality if it would:
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.9-11 Hydrology and Water Quality
• Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality (refer to Impact Statement 5.9-1);
• Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin
(refer to Impact Statement 5.9-2);
• 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:
o Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site (refer to Impact Statement 5.9-3);
o Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site (refer to Impact Statement 5.9-3);
o 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
(refer to Impact Statement 5.9-3); or
o Impede or redirect flood flows (refer to Section 8.0, Effects Found Not to be Significant);
• In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation
(refer to Section 8.0, Effects Found Not to be Significant); and/or
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan (refer to Impact Statement 5.9-4).
Based on these standards and significance thresholds and criteria, the Project’s effects have been
categorized as either “no impact,” a “less than significant impact,” or a “potentially significant impact.”
Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant
impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant impact through the application of mitigation, it is
categorized as a “significant unavoidable impact.”
5.9.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 5.9-1: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Impact Analysis:
Construction
The Downtown Core Project does not propose site-specific development projects; however, it does
anticipate future development and redevelopment would occur within the Project Area. Future
development may involve grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, and activities associated with
future construction activities that could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation.
Construction activities also could result in soil compaction and wind erosion impacts that could adversely
affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas.
As stated, to comply with NPDES Permit regulations, the State of California requires that any construction
activity disturbing one acre or more of soil comply with the Construction General Permit. The permit
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.9-12 Hydrology and Water Quality
requires development and implementation of a SWPPP and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-
control and sediment-control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction
General Permit to control stormwater quality degradation due to potential construction-related
pollutants. The Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 23, Article IX requires construction dischargers to comply
with the construction activity storm water permit, including development and implementation of a
SWPPP; implementation of BMPs as necessary; and preparation or implementation of a Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) or equivalent as required by the City. The RWQCB would require a project-
specific SWPPP to be prepared for each future project that disturbs one acre or larger. The SWPPPs would
include project-specific BMPs that are designed to control drainage and erosion. Additionally, Chapter 9,
Article III adopts the County’s dust control measures to minimize water quality-related impacts.
Therefore, the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements, nor would it otherwise substantially degrade surface water or groundwater quality.
Operation
The Project Area is primarily urbanized with limited pervious areas anticipated for development. The
Downtown Core Project does not propose site-specific development. Future development activities have
the potential to increase impervious areas especially associated with the development of currently
undeveloped sites, resulting in increased runoff when compared to existing site conditions. Stormwater
runoff may include pollutants such as sediments, nutrients, pesticides, trash, oil and grease, and metals.
The San Bernardino County NPDES MS4 Permit and Fontana Municipal Code regulate stormwater
discharges within the Project Area, and require the use of BMPs and other control measures to reduce
the discharge of pollutants to receiving water bodies.
Municipal Code Chapter 28, Article IV, Section 28-111 relates to the integration of stormwater BMPs into
landscape and grading design plans to minimize runoff and to increase on-site rainwater retention and
infiltration. Existing regulatory requirements that manage water quality include requirements to obtain
approval from the RWQCB for NPDES permits, other discharge permits, WQMPs, SWPPPs, and to
implement BMPs. Federal, State and local regulations would require individual projects to provide the on-
site storm drain infrastructure, including water quality measures, to ensure the stormwater runoff
associated with the proposed development would be captured and treated on-site, protecting water
quality both on- and off-site. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not violate water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater
quality. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.9-13 Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 5.9-2: Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
Impact Analysis: The Project Area is underlain by the Upper Santa Ana Basin, Chino Subbasin. The Chino
Subbasin is an adjudicated basin managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster. As indicated in Section 5.16,
Utilities and Service Systems, potable water in the Project Area is provided by the Fontana Water Company
(FWC). According to the FWC 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), water supply sources include
local groundwater and local and imported surface water. Local groundwater basins include: Chino Basin,
an adjudicated basin and the primary groundwater source for FWC; Rialto-Colton Basin, an adjudicated
basin; Lytle Basin, an adjudicated basin; and No Man’s Land Basin, which is managed through Rialto-Colton
Basin.
The Downtown Core Project anticipates increased development of residential and non-residential uses
within the Project Area when compared to existing conditions. Increased development would result in
increased demand on water supplies. As indicated in Section 5.16, FWC has confirmed that it is able to
provide water utility service to meet the water supply needs anticipated by the proposed Project.
Therefore, the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies resulting from increased
demand for water associated with future development anticipated by the Downtown Core Project.
The Project Area is primarily urbanized with limited pervious areas anticipated for development. Although
future development activities have the potential to increase impervious areas, especially associated with
the development of currently undeveloped sites, these areas are limited and do not provide for
substantial groundwater recharge within the Project Area. The majority of development activities
associated with implementation of the Project would consist of infill and redevelopment on currently
urbanized sites. Therefore, the proposed Project would not interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge. Further, the Basin is managed by an adjudication and subject to the Judgment managed by the
Chino Basin Watermaster. The OBMP includes programs for the long-term management of the Basin. The
primary means of ensuring long-term groundwater level maintenance includes careful monitoring to
ensure groundwater levels are managed within a safe basin operating range and implementation of water
conservation programs. Given that future development associated with implementation of the Downtown
Core Project would not appreciably add to the volume of imperious surfaces in the Project Area, this
potential impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.9-14 Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 5.9-3: 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;
• Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or offsite; or
• 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?
Impact Analysis:
Erosion and Siltation
Erosion or siltation is known to occur during construction and/or during the post-construction phase if
erosion control measures are not used. Erosion or siltation can also occur in the post-construction phase
if runoff is not captured and conveyed appropriately. As stated above, future development would be
subject to NPDES permit requirements that address the control of erosion and siltation. This includes the
Construction General Permit, which requires a SWPPP and the effective implementation of erosion control
measures. The Santa Ana RWQCB conducts inspections and enforces the Construction General Permit at
construction sites. The Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 23, Article IX requires construction dischargers
to comply with the construction activity storm water permit, including development and implementation
of a SWPPP; implement BMPs as necessary; and prepare or implement a WQMP or equivalent as required
by the City. The SWPPPs would include project-specific BMPs that are designed to control drainage and
erosion. Chapter 9, Article III adopts the County’s dust control measures to minimize water quality-related
impacts.
Development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would also be subject to the
post-construction requirements of the MS4 permit. The MS4 Permit requires individual priority projects
to prepare and implement a WQMP that may include source control BMPs, mitigation measures, and
treatment control BMPs. Discharges that are not authorized by a NPDES permit must be permitted by
other means by the Santa Ana RWQCB or SWRCB (e.g., filing a Report of Waste Discharge, Water Quality
Certification). Through compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations, erosion/siltation
impacts resulting from Project implementation would be less than significant and no mitigation is
required.
Surface Runoff and Water Quality
As previously described, SBCFCD and the City operate and maintain a network of flood control facilities
within the Project Area. Flooding can occur from an increase in impervious surfaces, which increases the
volume and speed of runoff. When the volume and speed of runoff are increased, drainage facilities may
be unable to handle the flows and capacity could be exceeded. As stated, the Project Area is primarily
developed, with limited areas of pervious surfaces. Although future development activities have the
potential to slightly increase impervious areas within the Project Area, the majority of development
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.9-15 Hydrology and Water Quality
activities associated with implementation of the Project would consist of infill and redevelopment on
currently urbanized sites. Federal, State and local regulations would require individual projects to provide
the on-site storm drain infrastructure and any off-site infrastructure improvements to ensure stormwater
runoff associated with the proposed development would be adequately captured and conveyed into the
City’s storm drain system and SBCFCD facilities. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff which would result in flooding on- or offsite or
create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
As previously discussed, Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 28, Article IV, Section 28-111 addresses the
integration of stormwater BMPs into landscape and grading design plans to minimize runoff and to
increase on-site rainwater retention and infiltration. Existing regulatory requirements that manage water
quality include requirements to obtain approval from the RWQCB for NPDES permits, other discharge
permits, WQMPs, SWPPPs, and to implement BMPs. Through implementation of the General Plan policies
and actions, and existing federal, State, and local regulations discussed above, future development within
the Project Area would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff and impacts would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Impact 5.9-4: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Impact Analysis: As described above, the local water quality control plan (Basin Plan) is maintained by the
Santa Ana RWQCB. The Basin Plan specifies the State’s water quality standards (i.e., beneficial uses, water
quality objectives, and antidegradation policy) and serves as the basis for the RWQCB’s regulatory
programs. When permittees and projects comply with the provisions of applicable NPDES permits and
water quality permitting, they are consistent with the Basin Plan. Through compliance and
implementation of existing regulations, implementation of the Downtown Core Project would not conflict
with or obstruct a water quality control plan. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than
significant.
As described above, the Project Area is located entirely within the Chino Subbasin. In compliance with the
Chino Basin Judgment, the Chino Basin Watermaster submits an annual report to the RWQCB. The Basin
was designated a very low priority basin in DWR’s 2019 SGMA Basin Prioritization report (California
Department of Water Resources, 2020). SGMA exempts adjudicated groundwater basins from the
requirements of designating a Groundwater Sustainability Agency and developing a Groundwater
Sustainability Plan. The Judgment and OBMP together provide for the legal and practical means of
ensuring that the waters of the Basin are put to maximum beneficial use. The Downtown Core Project
does not propose site-specific development. New development and redevelopment projects associated
with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would be subject to the Judgment and OBMP.
Therefore, the Downtown Core Project would not conflict with implementation of a sustainable
groundwater management plan and impacts would be less than significant.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.9-16 Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.9.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Analysis: Cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts associated with implementation of the
Downtown Core Project are analyzed based on development within the Project Area and Santa Ana River
Watershed, and development served by facilities under the jurisdiction of SBCFCD.
Higher flows resulting from future development in the watershed and within the area served by SBCFCD
infrastructure could result in drainage and runoff impacts. Runoff from cumulative development and
future development within the Project Area could combine into the same regional conveyance systems.
However, development within the Project Area as well as cumulative development projects would be
required to provide on-site storm drain infrastructure and any off-site infrastructure improvements to
ensure stormwater runoff associated with the proposed development would be adequately conveyed by
SBCFCD facilities. Additionally, development of each individual project would be required to comply with
the stormwater quality requirements for construction and operation in compliance with federal, State
and local regulations. The proposed Project’s incremental contribution to runoff and water impacts would
be less than significant. As stated, the proposed Project would not appreciably add to the volume of
imperious surfaces in the Project Area interfering substantially with groundwater recharge, nor would the
Project’s demand on water supplies result in a substantial decrease in groundwater supplies. Therefore,
the proposed Project’s incremental contribution to groundwater supplies and recharge impacts would be
less than significant. Further, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Overall, the Project’s incremental
contribution to cumulative hydrology impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.9.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts associated with hydrology and water quality would occur with the
proposed Project.
5.9.8 REFERENCES
California Department of Water Resources, Bulletin 118 - Update 2003, October 2003.
California Department of Water Resources, California’s Groundwater Update 2020, November 2021.
California Department of Water Resources, Sustainable Groundwater Management Act 2019 Basin
Prioritization, May 2020.
California Department of Water Resources, Dam Breach Inundation Map Web Publisher,
https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2, accessed November 14, 2022.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.9-17 Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fontana, Fontana Forward: General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report,
June 2018.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), FEMA's National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer,
https://hazards-
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa
9cd&extent=-117.47735819154686,34.070268522757175,-
117.39427408510163,34.105810037824384, accessed November 10, 2022.
Kennedy Jenks, Inland Empire Utilities Agency: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2021.
State Water Resources Control Board, California 2020-2022 Integrated Report, May 2022a.
State Water Resources Control Board, Santa Ana Region - Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), updated
October 26, 2022,
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/tmdl/#projects, accessed
November 14, 2022b.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.9-18 Hydrology and Water Quality
This page intentionally left blank.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.10-1 Land Use and Planning
5.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
5.10.1 PURPOSE
This section identifies existing land use conditions within the Project Area and provides an analysis of
potential impacts associated with implementation of the Project. Potential impacts are identified and
mitigation measures to address potentially significant impacts are recommended, as necessary.
5.10.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
EXISTING LAND USE
As indicated in Table 3-1, Summary of Existing On-Site Development, the Project Area contains a mix of
existing on-site development, including: single- and multi-family residential uses; commercial, office, and
industrial uses; public facilities and public parks; and vacant and right-of-way (ROW) land. The Project
Area is currently developed with approximately 1.3 million square feet of non-residential uses and 2,020
dwelling units.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
General Plan Land Uses
As indicated in the General Plan Land Use Map and shown in Figure 3-5, General Plan Land Use
Designations, the following land use designations exist with the Project Area:
Single-Family Residential
The Single-Family Residential (R-SF) designation supports detached single-family housing at densities of
2.1-5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac).
Multi-Family Residential
The Multi-Family Residential (R-MF) designation includes multifamily developments, from duplexes and
townhouses to condos and rental apartments, at densities up to 24 du/ac with required amenities.
Walkable Mixed Use Corridor & Downtown
The Walkable Mixed Use Corridor & Downtown (WMXU-1) designation is intended to provide for the
creation of areas that allow residents and visitors to walk, bike, and take transit to other uses for work,
study, shopping, entertainment, recreation, and civic activities, and to provide compact residential
development within walking distance of planned public transit stops and neighborhood shopping areas.
Uses include a variety of medium- to high-density residential types, retail and services, office,
entertainment, education, civic, and open space. Both vertical and horizontal mixed use is acceptable.
Light industrial uses are generally not included, except for conditional allowance of small-scale, artisan-
style businesses that operate without adverse urban design and other impacts, such as heavy truck traffic,
on neighboring uses. WMXU-1 residential densities range from 24 to 39 du/ac and non-residential uses
have a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.0. The WMXU-1 designation is located along Sierra Avenue,
much of Foothill Boulevard, and the segment of Valley Boulevard between Cypress and Palmetto. The
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.10-2 Land Use and Planning
designation was created to cover the half-mile walking distance radii (known as “walksheds”) from
planned public transit stops.
Public Facilities
The Public Facilities (P-PF) designation is for properties in public or quasi-public ownership, such as
existing schools; the facilities of agencies such as the City, County, water and sewer districts, and fire
protection districts; and hospitals and quasi-public institutions.
Recreational Facilities
The Recreational Facilities (P-R) designation includes regional and local parks, and any recreational facility
operated by a public or quasi-public agency.
Downtown Area Plan
As indicated in Section 3.0, Project Description, and shown in Figure 3-4, Downtown Area Plan, a majority
of the Project Area is located within the boundary of the Downtown Area Plan. The General Plan Chapter
14, Downtown Area Plan, focuses on the approximately one square mile area around the historic
Downtown, centered on the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Arrow Boulevard. The intent of the
Downtown Area Plan is to provide a comprehensive vision for the Downtown Area, organized into specific
goals, strategies and actions to direct and coordinate the implementation of that vision over time.
Zoning
The Project Area is located within the boundaries of the Form-Based Code (FBC) area. The City of Fontana
Zoning District Map identifies the zoning for all parcels within the Project Area as being within the FBC
district.
Chapter 30, Article III, Form-Based Code, establishes the requirements for all property, including
structures, land uses and physical improvements within the boundaries of the FBC area, including that all
property subject to the FBC comply with the relevant requirements of the applicable district. Division 4,
Development Standards by Zoning District, establishes the specific development standards for the 11
zoning districts. The FBC zoning districts within the Project Area include the Retail, Civic, Station Area,
Downtown Gateway, Transitional, Multi-Family, Neighborhood, and Sierra Gateway districts.
The Retail District is the commercial core of Fontana and functions as the city center. Uses include a
mixture of commercial, retail, entertainment, office and residential. The Civic District consists primarily of
civic and institutional uses and active and passive recreation areas. The Station Area District includes the
Metrolink station and Omnitrans bus terminal as the primary anchors. This area provides a transition
between the retail district, the south Sierra gateway district and Chaffey College. The Downtown Gateway
District is primarily intended for commercial retail and personal service uses. New development should
incorporate pedestrian elements to help serve as a transition to surrounding land uses. The Transitional
District is adjacent to more intense commercial uses providing a transition to more sensitive uses, such as
residential. This district includes a mixture of commercial office, retail, personal services, and residential.
The Multi-Family District provides higher densities focused along the fringe of the more urban
development. New development should incorporate increased density with architectural design and
materials that exemplify one of the designated architectural styles. The Neighborhood District is an area
primarily developed with single-family detached homes. New development should preserve and
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.10-3 Land Use and Planning
exemplify the character of existing neighborhoods. The Sierra Gateway District is intended to encourage
pedestrian-oriented development and land uses. Uses are to include a mix of medium- to high-density
residential, retail and services, office, entertainment, education, and open space.
5.10.3 REGULATORY SETTING
STATE
California General Plan Law
Government Code Section 65300 requires that each county and city adopt a General Plan “for the physical
development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which bears relation to its
planning.”
The General Plan is a comprehensive long-term plan for the physical development of the county or city
and is considered a "blueprint" for development. The General Plan must contain seven state-mandated
elements: Land Use, Open Space, Conservation, Housing, Circulation, Noise, and Safety. It may also
contain any other elements that the county or city wishes to include. The land use element designates the
general location and intensity of designated land uses to accommodate housing, business, industry, open
space, education, public buildings and grounds, recreation areas, and other land uses.
The 2017 General Plan Guidelines, established by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
to assist local agencies in the preparation of their general plans, further describe the mandatory land use
element as a guide to planners, the general public, and decision makers prescribing the ultimate pattern
of development for the county or city.
Subdivision Map Act
A subdivision is any division of land for the purpose of sale, lease or finance. The State of California
Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410) regulates subdivisions throughout the State. The
goals of the Subdivision Map Act are as follows:
• To encourage orderly community development by providing for the regulation and control of the
design and improvement of a subdivision with proper consideration of its relationship to adjoining
areas.
• To ensure that areas within the subdivision that are dedicated for public purposes will be properly
improved by the subdivider so that they will not become an undue burden on the community.
• To protect the public and individual transferees from fraud and exploitation.
The Map Act allows cities flexibility in the processing of subdivisions. The City of Fontana controls this
process through the subdivision regulations in the Municipal Code Chapter 26. Regulations ensure that
minimum requirements are adopted for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare; and that
the subdivision includes adequate community improvements, municipal services, and other public
facilities.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.10-4 Land Use and Planning
LOCAL
Southern California Association of Governments
Regional planning agencies such as the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) recognize
that planning issues extend beyond the boundaries of individual cities. Efforts to address regional planning
issues such as affordable housing, transportation, and air pollution have resulted in the adoption of
regional plans that affect the City of Fontana.
SCAG has evolved as the largest council of governments in the United States, functioning as the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for six counties (Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino,
Riverside, Ventura and Imperial) and 191 cities. The region encompasses an area more than 38,000 square
miles. As the designated MPO, the federal government mandates SCAG research and develop plans for
transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality. As a result, SCAG
prepares comprehensive regional plans to address concerns.
SCAG is responsible for the maintenance of a continuous, comprehensive and coordinated planning
process resulting in a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and a Regional Transportation Improvement
Program. SCAG is responsible for development of demographic projections and is also responsible for
development of the integrated land use, housing, employment, transportation programs, measures, and
strategies for the Air Quality Management Plan.
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)
The passage of California Senate Bill (SB) 375 in 2008 requires that an MPO, such as SCAG, prepare and
adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that sets forth a forecasted regional development pattern
which, when integrated with the transportation network, measures, and policies, will reduce greenhouse
gas emissions from automobiles and light duty trucks (Government Code Section 65080(b)(2)(B)). The SCS
outlines certain land use growth strategies that provide for more integrated land use and transportation
planning and maximize transportation investments. The SCS is intended to provide a regional land use
policy framework that local governments may consider and build upon.
On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council approved and fully adopted Connect SoCal (2020-2045
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy). Connect SoCal is a long-range visioning
plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several
planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. Connect
SoCal outlines more than $638 billion in transportation system investments through 2045. It was prepared
through a collaborative, continuous, and comprehensive process with input from local governments,
county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non-profit organizations, businesses and local
stakeholders within the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura.
Growth Forecasts
SCAG’s Forecasting Section is responsible for producing socio-economic estimates and projections at
multiple geographic levels and in multiple years. The Forecasting Section develops, refines, and maintains
SCAG’s regional and small area socio-economic forecasting/allocation models. Adopted 2020 RTP/SCS
Growth Forecasts provide population, household and employment data for 2045. The socio-economic
estimates and projections are used by federal and State mandated long-range planning efforts such as the
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.10-5 Land Use and Planning
RTP, Air Quality Management Plan, Regional Transportation Improvement Program, and the Regional
Housing Needs Assessment. SCAG’s Adopted 2020 RTP/SCS Growth Forecasts are used to assess a
project’s consistency with adopted plans that have addressed growth management from a local and
regional standpoint; refer to Section 6.3, Growth-Inducing Impacts.
Intergovernmental Review
SCAG’s Intergovernmental Review Section is responsible for performing consistency review of regionally
significant local plans, projects, and programs with SCAG’s adopted regional plans. The criteria for projects
of regional significance are outlined in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15125 and 15206. The proposed Project
is considered regionally significant; as such, Project consistency with SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS policies is
analyzed below.
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana Forward 2015-2035 General Plan update was adopted in 2018 to guide future development
and provide a strategic framework for decision making based both on the community’s vision and goals
and on the State’s goals for California’s long-term development. The General Plan is comprised of 16
chapters or “elements” that include a summary of existing conditions and current trends, the planning
process, and goals, policies and actions for different topic areas that will affect the physical and economic
development of the City.
General Plan Chapter 14, Downtown Area Plan, focuses on the approximately one square mile area around
the historic Downtown, centered on the intersection of Sierra Avenue and Arrow Boulevard. The intent of
the Downtown Area Plan is to provide a comprehensive vision for the Downtown Area, organized into
specific goals, strategies and actions to direct and coordinate the implementation of that vision over time.
As shown in Figure 3-4, a majority of the Project Area is located within the boundary of the Downtown
Area Plan.
General Plan Chapter 15, Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design, sets forth the policy framework for the
physical development of Fontana. It is the guide for decision makers on the pattern, distribution, density
and intensity of land uses that, over time, will help the city achieve the Fontana vision for the future. The
land use map provides the foundation for zoning and designates an intended land use for each parcel of
land in the City. For each land use designation, the uses allowed and the standards of dwelling unit density
for residential designations (as measured in dwelling units per acre) and building intensity for commercial
designations (as measured in Floor Area Ratio) are specified. The General Plan Land Use designations for
properties within the Project Area are shown in Figure 3-5.
The Downtown Area Plan and Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design Elements of the Fontana General Plan
contain the following goals and policies potentially relevant to the proposed Project:
Chapter 14 – Downtown Area Plan
• Goal: A Range of New Housing. Provide housing for a broad range of household sizes, types and
incomes within the Downtown Area to help support the health and growth of the downtown
economy.
o Policy: Encourage mixed-use development within the Downtown and along major
corridors.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.10-6 Land Use and Planning
o Policy: Encourage new medium-density housing on vacant and underutilized parcels
within the neighborhoods of the Downtown Area.
o Policy: Ensure that new infill development is compatible in scale and character with the
existing neighborhoods.
o Policy: Ensure that transportation and utility infrastructure keeps pace with infill
development so that the neighborhood character and quality steadily improves over time.
o Policy: Encourage new “in-town” housing types targeted to young people and young
families to help attract and retain the next generation of Fontanans.
• Goal: Strengthened Connections Between Downtown Core And Major Corridors. Reinvigorate the
Foothill and Sierra Corridors with a mix of retail, employment, mixed-use and housing
development as an economic engine for the Downtown Area, and as gateways to Downtown.
o Policy: Ensure that future street improvements to Foothill and Arrow Boulevards and
Sierra Avenue improve the appearance and pedestrian environment while
accommodating traffic flows.
o Policy: In addition to high quality commercial development, encourage housing in
appropriate forms along these corridors.
o Policy: Concentrate higher development intensities within a 1/4 mile of planned transit
stops, with shared parking arrangements when feasible.
• Goal: Center for Education. The area along Sierra Avenue and Merrill Street will become a College
District, with a mix of housing and employment surrounding and supporting the growing Chaffey
College campus.
o Policy: The City will work collaboratively with the College to attain this goal.
o Policy: Encourage higher density housing on appropriate sites that is targeted to student,
faculty and staff.
o Policy: Encourage the formation and growth of start-up and spin-off businesses related
to or supported by the College on appropriate sites.
Chapter 15 – Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design
• Goal 1: The Strategic Policy Map and the Future Land Use Map guide land-use decision making.
o Policy: Review citywide land use strategies when considering changes to the land use
map.
o Policy: Keep zoning and other regulations up to date and consistent with the Future Land
Use Map.
• Goal 2: Fontana development patterns support a high quality of life and economic prosperity.
o Policy: Preserve and enhance stable residential neighborhoods.
o Policy: Locate multi-family development in mixed-use centers, preferably where there is
nearby access to retail, services, and public transportation.
o Policy: Locate industrial uses where there is easy access to regional transportation routes.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.10-7 Land Use and Planning
o Policy: Promote interconnected neighborhoods with appropriate transitions between
lower intensity and higher intensity land uses.
o Policy: Preserve land to achieve an interconnected network of environmentally-sensitive
areas, parks, multi-use paths, and recreation areas.
• Goal 3: Downtown is a dynamic center of activity, with new housing options, walkable
environments, and a mixture of uses attracting residents and visitors.
o Policy: Promote revitalization and redevelopment of older neighborhoods.
o Policy: Encourage infill on vacant and underutilized parcels.
o Policy: Transform downtown into a vibrant local and regional destination.
• Goal 4: Compact, walkable, mixed-use centers are located at key locations along corridors to be
served by public transit in the future and at intersections where neighborhood retail and diverse
housing options can succeed.
o Policy: Promote a land use pattern that provides connections among land uses and a
mixture of land uses.
• Goal 7: Public and private development meets high design standards.
o Policy: Support high-quality development in design standards and in land use decisions.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
Zoning regulations provide for the types and densities of residential and other uses permitted in each of
the City’s zones. Chapter 30 of the Fontana Municipal Code contains the City’s Zoning and Development
Code (Development Code), which establishes official land use zoning regulations and design guideline for
the City of Fontana. Zoning establishes the maximum allowable development in a zone, and includes
height limitations and other development standards which together regulate setbacks, building heights,
floor area ratios (FAR), open space and parking for each parcel within the City, as applicable.
5.10.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Initial Study
Environmental Checklist, which includes questions related to land use and planning. A project may create
a significant environmental impact if it would:
• Physically divide an established community (refer to Impact Statement 5.10-1); and
• Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (refer to Impact Statement 5.10-2).
Based on these standards and significance thresholds and criteria, the Project’s effects have been
categorized as either “no impact,” a “less than significant impact,” or a “potentially significant impact.”
Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant
impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant impact through the application of mitigation, it is
categorized as a “significant unavoidable impact.”
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.10-8 Land Use and Planning
5.10.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 5.10-1: Would the project physically divide an established community?
Impact Analysis: The goal of the Downtown Core Project is to create a vibrant, walkable, mixed-use area
with high quality housing and retail options in the Downtown Core Project Area. The Project would
accomplish this goal by creating and implementing a new Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core (WMXU-
3) General Plan land use category and six new FBC districts specific to the Project Area. The new land use
category and FBC districts would allow for cohesive infill development in the Downtown Core. The Project
would amend the Development Code to incorporate the six new FBC districts, including permitted land
uses, increased densities and development standards by zoning district, building types, frontage types,
general regulations, design and architectural regulations, private open space types, and public open space
standards specific to each new FBC District. Further, the City is developing the Downtown Fontana
Development Guide to provide recommended changes to the FBC, objective development standards,
expedited review guidelines, and development impact fee incentives. These standards and guidelines
would ensure new development and redevelopment projects would be designed to complement the
character of the existing community and neighborhoods and provide connectivity between existing
development and new development.
The Project Area planned circulation would provide a more “walkable” environment, designed to
incorporate traffic calming measures to reduce traffic speeds, enhance pedestrian safety, and promote
walkability of the area, specifically along Sierra Avenue. To enhance the pedestrian experience and
promote walkability, the Project proposes to ultimately close a quarter-mile portion of Sierra Avenue to
vehicular traffic. The Project does not include any new areas designated for new roadways, infrastructure,
or other features that would divide existing communities. Overall, the proposed Downtown Core Project
would provide new residential development opportunities and supportive commercial development to
support the vision for development consistent with the goals and vision of the Downtown Area Plan.
Implementation of the Downtown Fontana Development Guide would further support integration of
mixed-use development, infill housing, infrastructure improvements, interconnections and placemaking
to further connect uses within the Project Area. Thus, the proposed Project would not physically divide
an established community and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Impact 5.10-2: Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Impact Analysis:
SCAG REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY
SCAG reviews environmental documents for regionally significant projects for their consistency with the
adopted 2020 RTP/SCS. SCAG refers to CEQA Guidelines Section 15206, Projects of Statewide, Regional or
Areawide Significance, in determining whether a project meets the criteria to be deemed regionally
significant.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.10-9 Land Use and Planning
SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS provides a framework for regional land use and transportation policy within the
SCAG region through the horizon year of 2045. SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS goals and policies were adopted to
help focus future investments on the best-performing projects and strategies to preserve, maintain and
optimize the performance of the existing transportation system. The goals of Connect SoCal fall into four
core categories: economy, mobility, environment and healthy/complete communities. An analysis of the
proposed Project’s consistency with the relevant SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS goals adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect is provided in Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Table 5.7-4, Project Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. As demonstrated in Table 5.7-4, the
Downtown Core Project would be consistent with SCAG’s regional planning efforts and a less than
significant impact would occur in this regard.
FONTANA FORWARD GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The Project proposes to amend General Plan Chapter 15, Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design, Table 15.25
and Exhibit 15.10 to include the addition of a new WMXU-3: Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core (0.2-
2.0 Commercial FAR, 2.1-70 du/ac) land use category. Text modifications would also occur within Chapter
15, Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design, to incorporate the WMXU-3 land use category. The General Plan
Land Use Map would be amended to apply the WMXU-3: Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core (0.2-2.0
Commercial FAR, 2.1-70 du/ac) land use category within the Project Area. Implementation of the WMXU-
2 land use category would allow for increased residential densities to encourage a variety of housing
development at varying income levels within the Project Area. Project implementation would further the
goals, policies, and actions of the Downtown Area Plan by providing a stronger residential presence, more
support for mixed-uses, streamlined development process, and development incentives exclusive to the
Project Area.
The Project also proposes to amend General Plan Chapter 9, Community Mobility and Circulation,
including Exhibit 9.2, Hierarchy of Streets in Fontana, to modify the roadway functional class for Nuevo
Avenue and Wheeler Avenue and to remove the roadway functional class for Sierra Avenue between
Arrow Boulevard and Orange Way; related text modifications would also occur for consistency.
Modifications to text and graphics would occur within General Plan Chapter 14, Downtown Area Plan, to
be consistent with the proposed modifications to Chapter 9, Community Mobility and Circulation, and
Chapter 15, Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design.
Approval of the proposed amendments to the General Plan would provide consistency with the General
Plan.
An analysis of the proposed Project’s consistency with the relevant Fontana Forward General Plan policies
and actions adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect is provided in Table
5.10-1, General Plan Consistency.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.10-10 Land Use and Planning
Table 5.10-1
General Plan Consistency
General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency
Chapter 4: Community and Neighborhoods
Goal 3: Archaeological resources are protected and preserved.
Action A: Continue to ensure that proper protocols
are observed in development proposals for sites
with potential archaeological significance.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.4, Cultural
Resources, there are existing historic resources within
the Project Area and the potential for previously
undiscovered archaeological resources to occur. Future
development projects would be required to comply with
Mitigation Measures CUL-1, which would ensure
evaluation of a project site for historical resources and,
if necessary, implementation of mitigation measures to
reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant.
Therefore, the Project would be consistent with this
action.
Goal 5: New housing developments promote walkable neighborhoods with mixed-use amenities and
connections to citywide destinations.
Policy: Support regulations that promote creation
of compact and walkable urban village-style design
in new developments.
Consistent. The Project would establish the new WMXU-
3: Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core land use
category and apply it within the Project Area. The Project
would also amend the Development Code to incorporate
six new FBC districts and apply them to the Project Area.
Implementation of the Downtown Core Project would
provide opportunities for increased residential
development and offer more support for mixed-uses
within a focused area of the Downtown. The Downtown
Fontana Development Guide would provide the
development standards and design and architectural
regulations that would further encourage and promote
a compact and walkable environment. Additionally, the
Project Area planned circulation would provide a more
“walkable” environment through traffic calming
measures, specifically along Sierra Avenue. Therefore,
the Project would be consistent with this Policy.
Goal 6: The safe, attractive, and lively central area of the city has new infill development and public
improvements.
Policy: Support revitalization of the central area of
the city with an integrated approach, including
mixed-use development, infill housing,
infrastructure improvements, interconnections and
placemaking programs.
Consistent. The Project would, in part, provide increased
residential development, mixed-use opportunities, and
infill housing in the City’s downtown area. The proposed
WMXU-3: Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core land use
category and six new FBC districts would be applied to
the Project Area. The Downtown Fontana Development
Guide would provide the development standards and
design and architectural regulations that would further
encourage and promote interconnections and
placemaking within the Project Area. Therefore, the
Project would be consistent with this Policy.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.10-11 Land Use and Planning
Table 5.10-1 (continued)
General Plan Consistency
General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency
2021-2029 Housing Element
Housing Goal 2: A high standard of quality in existing affordable housing stock.
Housing Policy 2.2: Encourage and promote
sustainable, energy efficient design in existing and
future residential units.
Consistent. The Project would implement an efficient
land use pattern that, in part, provides for increased
residential development opportunities and multiple
transportation options. The proposed Downtown Core
Project would accommodate a mix of residential and
non-residential uses, including commercial
development, within the Downtown Core and along
major corridors within the Project Area, most notably
Sierra Avenue. Site-specific development would be
required to comply with the latest State Title 24 building
energy efficiency standards. Therefore, the Project
would be consistent with this Policy.
Housing Policy 2.3: Establish high-quality,
environmentally responsible, well designed living
environments for Fontana’s residents.
Consistent. Refer to response to General Plan Housing
Policy 2.3.
Chapter 7: Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails
Goal 2: Large city parks and open spaces include plantings and natural areas attractive to birds and other
wildlife.
Policy: Use public open space to support wildlife
habitat where appropriate.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.3, Biological
Resources, the Project Area is located within an
urbanized area and is currently developed with
residential and non-residential uses. Existing open space
within the Project Area would remain, as no changes to
those land uses are proposed. Future development
activities associated with implementation of the
proposed Project could occur on undeveloped sites
anticipated for development that have been revegetated
or result in the removal of ornamental vegetation,
potentially resulting in impacts to Burrowing Owl or
nesting birds. Future development projects would be
required to comply with Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and
BIO-2, and existing regulatory requirements, which
would ensure that protected birds are not adversely
affected during construction activities accommodated as
part of the Project. Therefore, the Project would be
consistent with this Policy.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.10-12 Land Use and Planning
Table 5.10-1 (continued)
General Plan Consistency
General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency
Goal 5: All Fontana residents live within walking or biking distance of a public park, and there are sufficient
public parks to serve all areas of the city.
Policy: Continue to use a minimum standard of 5
acres of public parkland per 1,000 persons.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.13, Public Services,
although the Project does not specifically propose any
development projects, including parks, development
under the Project could cause an incremental increase in
demand for parks in the future, indirectly leading to the
construction of new parks and recreation facilities to
serve new growth and to meet existing parks and
recreation needs. Impacts would be reduced to a less
than significant level by the provision of public parkland
and private on-site recreational amenities and through
the payment of park fees, as established in the Fontana
Municipal Code. Therefore, the Project would be
consistent with this policy.
Chapter 8: Public and Community Services
Goal 2: Fontana's Fire Department meets or exceeds state and national benchmarks for protection and
responsiveness.
Action B: Monitor population growth and
development to ensure continuing protection
through sufficient stations, equipment, training,
and resources.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.13, Public Services,
although the Project does not specifically propose any
development projects, development accommodated
through implementation of the proposed Project would
result in additional residential and non-residential uses
in the Project Area, which may result in the need for
additional Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD)
resources. Future development is assumed to occur over
time, and FFPD would continue to regularly monitor fire
department resources to ensure that adequate facilities,
staffing, and equipment are available to serve existing
and future development and population increases.
Additionally, the Fontana Municipal Code requires any
new development or improvement of real property
within the City to pay certain fees for capital
improvements necessary to provide fire protection
services. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with
this Action.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.10-13 Land Use and Planning
Table 5.10-1 (continued)
General Plan Consistency
General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency
Chapter 9: Community Mobility and Circulation
Goal 1: The City of Fontana has a comprehensive and balanced transportation system with safety and
multimodal accessibility the top priority of citywide transportation planning, as well as accommodating freight
movement.
Policy: Provide roadways that serve the needs of
Fontana residents and commerce, and that facilitate
safe and convenient access to transit, bicycle
facilities, and walkways.
Consistent. The Project would implement a land use
pattern that promotes multimodal transportation
options and would indirectly improve safe and
convenient access to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities. Specifically, the Project would establish the
new WMXU-3: Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core
land use category and incorporate six new FBC districts
within the Project Area, which is served by existing
transit. Additionally, the Project Area planned circulation
would provide a more “walkable” environment through
traffic calming measures and the ultimate elimination of
vehicles, specifically along a portion of Sierra Avenue.
The Project’s proposed land uses and Downtown
Fontana Development Guide would support
implementation of the City’s Active Transportation Plan
(ATP), which guides infrastructure improvements
towards improving mobility throughout the City through
safe, convenient, accessible, and comfortable walking
and bicycling linkages. Therefore, the Project would be
consistent with this Policy.
Policy: Make safety and multimodal accessibility the
top priority of citywide transportation planning.
Consistent. Refer to response to General Plan Chapter 9,
Community Mobility and Circulation, Goal 1, first Policy.
Policy: Make land use decisions that support
walking, bicycling, and public transit use, in
alignment with the 2014-2040 Regional
Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities
Strategy.
Consistent. Refer to response to General Plan Chapter 9,
Community Mobility and Circulation, Goal 1, first Policy.
Goal 2: Fontana’s street network is safe and accessible to all users, especially the most vulnerable such as
children, youth, older adults and people with disabilities.
Policy: When constructing or modifying roadways,
design the roadway space for use by all users when
feasible, including motor vehicles, buses, bicyclists,
mobility devices, and pedestrians, as appropriate
for the context of the area.
Consistent. Refer to response to General Plan Chapter 9,
Community Mobility and Circulation, Goal 1, first Policy.
Goal 3: Local transit within the City of Fontana is a viable choice for residents, easily accessible and serving
destinations throughout the city.
Policy: Promote concentrated development
patterns in coordination with transit planning to
maximize service efficiency and ridership.
Consistent. Refer to response to General Plan Chapter 9,
Community Mobility and Circulation, Goal 1, first Policy.
Goal 4: Fontana’s neighborhood streets maintain a residential character and support a range of transportation
options.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.10-14 Land Use and Planning
Table 5.10-1 (continued)
General Plan Consistency
General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency
Policy: Balance neighborhood traffic circulation
needs with the goal of creating walkable and bike
friendly neighborhoods.
Consistent. Refer to response to General Plan Chapter 9,
Community Mobility and Circulation, Goal 1, first Policy.
Goal 5: Fontana’s commercial and mixed-use areas include a multifunctional street network that ensures a
safe, comfortable, and efficient movement of people, goods, and services to support a high quality of life and
economic vitality.
Policy: Encourage mixed use and commercial
developments that support walking, bicycling, and
public transit use while balancing the needs of
motorized traffic to serve such developments.
Consistent. The Project would implement a land use
pattern that encourages mixed use and commercial
developments that support multimodal transportation
options. Refer to response to General Plan Chapter 9,
Community Mobility and Circulation, Goal 1, first Policy.
Chapter 10: Infrastructure and Green Systems
Goal 1: Fontana collaborates with public and private agencies for an integrated and sustainable water resource
management program.
Action D: Use an integrated water management
approach when working on land use and zoning
changes.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.16, Utilities and
Service Systems, the Project is expected to result in
increased population and employment growth in the
Project Area, and a corresponding increase in the
demand for additional water supplies. However, through
implementation of existing federal, State, and local
regulations and compliance with the General Plan and
Municipal Code, the environmental impacts to water
supplies would be less than significant. Therefore, the
Project would be consistent with this Action.
Action E: Incorporate integrated water
management best practices into land use and
zoning initiatives including water conservation and
recycling as well as permeability and infiltration.
Consistent. Refer to response to General Plan Chapter
10, Infrastructure and Green Systems, Goal 1, Action D.
Goal 7: Fontana is an energy-efficient community.
Policy: Promote renewable energy and distributed
energy systems in new development and retrofits of
existing development to work towards the highest
levels of low-carbon energy-efficiency.
Consistent. Future development projects associated
with implementation of the proposed Project would be
required to comply with Statewide and local measures
regarding energy conservation, such as Title 24 building
efficiency standards. As discussed in Section 5.7,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project is required to
meet the applicable requirements of the 2022 Title 24
Building Energy Efficiency Standards, including
installation of rooftop solar panels and additional
CALGreen requirements. Mitigation Measure GHG-2
requires future buildings to be constructed to be solar or
other clean energy technology compatible and clean
energy ready. Each structure greater than 50,000 square
feet shall ensure that each structure provides either a
solar photovoltaic panel system or other clean energy
systems within 2 years of commencing operations where
feasible. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with
this Policy.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.10-15 Land Use and Planning
Table 5.10-1 (continued)
General Plan Consistency
General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency
Chapter 11: Noise and Safety
Goal 1: The City of Fontana protects sensitive land uses from excessive noise by diligent planning through 2035.
Policy: New sensitive land uses shall be prohibited
in incompatible areas.
Consistent. The Project would allow for development of
residential and commercial uses in an area that is
currently developed with similar uses. Future
development projects associated with implementation
of the proposed Project would be required to comply
with Sections 18-61 to 18-67 of the Fontana Municipal
Code. In addition, General Plan EIR mitigation measure
MM-NOI-1 requires potential noise impacts upon any
proposed sensitive uses be identified in Goal 8 of the
2015-2035 General Plan. Therefore, the Project would
be consistent with this Policy.
Policy: Noise-tolerant land uses shall be guided into
areas irrevocably committed to land uses that are
noise-producing, such as transportation corridors.
Consistent. Refer to response to General Plan Chapter
11, Noise and Safety, Goal 1, first Policy.
Policy: Where sensitive uses are to be placed along
transportation routes, mitigation shall be provided
to ensure compliance with state-mandated noise
levels.
Consistent. Refer to response to General Plan Chapter
11, Noise and Safety, Goal 1, first Policy.
Policy: Noise spillover or encroachment from
commercial, industrial and educational land uses
shall be minimized into adjoining residential
neighborhoods or noise-sensitive uses.
Consistent. Refer to response to General Plan Chapter
11, Noise and Safety, Goal 1, first Policy.
Goal 3: Fontana’s residents are protected from the negative effects of “spillover” noise.
Policy: Residential land uses and areas identified as
noise-sensitive shall be protected from excessive
noise from non-transportation sources including
industrial, commercial, and residential activities and
equipment.
Consistent. Refer to response to General Plan Chapter
11, Noise and Safety, Goal 1, first Policy. In addition, as
discussed in Section 5.11, Noise, future development
projects would be required to implement Mitigation
Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2, which provides for a noise
study to identify potential noise impacts and mitigation
measures to reduce noise impacts and procedures for
construction activities to reduce impacts related to
equipment moving and operation. Therefore, the Project
would be consistent with this Policy.
Goal 4: Seismic injury and loss of life, property damage, and other impacts caused by seismic shaking, fault
rupture, ground failure, earthquake-induced landslides, and other earthquake-induced ground deformation are
minimized in Fontana
Policy: The City shall monitor development or
redevelopment in areas where faults have been
mapped through the city.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.6, Geology and
Soils, there are no major active faults within the Project
Area. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with
this Policy.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.10-16 Land Use and Planning
Table 5.10-1 (continued)
General Plan Consistency
General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency
Goal 5: Risk to life or limb and property damage resulting from geologic hazards are minimized in Fontana.
Action A: The City shall continue to take actions to
minimize grading and otherwise changing the
natural topography, while protecting public safety
and reducing the potential for property damage as
a result of geologic hazards.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.6, Geology and
Soils, implementation of the Downtown Core Project
would provide for development and improvement
projects that would involve some land clearing, mass
grading, and other ground-disturbing activities. As future
development and infrastructure projects are considered
by the City, each project would be evaluated for
conformance with the CBSC, General Plan, Municipal
Code, and other regulations, which would reduce the
potential for property damage as a result of geologic
hazards. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with
this Action.
Goal 6: Injury, loss of life, property damage, and economic and social disruption caused by flood and inundation
hazards are minimized in Fontana.
Policy: The City shall discourage new development
in flood-hazard areas and implement mitigation
measures to reduce the hazard to existing
developments located within the 100- and 500-year
flood zones.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.9, Hydrology and
Water Quality, and Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be
Significant, the Project Area is not located within a flood
hazard zone. Therefore, the Project would be consistent
with this Action.
Goal 8: The potential for hazardous contamination is reduced in the City of Fontana.
Policy: The City shall strive to reduce the potential
for residents, workers, and visitors to Fontana being
exposed to hazardous materials and wastes.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.8, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, Project implementation would
enable development of new residential and non-
residential uses, the construction and operation of which
has the potential to expose the public to hazardous
materials. Compliance with established regulatory
requirements and regulations, including Mitigation
Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 regarding the use and
storage of hazardous materials, and Mitigation Measure
HAZ-3 requiring preparation of a Phase I Site
Assessment, would ensure that risks to residents,
workers, and visitors to Fontana associated with
implementation of the proposed Project would be less
than significant.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.10-17 Land Use and Planning
Table 5.10-1 (continued)
General Plan Consistency
General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency
Chapter 12: Sustainability and Resilience
Goal 5: Green building techniques are used in new development and retrofits.
Policy: Promote green building through guidelines,
awards and nonfinancial incentives.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, the Project is required to meet the applicable
requirements of the 2022 Title 24 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards, including installation of rooftop
solar panels and additional CALGreen requirements.
Mitigation Measures GHG-1, GHG-2 and GHG-3 require
green building design features that exceed Title 24
requirements, for future buildings to be solar or other
clean energy technology compatible and clean energy
ready, and for individual projects with more than ten
employees or more than ten company vehicles to submit
a GHG Emissions Reductions Plan to reduce GHG
emissions by a minimum of 10 percent.
Goal 6: Fontana is a leader energy-efficient development and retrofits.
Policy: Promote energy-efficient development in
Fontana.
Consistent. Refer to response to General Plan Chapter
12, Sustainability, Goal 5, Policy.
Policy: Meet or exceed state goals for energy-
efficient new construction.
Consistent. Refer to response to General Plan Chapter
12, Sustainability, Goal 5, Policy.
Chapter 14: Downtown Area Plan
Goal: A Range of New Housing. Provide housing for a broad range of household sizes, types and incomes within
the Downtown Area to help support the health and growth of the downtown economy.
Policy: Encourage mixed-use development within
the Downtown and along major corridors.
Consistent. The Project would establish the new WMXU-
3: Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core land use
category and apply it within the Project Area. This land
use category would accommodate a mix of residential
and non-residential uses within the Downtown Core and
along major corridors within the Project Area, most
notably Sierra Avenue.
Policy: Encourage new medium-density housing on
vacant and underutilized parcels within the
neighborhoods of the Downtown Area.
Consistent. The Project would establish the new WMXU-
3: Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core land use
category and apply it within the Project Area. The
WMXU-3 land use category would permit residential
densities of 2.1 to 70 dwelling units per acre. The Project
would also amend the Development Code to incorporate
six new FBC districts and apply them to the Project Area
and would include residential development incentives
such as density bonuses to encourage the development
of housing units within the Downtown Core Project Area.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.10-18 Land Use and Planning
Table 5.10-1 (continued)
General Plan Consistency
General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency
Policy: Ensure that new infill development is
compatible in scale and character with the existing
neighborhoods.
Consistent. The Project would amend the Development
Code to incorporate six new FBC districts, including
permitted land uses, increased densities and
development standards by zoning district, building
types, frontage types, general regulations, design and
architectural regulations, private open space types, and
public open space standards specific to each new FBC
District. Further, the City is developing the Downtown
Fontana Development Guide to provide recommended
changes to the FBC, objective development standards,
expedited review guidelines, and development impact
fee incentives. These standards and guidelines would
ensure new development and redevelopment projects
would be designed to be compatible in scale and
character with existing neighborhoods.
Policy: Ensure that transportation and utility
infrastructure keeps pace with infill development so
that the neighborhood character and quality
steadily improves over time.
Consistent. The Project Area planned circulation would
provide a more “walkable” environment to compliment
the mixed-use land use and FBC districts. Project-specific
development would be reviewed to ensure adequate
infrastructure is in place or provided to serve the
proposed development.
Policy: Encourage new “in-town” housing types
targeted to young people and young families to help
attract and retain the next generation of Fontanans.
Consistent. The Project would accommodate a range of
housing types and sizes, including those suitable to
young people and young families.
Goal: Strengthened Connections Between Downtown Core And Major Corridors. Reinvigorate the Foothill and
Sierra Corridors with a mix of retail, employment, mixed-use and housing development as an economic engine
for the Downtown Area, and as gateways to Downtown.
Policy: Ensure that future street improvements to
Foothill and Arrow Boulevards and Sierra Avenue
improve the appearance and pedestrian
environment while accommodating traffic flows.
Consistent. The Project Area planned circulation would
provide a more “walkable” environment through traffic
calming measures, specifically along Sierra Avenue. The
Project proposes to ultimately close a quarter-mile
portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic. This would
occur in two phases. Phase I (interim condition) would
reduce the number of travel lanes on Sierra Avenue from
two lanes in each direction to one lane in each direction,
convert Wheeler Avenue to a one-way northbound
street, and convert Nuevo Avenue to a one-way
southbound street. Phase II (the ultimate condition)
would close Sierra Avenue between Arrow Boulevard
and Orange Way to vehicular traffic, diverting traffic to
parallel streets. This section of Sierra Avenue would
enhance the pedestrian environment while
accommodating traffic flows on parallel streets.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.10-19 Land Use and Planning
Table 5.10-1 (continued)
General Plan Consistency
General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency
Policy: In addition to high quality commercial
development, encourage housing in appropriate
forms along these corridors.
Consistent. The Project would establish the new WMXU-
3: Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core land use
category and apply it within the Project Area. This land
use category would accommodate a mix of residential
and non-residential uses, including commercial
development, within the Downtown Core and along
major corridors within the Project Area, most notably
Sierra Avenue.
Policy: Concentrate higher development intensities
within a 1/4 mile of planned transit stops, with
shared parking arrangements when feasible.
Consistent. A number of transit stops exist within the
Planning Area, including the Metrolink Station. The
Project would accommodate higher development
intensities by implementing and applying six new FBC
districts. Higher development intensities would be
located within close proximity to transit stops,
particularly in the Sierra Core and Gateway Core FBC
districts.
Goal: Center for Education. The area along Sierra Avenue and Merrill Street will become a College District, with
a mix of housing and employment surrounding and supporting the growing Chaffey College campus.
Policy: The City will work collaboratively with the
College to attain this goal.
Not applicable. Although this policy is not adopted for
the “purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect,” per Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the
Project would indirectly support the City’s goal by
accommodating a mix of residential and non-residential
uses within the area along Sierra Avenue and Merrill
Street.
Policy: Encourage higher density housing on
appropriate sites that is targeted to student, faculty
and staff.
Not applicable. This policy is not adopted for the
“purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect,” per Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
However, the Project would indirectly support this goal
by accommodating a mix of residential and non-
residential uses at higher densities within the area along
Sierra Avenue and Merrill Street, which may provide
housing options for students, faculty, and staff.
Policy: Encourage the formation and growth of
start-up and spin-off businesses related to or
supported by the College on appropriate sites.
Not applicable. This policy is not adopted for the
“purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect,” per Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
Nevertheless, the Project would indirectly support this
goal by accommodating a mix of residential and non-
residential uses within the area along Sierra Avenue and
Merrill Street allowing for the growth of start-up and
spin-off businesses consistent with the FBC District.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.10-20 Land Use and Planning
Table 5.10-1 (continued)
General Plan Consistency
General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency
Chapter 15, Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design
Goal 1: The Strategic Policy Map and the Future Land Use Map guide land-use decision making.
Policy: Review citywide land use strategies when
considering changes to the land use map.
Consistent. Citywide land use strategies were reviewed
for consistency with the Project’s proposed land use
changes, including consistency with the General Plan
Goals, Policies and Actions specific to the Downtown
Area.
Policy: Keep zoning and other regulations up to date
and consistent with the Future Land Use Map.
Consistent. The Project would amend the Development
Code to implement and apply six new FBC districts in
order to maintain consistency with the General Plan
Land Use Map.
Goal 2: Fontana development patterns support a high quality of life and economic prosperity.
Policy: Preserve and enhance stable residential
neighborhoods.
Consistent. The Project would provide for continuation
of existing single-family residential neighborhoods
within the Project Area.
Policy: Locate multi-family development in mixed-
use centers, preferably where there is nearby access
to retail, services, and public transportation.
Consistent. The Project would apply the new General
Plan WMXU-3 land use category and six new FBC districts
to the Project Area, which would accommodate
additional multi-family development in the mixed-use
Downtown Core Project Area, as well as new retail uses
within proximity to existing public transportation.
Policy: Promote interconnected neighborhoods
with appropriate transitions between lower
intensity and higher intensity land uses.
Consistent. The Project would apply the new General
Plan WMXU-3 land use category and six new FBC districts
to the Project Area. The proposed Fontana Zoning
District Map would provide appropriate transitions
between lower intensity and higher intensity land uses.
In particular, the Mixed-Use Core provides a transition
between more intense commercial uses and residential
uses.
Policy: Preserve land to achieve an interconnected
network of environmentally-sensitive areas, parks,
multi-use paths, and recreation areas.
Consistent. The Project would not alter the existing open
space and parks land uses within the Project Area,
including the Pacific Electric Trail.
Goal 3: Downtown is a dynamic center of activity, with new housing options, walkable environments, and a
mixture of uses attracting residents and visitors.
Policy: Promote revitalization and redevelopment
of older neighborhoods.
Consistent. The Project would apply the new General
Plan WMXU-3 land use category and six new FBC districts
to the Project Area, which would accommodate new
development and redevelopment within the Project
Area.
Policy: Encourage infill on vacant and underutilized
parcels.
Consistent. The Project would apply the new General
Plan WMXU-3 land use category and six new FBC districts
to the Project Area, which would intensify new
development and redevelopment on vacant and
underutilized parcels within the Project Area.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.10-21 Land Use and Planning
Table 5.10-1 (continued)
General Plan Consistency
General Plan Policies and Actions Project Consistency
Policy: Transform downtown into a vibrant local and
regional destination.
Consistent. The Project would apply the new General
Plan WMXU-3 land use category and six new FBC districts
to the Project Area, which would support and encourage
transformation of the Project Area into a local and
regional destination.
Goal 4: Compact, walkable, mixed-use centers are located at key locations along corridors to be served by public
transit in the future and at intersections where neighborhood retail and diverse housing options can succeed.
Policy: Promote a land use pattern that provides
connections among land uses and a mixture of land
uses.
Consistent. The Project would apply the new General
Plan WMXU-3 land use category and six new FBC districts
to the Project Area, which accommodate a mix of
residential and non-residential uses. The Project would
also modify existing circulation within the Project Area
to enhance the pedestrian experience and promote
walkability.
Goal 7: Public and private development meets high design standards.
Policy: Support high-quality development in design
standards and in land use decisions.
Consistent. The Project would create and apply six new
FBC districts to the Project Area. Individual development
projects would be required to comply with the new FBC
district development standards as they define the
minimum or baseline standards for urban design. The
design guidelines further define the desired character
and image of development in the Project Area.
Development standards, and the design and
architectural regulations, address a variety of
development regulations including, but not limited to,
building facades, roofs, signs, mechanical equipment,
landscaping, lighting, plazas, pedestrian walkways and
courtyards, and parking.
Source: City of Fontana, Fontana Forward General Plan Update 2015-2035, November 2018.
FONTANA MUNICIPAL CODE
The Project proposes amendments to the Development Code, Article III, Form-Based Code, to incorporate
six new FBC districts, described below, including permitted land uses, increased densities and
development standards by zoning district, building types, frontage types, general regulations, design and
architectural regulations, private open space types, and public open space standards specific to each new
FBC District. Article IV, Zoning Districts, Section 30-405, Section 30-406, and Table No. 30-408 would also
be amended to incorporate the Downtown Core and associated land use districts. The Fontana Zoning
District Map would be amended to incorporate the Downtown Core.
The Project proposes the following six new FBC districts as shown on Figure 3-8, Proposed FBC Districts:
Civic Core. The Civic Core district would involve a mix of existing and new public uses, including the existing
City Hall, Library, and Park spaces. Building heights would be a maximum of 70 feet.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.10-22 Land Use and Planning
Gateway Core. The Gateway Core district would develop strong gateways along Sierra Avenue and serve
as a primary gateway to Downtown Fontana from the north and south. This area would contain a mix of
existing and new buildings and would support Downtown commercial uses by encouraging the
development of residential units near transit and along major corridors. Building heights would be a
maximum of 70 feet with a 55-foot maximum adjacent to street corners, and a 35-foot maximum adjacent
to Sierra Avenue. First floor commercial uses would be allowed anywhere in the district, and density
bonuses would be provided as an incentive for including optional commercial uses.
Multi-Family Core. The Multi-Family Core district would strengthen the opportunity for higher density
multi-family development within the Downtown Core. It would support Downtown commercial uses by
encouraging the development of residential units within walking distance. Building heights would be a
maximum of 55 feet. Density bonuses would be provided as an incentive for lot assemblages of at least
one acre.
Mixed-Use Core. The Mixed-Use Core district would involve a mix of existing and new commercial and
residential uses. Buildings built along major corridors would be built to the sidewalk to reinforce the street
as a pedestrian-friendly area. Building heights would be a maximum of 55 feet. First floor commercial uses
would be allowed anywhere in the district and required on Nuevo Avenue between Orange Avenue and
Arrow Boulevard, on Wheeler Avenue between Orange Avenue and Arrow Boulevard, and Arrow
Boulevard between Juniper Avenue and Wheeler Avenue. Density bonuses would be provided as an
incentive for including optional commercial uses.
Neighborhood Core. The Neighborhood Core district would be largely composed of single-family homes
and would allow the development of extra units. This area would provide a transition between the
Downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods. Building heights would be a maximum of 40 feet. Density
bonuses would be provided as an incentive for lot assemblages of at least one acre.
Sierra Core. The Sierra Core district would reinforce Sierra Avenue between Arrow Boulevard and Orange
Way as the core of Downtown Fontana. This area would be enhanced with a pedestrian promenade and
public plazas, and provide a variety of entertainment, retail, service, and residential uses within existing
and new buildings. Building heights would be a maximum of 70 feet, with a 55-foot maximum adjacent to
street corners, and a 35-foot maximum adjacent to Sierra Avenue. First floor commercial uses would be
required.
If the Downtown Core Project is approved, subsequent development and infrastructure projects would
be required to be consistent with the proposed FBC districts applicable to the specific development site,
including permitted land uses, densities and development standards, building types, frontage types,
general regulations, design and architectural regulations, private open space types, and public open space
standards specific to each new FBC District. Future development projects would be reviewed to determine
consistency with the City’s Development Code. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in conflicts
with the City of Fontana Municipal Code and impacts would be less than significant.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.10-23 Land Use and Planning
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.10.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Analysis: Development of cumulative projects in the Project Area would be required to mitigate
land use impacts on a project-by-project basis. Similar to future development associated with the
proposed Project, cumulative development projects would be evaluated for consistency with the project
site’s General Plan land use designation and zoning; General Plan goals, policies, and actions; and other
applicable plans for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As analyzed above, the
proposed Downtown Core Project would result in less than significant impacts related to land use and
relevant planning. The proposed Project, when considered in combination with development within the
City, would not result in cumulatively considerable land use impacts.
The land uses that would be allowed under the proposed Project provide opportunities for cohesive new
growth at infill locations within existing urbanized areas in the Project Area, but would not create physical
division within existing communities. New development and redevelopment projects would be designed
to complement the character of existing neighborhoods and provide connectivity between existing
development and new development within the cumulative analysis area. The proposed Project does not
include any new roadways, infrastructure, or other features that would divide existing communities. The
proposed Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative land use and planning impacts would be less
than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.10.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts associated with land use and planning would occur with the proposed
Project.
5.10.8 REFERENCES
Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal: 2020-2045 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, September 3, 2020.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.10-24 Land Use and Planning
This page intentionally left blank.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-1 Noise
5.11 NOISE
5.11.1 PURPOSE
This section identifies existing noise conditions within the Project Area and provides an analysis of
potential impacts associated with implementation of the Project. This section is primarily based on the
Downtown Core Project – Noise Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC and dated January 18, 2023;
refer to Appendix D, Noise Study.
5.11.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
FUNDAMENTALS OF NOISE
Sound, Noise and Acoustics
Sound is a disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source and is capable of being detected by the
hearing organs. Sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a moving object transmitted by
pressure waves through a medium to a human ear. For traffic or stationary noise, the medium of concern
is air. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or unwanted.
Frequency and Hertz
A continuous sound is described by its frequency (pitch) and its amplitude (loudness). Frequency relates
to the number of pressure oscillations per second. Low-frequency sounds are low in pitch (bass sounding)
and high-frequency sounds are high in pitch (squeak). These oscillations per second (cycles) are commonly
referred to as Hertz (Hz). The human ear can hear from the bass pitch starting at 20 Hz to the high pitch
of 20,000 Hz.
Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels
The amplitude of a sound determines its loudness. The loudness of sound increases or decreases as the
amplitude increases or decreases. Sound pressure amplitude is measured in units of micro-Newton per
square meter (µN/m2), also called micro-Pascal (µPa). One µPa is approximately one hundred billionths
(0.00000000001) of normal atmospheric pressure. Sound pressure level (SPL or Lp) is used to describe in
logarithmic units the ratio of actual sound pressures to a reference pressure squared. These units are
called decibels; abbreviated dB.
Addition of Decibels
Because decibels are on a logarithmic scale, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by
simple plus or minus. When two sounds of equal SPL are combined, they will produce an SPL 3 dB greater
than the single SPL. In other words, sound energy that is doubled produces a 3 dB increase. If two sounds
differ by approximately 10 dB, the higher sound level is the predominant sound. When combining sound
levels, estimates shown in Table 5.11-1, Decibel Addition, may be utilized.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-2 Noise
Table 5.11-1
Decibel Addition
When Two Decibel Values Differ by: Add This Amount to Higher Value Example
0 or 1 dB 3 dB 70+69=73 dB
2 or 3 dB 2 dB 74+71=76 dB
4 to 9 dB 1 dB 66+60=67 dB
10 dB or more 0 dB 65+55=65 dB
Source: Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013.
Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels
In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 Hz and 5,000 Hz, and it
perceives a sound within that range as being more intense than a sound with a higher or lower frequency
with the same magnitude. For purposes of this analysis, as well as with most environmental documents,
A-scale weighting is typically used and is reported in terms of the A-weighted decibel (dBA). The A-scale
was designed to account for the frequency-dependent sensitivity of the human ear. Typical A-weighted
noise levels are shown in Table 5.11-2, Typical Noise Levels.
Table 5.11-2
Typical Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor
110 Rock Band
Jet flyover at 1,000 feet
100
Gas lawnmower at 3 feet
90
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph Food blender at 3 feet
80 Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Noisy urban area, daytime
Gas lawnmower, 100 feet 70 Vacuum cleaner at 3 feet
Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60
Large Business Office
Quiet urban daytime 50 Dishwasher in next room
Quiet urban nighttime 40 Theater, large conference room (background)
Quiet suburban nighttime
30 Library
Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall (background)
20
Broadcasting studio
10
Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing
Source: Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-3 Noise
Table 5.11-3
Perceived Changes in Noise Levels
Changes in Intensity Level, dBA Changes in Apparent Loudness
1 Not perceptible
3 Just perceptible
5 Clearly noticeable
10 Twice (or half) as loud
Source: Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013.
Noise Descriptors
Noise in our daily environment fluctuates over time. Some noise levels occur in regular patterns, others
are random. Some noise levels are constant while others are sporadic. Noise descriptors were created to
describe the different time-varying noise levels.
A-Weighted Sound Level: The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using
the A-weighted filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high-frequency
components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear. A numerical method of
rating human judgment of loudness.
Ambient Noise Level: The composite of noise from all sources, near and far. In this context, the ambient
noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-
hour day, obtained after the addition of five (5) decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 PM to
10:00 PM and after the addition of ten (10) decibels to sound levels in the night between 10:00 PM and
7:00 AM.
Decibel (dB): A unit for measuring the amplitude of a sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base
10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micro-pascals.
dBA: A-weighted sound level (see definition above).
Equivalent Sound Level (LEQ): The sound level corresponding to a steady noise level over a given sample
period with the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time-varying noise level. The energy average
noise level during the sample period.
Habitable Room: Any room meeting the requirements of the California Building Code or other applicable
regulations which is intended to be used for sleeping, living, cooking, or dining purposes, excluding such
enclosed spaces as closets, pantries, bath or toilet rooms, service rooms, connecting corridors, laundries,
unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms, and similar spaces.
L(n): The A-weighted sound level exceeded during a certain percentage of the sample time. For example,
L10 in the sound level exceeded 10 percent of the sample time. Similarly, L50, L90, and L99, etc.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-4 Noise
Noise: Any unwanted sound or sound which is undesirable because it interferes with speech and hearing,
is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. The State Noise Control Act defines noise
as "...excessive undesirable sound...".
Outdoor Living Area: Outdoor spaces that are associated with residential land uses typically used for
passive recreational activities or other noise-sensitive uses. Such spaces include patio areas, barbecue
areas, jacuzzi areas, etc., associated with residential uses; outdoor patient recovery or resting areas
associated with hospitals, convalescent hospitals, or rest homes; outdoor areas associated with places of
worship which have a significant role in services or other noise-sensitive activities; and outdoor school
facilities routinely used for educational purposes which may be adversely impacted by noise. Outdoor
areas usually not included in this definition are: front yard areas, driveways, greenbelts, maintenance
areas and storage areas associated with residential land uses; exterior areas at hospitals that are not used
for patient activities; outdoor areas associated with places of worship and principally used for short-term
social gatherings; and, outdoor areas associated with school facilities that are not typically associated with
educational uses prone to adverse noise impacts (for example, school play yard areas).
Percent Noise Levels: See L(n).
Sound Level (Noise Level): The weighted sound pressure level obtained by use of a sound level meter
having a standard frequency filter for attenuating part of the sound spectrum.
Sound Level Meter: An instrument, including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and frequency
weighting networks for the measurement and determination of noise and sound levels.
Single Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL): The dBA level which, if it lasted for one second, would produce
the same A-weighted sound energy as the actual event.
Tonal Sounds
A pure tone sound is a sound produced at or near a single frequency. Laboratory tests have shown that
humans are more perceptible to changes in sound levels of a pure tone. For a noise source to contain a
“pure tone,” there must be a significantly higher A‐weighted sound energy in a given frequency band than
in the neighboring bands, thereby causing the noise source to “stand out” against other noise sources. A
pure tone occurs if the sound pressure level in the one‐third octave band with the tone exceeds the
average of the sound pressure levels of the two contagious one‐third octave bands by 5 dB for center
frequencies of 500 Hertz (Hz) and above; by 8 dB for center frequencies between 160 and 400 Hz; and by
15 dB for center frequencies of 125 Hz or less.
Sound Propagation
As sound propagates from a source it spreads geometrically. Sound from a small, localized source (i.e., a
point source) radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern. The
sound level attenuates at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. The movement of vehicles down a
roadway makes the source of the sound appear to propagate from a line (i.e., line source) rather than a
point source. This line source results in the noise propagating from a roadway in a cylindrical spreading
versus a spherical spreading that results from a point source. The sound level attenuates for a line source
at a rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-5 Noise
Research has demonstrated that atmospheric conditions can have a significant effect on noise levels when
noise receivers are located 200 feet or more from a noise source. Wind, temperature, air humidity, and
turbulence can further impact how far sound can travel.
Ground Absorption
As noise propagates from the source, it is affected by the ground and atmosphere. Noise models use hard
site (reflective surfaces) and soft site (absorptive surfaces) to help calculate predicted noise levels. Hard
site conditions assume no excessive ground absorption between the noise source and the receiver. Soft
site conditions such as grass, soft dirt, or landscaping attenuate noise at a rate of 1.5 dB per doubling of
distance. When added to the geometric spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall
noise attenuation of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance for a line source and 7.5 dB per doubling of distance
for a point source.
Sound Attenuation
Noise‐related land use issues are typically composed of three basic elements: (1) the noise source, (2) a
transmission path, and (3) a receiver.
The appropriate acoustical treatment for a given project should consider the nature of the noise source
and the sensitivity of the receiver. When the potential for a noise‐related problem is present, either
avoidance of the noise‐related problem or noise control techniques should be selected to provide an
acceptable noise environment for the receiver while remaining consistent with local aesthetic standards
and practical structural and economic limits. Fundamental noise control options are described below.
Noise Barriers
Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by 10 to 15 dBA, cutting the loudness of traffic noise in
half. To achieve that reduction, the barrier must be high enough and long enough to block the line-of-
sight of the vehicles on the road. A noise barrier can still achieve up to a 5 dBA noise level reduction when
it is tall enough to barely allow a line‐of‐sight of the vehicles. A noise barrier is most effective when placed
close to the noise source or receiver. When the noise barrier is an earthen berm instead of a wall, the
noise attenuation can be increased by another 3 dBA.
Setbacks
Noise exposure may be reduced by increasing the setback distance between the noise source and the
receiving use. Setback areas can take the form of open space, frontage roads, recreational areas, and
storage yards. The available noise attenuation from this technique is limited by the characteristics of the
noise source but generally ranges between 4 and 6 dBA.
Site Design
Buildings can be placed on a property to shield other structures or areas affected by noise and to prevent
an increase in noise levels caused by reflections. The use of one building to shield another can significantly
reduce overall noise control costs, particularly if the shielding structure is insensitive to noise. An example
would be placing a detached garage nearest the noise source to shield the house or backyard. Site design
should guard against creating reflecting surfaces that may increase onsite noise levels. For example, two
buildings placed at an angle facing a noise source may cause noise levels within that angle to increase by
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-6 Noise
up to 3 dBA. The open end of U‐shaped buildings should point away from noise sources for the same
reason. Landscaping walls or noise barriers located within a development may inadvertently reflect noise
to a noise‐sensitive area unless carefully located.
Building Facades
When interior noise levels are of concern in a noisy environment, noise reduction may be obtained
through the acoustical design of building facades. Standard construction practices provide a noise
reduction of 10 to 15 dBA for building facades with open windows, and a noise reduction of approximately
25 dBA when windows are closed; refer to Table 5.11-4, Noise Reduction Afforded by Common Building
Construction. An exterior‐to‐interior noise reduction of 25 dBA can be obtained by requiring that building
design include adequate ventilation systems, which would allow windows facing a noise source to remain
closed, even during periods of excessively warm weather.
Where greater noise reduction is required, acoustical treatment of the building facade may be necessary.
Reducing relative window area is the most effective control technique, followed by providing acoustical
glazing (e.g., thicker glass or increased air space between panes) within frames with low air infiltration
rates, using fixed (i.e., non‐movable) acoustical glazing, or eliminating windows. Noise transmitted
through walls can be reduced by increasing wall mass (e.g., using stucco or brick in lieu of wood siding),
or isolating wall members by using double or staggered stud walls, while noise transmitted through
doorways can be lessened by reducing door area, using solid‐core doors, or sealing door perimeters with
suitable gaskets. Noise‐reducing roof treatments include using plywood sheathing under roofing
materials.
Table 5.11-4
Noise Reduction Afforded by Common Building Construction
Construction
Type Typical Occupancy General Description Range of Noise
Reduction (dB)1
1 Residential, Commercial,
Schools
Wood frame, stucco, or wood sheathing
exterior. Interior drywall or plaster. Sliding
glass windows, with windows partially
open.
15-20
2 Same as 1 above Same as 1 above, but with windows closed. 25-30
3 Commercial, Schools Same as 2 above, but with fixed 0.25-inch
plate glass windows. 30-35
4 Commercial, Industrial
Steel or concrete frame, curtain wall, or
masonry exterior wall. Fixed 0.25-inch plate
glass windows.
35-40
Source: Caltrans, California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, 2002.
Landscaping
While the use of trees and other vegetation is often thought to provide significant noise attenuation,
approximately 100 feet of dense foliage – with no visual path extending through the foliage – is required
to achieve a 5 dBA attenuation of traffic noise. Thus, the use of vegetation as a noise barrier is not
considered a practical method of noise control unless large tracts of dense foliage are part of the existing
landscape.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-7 Noise
Vegetation can be used, however, to acoustically “soften” intervening ground between a noise source and
a receiver, increasing ground absorption of sound, and thus, increasing the attenuation of sound with
distance. Planting trees and shrubs also offers aesthetic and psychological value, and it may reduce
adverse public reaction to a noise source by removing the source from view, even though noise levels
would be largely unaffected.
GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS
Ground-borne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average
motion of zero. The effects of ground-borne vibrations typically only cause a nuisance to people, but at
extreme vibration levels, damage to buildings may occur. Although ground-borne vibration can be felt
outdoors, it is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the associated effects of the shaking
of a building can be notable. Ground-borne noise is an effect of ground-borne vibration and mainly exists
indoors since it is produced from noise radiated from the motion of the walls and floors of a room and
may also consist of the rattling of windows or dishes on shelves. Several different methods are used to
quantify vibration amplitude.
PPV. Known as the peak particle velocity (PPV) which is the maximum instantaneous peak in
vibration velocity, typically given in inches per second.
RMS. Known as root mean squared (RMS) can be used to denote vibration amplitude.
VdB. A commonly used abbreviation to describe the vibration level (VdB) for a vibration source.
Typical human reaction and effect on buildings due to ground-borne vibration is shown in Table 5.11-5,
Typical Human Reaction and Effect on Buildings Due to Ground-Borne Vibration.
Table 5.11-5
Typical Human Reaction and Effect on Buildings Due to Ground-Borne Vibration
Vibration Level
Peak Particle Velocity
(PPV)
Human Reaction Effect on Buildings
0.006–0.019 in/sec Threshold of perception, possibility
of intrusion
Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any
type
0.08 in/sec Vibrations readily perceptible
Recommended upper level of vibration to
which ruins and ancient monuments should
be subjected
0.10 in/sec Level at which continuous vibration
begins to annoy people
Virtually no risk of “architectural” (i.e., not
structural) damage to normal buildings
0.20 in/sec Vibrations annoying to people in
buildings
Threshold at which there is a risk to
“architectural” damage to normal dwelling –
houses with plastered walls and ceilings
0.4–0.6 in/sec
Vibrations considered unpleasant
by people subjected to continuous
vibrations and unacceptable to
some people walking on bridges
Vibrations at a greater level than normally
expected from traffic, but would cause
“architectural” damage and possibly minor
structural damage
Source: Caltrans, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2013.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-8 Noise
Vibration Perception
Typically, developed areas are continuously affected by vibration velocities of 50 VdB or lower. These
continuous vibrations are not noticeable to humans whose threshold of perception is around 65 VdB.
Outdoor sources that may produce perceptible vibrations are usually caused by construction equipment,
steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads, while smooth roads rarely produce perceptible ground-
borne noise or vibration.
The California Department of Transportation has published one of the seminal works for the analysis of
ground-borne noise and vibration relating to transportation- and construction-induced vibrations and
although the Project is not subject to these regulations, it serves as a useful tool to evaluate vibration
impacts.
Vibration Propagation
There are three main types of vibration propagation: surface, compression, and shear waves. Surface
waves, or Rayleigh waves, travel along the ground’s surface. These waves carry most of their energy along
an expanding circular wave front, similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a pool of water. P-
waves, or compression waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave
front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e., in a “push-pull” fashion). P-waves are
analogous to airborne sound waves. S-waves, or shear waves, are also body waves that carry energy along
an expanding spherical wave front. However, unlike P-waves, the particle motion is transverse, or side-
to-side and perpendicular to the direction of propagation. As vibration waves propagate from a source,
the vibration energy decreases in a logarithmic nature and the vibration levels typically decrease by 6 VdB
per doubling of the distance from the vibration source. This drop-off rate can vary greatly depending on
the soil, but has been shown to be effective enough for screening purposes, in order to identify potential
vibration impacts that may need to be studied through actual field tests.
TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
The FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) was used to model and compare existing
traffic noise levels to projected 2040 noise levels. The FHWA model arrives at the predicted noise level
through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL). Roadway
modeling assumptions utilized for the technical study are provided in Table 8 and Table 9 of the Noise
Study provided in Appendix D. The vehicle mix indicates the percentage of automobiles, medium trucks,
and heavy trucks for each segment and is presented as auto/medium/heavy.
EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
General Land Use Noise
Existing land uses within the Project Area primarily include single- and multiple-family residential
development, commercial, recreational, and institutional land uses. Noise sources associated with existing
land uses include residential maintenance, parking lot noise, heating, and cooling system (HVAC) noise,
property maintenance noise, trash truck noise, loading and unloading noise, and recreational noise.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-9 Noise
Noise Measurements
Two (2) long-term 24-hour noise measurements and eight (8) short-term 10-minute noise measurements
were conducted throughout the Project Area to document the existing noise environment. Noise
measurement locations are shown in Figure 5.11-1, Noise Measurement Location Map.
Eight short-term noise measurements (10-minute) were taken in order to document the daytime Leq level
at different locations throughout the Project Area. Measured noise levels ranged between 51.3 and 71.2
dBA Leq. Vehicle noise associated with Foothill Boulevard, Arrow Boulevard, Merrill Avenue, and Randall
Avenue, and railway noise were the primary sources of ambient noise. Noise measurement results are
presented in Table 5.11-6, Short-Term Noise Measurement Summary.
Table 5.11-6
Short-Term Noise Measurement Summary
Noise
Measurement
Location
Approximate
Location
Time
A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA)
Leq Lmax Lmin L2 L8 L25 L50
ST1 17095 Foothill Blvd. 3:24 PM 67.3 87.6 51.2 73.6 69.4 65.6 60.0
ST2 8212 Bennett Ave. 3:51 PM 69.3 89.0 44.7 79.0 70.6 61.6 54.3
ST3 17004 Arrow Blvd. 11:55 AM 56.3 64.6 49.8 63.4 61.0 56.1 54.0
ST4 16725 Valencia Ave. 2:22 PM 58.5 80.7 44.0 63.3 60.3 55.2 51.2
ST5 8999 Olive St. 2:03 PM 51.3 69.9 43.9 56.4 53.6 51.3 49.4
ST6 9100 Acacia Ave. 12:33 PM 52.2 74.7 38.8 57.2 50.5 44.9 42.6
ST7 9289 Juniper Ave. 1:35 PM 71.2 89.6 51.4 81.0 72.0 68.1 64.6
ST8 17110 Randall Ave. 1:09 PM 67.7 88.6 47.4 74.5 69.1 65.0 62.0
Source: MD Acoustics, LLC, Fontana Downtown FBC – Noise Impact Study, January 2023.
Notes:
dBA = A-weighted decibels, Leq = equivalent noise level, Lmax = maximum noise level, Lmin = minimum noise level, Ln = noise
level exceeded n percent of the measurement period, 10-minute duration
Noise measurements taken on December 8, 2022.
Two long-term noise measurements (24 consecutive hours) were taken in order to document the
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) at different locations throughout the Project Area. As shown in
Table 5.11-7, Long-Term Noise Measurement Summary, the measured CNEL was 71.2 at 40 feet from the
centerline of Juniper Avenue and 80.1 dBA at 100 feet from the railroad. The primary noise sources were
vehicle traffic and railway noise. Table 5.11-7 also outlines the daytime (7 AM to 7 PM), evening (7 PM to
10 PM), and nighttime (10 PM to 7 AM) Leq levels at each location. These represent the average level over
each time period (day/evening/night).
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-10 Noise
Table 5.11-7
Long-Term Noise Measurement Summary
Noise
Measurement
Location
Approximate Location Description
A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA)
Daytime
Leq
Evening
Leq
Nighttime
Leq CNEL
LT1 Juniper Ave. near Foothill Blvd. vehicle noise 66.6 66.8 63.8 71.2
LT2 Sierra Ave. near Metrolink vehicle noise,
rail noise 74.2 75.5 73.1 80.1
Source: MD Acoustics, LLC, Fontana Downtown FBC – Noise Impact Study, January 2023.
Notes:
dBA = A-weighted decibels
Leq = equivalent noise level
Lmax = maximum noise level
Lmin = minimum noise level
Ln = noise level exceeded n percent of the measurement period
24-hour duration
Noise measurements taken December 7-8, 2022.
Existing Noise Modeling
The primary sources of noise within the Project Area are transportation-related noises. Foothill Boulevard
and Sierra Avenue, along with other major roadways create ambient noise levels that affect the overall
quality of life in the community. Modelled existing noise levels provided in Table 5.11-8, Existing Exterior
Noise Levels Along Roadways and on Figure 5.11-2, Existing Roadway Noise Level Contours, confirm that
there are currently sensitive land uses in the Project Area that are exposed to noise levels above 65 dBA
CNEL.
It should be noted that the modeled noise contours do not take into account factors such as existing
buildings, walls, etc., that may reduce or in some cases, amplify noise sources. Measured noise levels
provided in Tables 5.11-6 and 5.11-7, do take into account existing structures as well as other noise
sources.
Those areas in the City and the Project Area that currently experience sound levels greater than 65 dBA
CNEL are typically near major vehicular traffic corridors. Traffic noise levels typically depend on three
factors: (1) the volume of traffic, (2) the average speed of traffic, and (3) the vehicle mix (i.e., the
percentage of trucks versus automobiles in the traffic flow). Vehicle noise includes noises produced by
the engine, exhaust, tires, and wind generated by taller vehicles. Other factors that affect the perception
of traffic noise include the distance from the highway, terrain, heavy vegetation, and natural and
structural obstacles. While tire noise from automobiles is generally located at ground level, some truck
noise sources may emanate from 12 feet or more above the ground.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-11 Noise
Table 5.11-8
Existing Exterior Noise Levels Along Roadways
Roadway
Segment Limits
CNEL, dBA
@50 ft
Distance to Contour (feet)
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
Arrow Blvd. Juniper to Rosena 71.0 64 201 636 2,011
Arrow Blvd. Rosena to Nuevo 69.3 42 134 423 1,337
Arrow Blvd. Nuevo to Sierra 70.2 52 166 524 1,657
Arrow Blvd. Sierra to Wheeler 70.1 51 161 509 1,609
Arrow Blvd. Wheeler to Emerald 69.3 42 134 423 1,337
Arrow Blvd. Emerald to Mango 69.3 42 134 423 1,337
Ceres Ave. Nuevo to Sierra 58.1 3 10 32 103
Foothill Blvd. Juniper to Sierra 73.4 110 348 1,100 3,480
Foothill Blvd. Sierra to Mango 72.9 98 310 981 3,101
Juniper Ave. Foothill to Upland 68.4 35 109 346 1,093
Juniper Ave. Upland to Arrow 67.9 31 97 305 966
Juniper Ave. Arrow to Valencia 69.0 40 126 400 1,265
Mango Ave. Foothill to Upland 66.9 24 77 244 773
Mango Ave. Upland to Valencia 68.2 33 104 330 1,044
Mango Ave. Valencia to Merrill 67.5 28 89 282 890
Merrill Ave. Juniper to Mango 70.0 50 159 504 1,593
Nuevo Ave. Arrow to Valencia 54.9 2 5 15 49
Nuevo Ave. Valencia to Orange 54.5 1 5 14 45
Orange Way Nuevo to Sierra 61.6 7 23 72 228
Orange Way Sierra to Wheeler 59.2 4 13 42 133
Randall Ave. Juniper to Mango 67.9 31 98 310 981
Sierra Ave. Foothill to Upland 70.2 53 167 529 1,673
Sierra Ave. Upland to Arrow 68.6 36 115 365 1,154
Sierra Ave. Arrow to Valencia 70.3 54 170 539 1,703
Sierra Ave. Valencia to Orange 69.0 40 125 397 1,254
Sierra Ave. Orange to Merrill 70.7 59 187 591 1,868
Sierra Ave. Merrill to Athol 71.8 76 240 757 2,395
Sierra Ave. Athol to Randall 73.6 115 363 1,149 3,635
Valencia Ave. Juniper to Sierra 56.9 2 8 24 77
Valencia Ave. Sierra to Mango 56.0 2 6 20 62
Wheeler Ave. Arrow to Valencia 54.7 1 5 15 47
Wheeler Ave. Valencia to Orange 51.3 1 2 7 21
Source: MD Acoustics, LLC, Fontana Downtown FBC – Noise Impact Study, January 2023.
Notes:
1. Exterior noise levels calculated at 5-feet above ground.
2. Noise levels calculated from centerline of subject roadway.
3. Contour Distances do not take into account potential noise reduction from existing barriers such as buildings, walls or berms
as a worst-case scenario for planning screening purposes. Overall levels are likely lower at sensitive receptors.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-12 Noise
Airport and Aircraft Noise
There are no airports located within the Project Area and the Project Area is not located within any airport
noise contours. The closest airport to the Project Area is the Ontario International Airport located
approximately eight miles southwest of the Project Area. The noise contours associated with this airport
do not encroach into the Project Area.
Railway Noise
Existing and future developments within 455 feet of the Metrolink rail line may be exposed to levels above
65 dBA CNEL due to rail noise. Developments within 593 feet of a crossing with a horn warning may be
exposed to levels above 65 dBA CNEL due to rail noise. The long-term measurement by the rail line (LT2)
confirms that levels by the rail are above 65 dBA CNEL under existing conditions.
Vibration Sources
The main sources of vibration in the Project Area are related to vehicles and construction. Typical roadway
traffic, including heavy trucks, rarely generates vibration amplitudes high enough to cause structural or
cosmetic damage. However, there have been cases in which heavy trucks traveling over potholes or other
discontinuities in the pavement have caused vibration high enough to result in complaints from nearby
residents. These types of issues typically can be resolved by smoothing the roadway surface.
Construction activities that produce vibration that can be felt by adjacent land uses include the use of
vibratory equipment, large bulldozers, and pile drivers. The primary source of vibration during
construction is usually from a bulldozer. A large bulldozer has a peak particle velocity of 0.089 inches per
second at 25 feet.
5.11.3 REGULATORY SETTING
FEDERAL
Noise Control Act of 1972
The Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) originally was tasked with implementing the
Noise Control Act. However, it was eventually eliminated, leaving other federal agencies and committees
to develop noise policies and programs. Some examples of these agencies are as follows:
The Department of Transportation (DOT) assumed a significant role in noise control through its various
agencies.
The Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) is responsible to regulate noise from aircraft and airports.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is responsible to regulate noise from the interstate highway
system.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible for the prohibition of excessive
noise exposure to workers.
The federal government advocates that local jurisdictions use their land use regulatory authority to
arrange new development in such a way that “noise sensitive” uses are either prohibited from being
constructed adjacent to a highway or that the developments are planned and constructed in such a
manner that potential noise impacts are minimized.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-13 Noise
Since the federal government has preempted the setting of standards for noise levels that can be emitted
by the transportation source, the City is restricted to regulating the noise generated by the transportation
system through nuisance abatement codes and land use planning.
The intent of a General Plan Noise Element is to set goals to limit and reduce the effects of noise intrusion
and to set acceptable noise levels for varying types of land uses. To this end, the City has the authority to
set land use noise standards and restrict private activities that generate excessive or intrusive noise.
However, it should be recognized that the City does not have the authority to regulate all sources of noise
within the City and various other agencies may supersede City authority. The following is a summary of
some federal agency requirements that apply to noise within the Project Area.
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Highway Administration State routes and freeways that run through the City are subject to Federal
funding and, as such, are under the purview of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA
has developed noise standards that are typically used for Federally funded roadway projects or projects
that require either Federal or Caltrans review. These noise standards are based on Leq and L10 values and
are included in Table 5.11-9, FHWA Design Noise Levels.
Table 5.11-9
FHWA Design Noise Levels
Activity
Category Description of Category Design Noise Levels1
Leq (dBA) L10 (dBA)
A
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary
significance and serve an important public need and
where the preservation of those qualities is essential if
the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose.
Examples include natural parks or wildlife habitats.
57 (exterior) 60 (exterior)
B
Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports
areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools,
churches, libraries, and hospitals.
67 (exterior) 70 (exterior)
C Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in
Categories A or B, above. 72 (exterior) 75 (exterior)
D Undeveloped lands. -- --
E Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms,
schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. 52 (interior) 55 (interior)
Source: FHWA Noise Standard. 23 Code of Federal Regulations 772.
Notes: Either Leq or L10 (but not both) design noise levels may be used on a project.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issues formal requirements related
specifically to standards for exterior noise levels along with policies for approving HUD-supported or
assisted housing projects in high noise areas. In general, these requirements established three zones.
These include:
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-14 Noise
65 dBA Ldn or less - an acceptable zone where all projects could be approved,
Exceeding 65 dBA Ldn but not exceeding 75 dBA Ldn - a normally unacceptable zone where mitigation
measures would be required, and each project would have to be individually evaluated for approval or
denial. These measures must provide 5 dBA of attenuation above the attenuation provided by standard
construction required in a 65 to 70 dBA Ldn area and 10 dBA of attenuation in a 70 to 75 dBA Ldn area,
and
Exceeding 75 dBA Ldn - an unacceptable zone in which projects would not, as a rule, be approved.
The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) developed guidance for the assessment of project-
generated increases in noise levels that consider the ambient noise level. The FICON recommendations
are based on studies of the percentage of persons highly annoyed by aircraft noise. These
recommendations are often used for different types of environmental noise such as traffic noise. A readily
perceptible 5 dBA or greater project-related noise level increase is considered a significant impact when
the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded. In areas where the existing noise levels range from 60
to 65 dBA, a 3 dBA barely perceptible noise level increase is considered significant. When the existing
noise levels already exceed 65 dBA, any increase in community noise louder than 1.5 dBA or greater is
considered a significant impact, since it likely contributes to an existing noise exposure exceedance.
STATE
California Department of Health Services
The California Department of Health Services (DHS) Office of Noise Control studied the correlation of noise
levels and their effects on various land uses. As a result, the DHS established four categories for judging
the severity of noise intrusion on specified land uses. These categories are presented in the State Land
Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure table. The Fontana General Plan has not adopted these
standards and instead uses a threshold of 65 dBA CNEL and 65 dBA Leq for sensitive uses.
California Building Code
Section 1206.4 of the 2022 California Building Code (Cal. Code Regs., Title 24, Part 2), Chapter 12 (Interior
Environment), establishes an interior noise criterion of 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room. Per California
Building Code, Chapter 2 (Definitions), a habitable space is a space in a building for living, sleeping, eating
or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, closets, halls, storage or utility spaces and similar areas are not
considered habitable spaces. This section applies to dwelling and sleeping units.
California Green Building Standards Code (2022), Chapter 5 (Nonresidential Mandatory Measures) Section
5.507.4 (Acoustical Control), applies to all proposed buildings that people may occupy but are not
residential dwelling units, with the exception of factories, stadiums, storage, enclosed parking structures,
and utility buildings. Buildings must comply with Section 5.507.4.1 or Section 5.507.4.2. Section 5.507.4.1
requires wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source making up the building, or addition
envelope or altered envelope, shall meet a composite Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of at least 50
or a composite Outdoor to Indoor Transmission Class (OITC) rating of no less than 40, with exterior
windows of a minimum STC of 40 or OITC of 30 when within the 65 CNEL noise contour of an airport,
freeway, expressway, railroad, industrial source, or fixed-guideway source. If contours are not available,
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-15 Noise
buildings exposed to 65 dB Leq(h) must meet a composite STC rating of at least 45 or OITC of 35 with
exterior windows of at least STC 40 or OITC 30. Section 5.507.4.2 requires that the interior noise
attributable to exterior sources must not exceed 50 dBA Leq(h) during any hour of operation. Section
5.507.4.3 requires that assemblies separating tenant spaces from tenant spaces or public places must
have an STC of at least 40.
LOCAL
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce potential noise impacts. Chapter
11, Noise and Safety Element contains the following goals and policies potentially relevant to the
proposed Project:
Chapter 11 – Noise and Safety Element
• Goal 8: The City of Fontana protects sensitive land uses from excessive noise by diligent planning
through 2035.
o Policy: New sensitive land uses shall be prohibited in incompatible areas.
o Policy: Noise-tolerant land uses shall be guided into areas irrevocably committed to land
uses that are noise-producing, such as transportation corridors.
o Policy: Where sensitive uses are to be placed along transportation routes, mitigation shall
be provided to ensure compliance with state-mandated noise levels.
o Policy: Noise spillover or encroachment from commercial, industrial and educational land
uses shall be minimized into adjoining residential neighborhoods or noise-sensitive uses.
• Goal 9: The City of Fontana provides a diverse and efficiently operated ground transportation
system that generates the minimum feasible noise on its residents through 2035.
o Policy: All noise sections of the State Motor Vehicle Code shall be enforced.
o Policy: Roads shall be maintained such that the paving is in good condition and free of
cracks, bumps, and potholes.
o Policy: Noise mitigation measures shall be included in the design of new roadway projects
in the city.
• Goal 10: Fontana’s residents are protected from the negative effects of “spillover” noise.
o Policy: Residential land uses and areas identified as noise-sensitive shall be protected
from excessive noise from non-transportation sources including industrial, commercial,
and residential activities and equipment.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
The City of Fontana's Noise Ordinance consists of Sections 18-61 to 18-67 of the Fontana Municipal Code.
The Noise Ordinance is designed to protect people from non-transportation noise sources such as
construction activity; commercial, industrial, and agricultural operations; machinery and pumps; and air
conditioners. Enforcement of the ordinance ensures that adjacent properties are not exposed to excessive
noise from stationary sources. Enforcing the ordinance includes requiring proposed development projects
to show compliance with the ordinance, including operating in accordance with noise levels and hours of
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-16 Noise
operations limits placed on the project site. The City also requires construction activity to comply with
established work schedule limits. The ordinance is reviewed periodically for adequacy and amended as
needed to address community needs and development patterns.
Section 18-62 states that any noise that disturbs persons of ordinary sensibilities is unlawful. It also
outlines the penalties for violating the Noise Ordinance.
Section 18-63 lists specific prohibited noises as they disturb a person of ordinary sensibilities. These
sources including horns and signaling devices, sound amplifying equipment, animals, exhausts, vehicle
and load defects, loading and unloading activities, construction during the hours of 6PM to 7AM on
weekdays and 5PM to 8AM on Saturday, noise near schools, courts, places of worship, and hospitals,
transportation of metal pillars, specific construction equipment between 6PM and 7AM, and blowers
between the hours of 6PM and 7AM on weekdays and 5PM to 8AM on Saturdays.
Chapter 30, Zoning and Development Code (Development Code), includes a number of provisions to
protect against excessive noise and vibration.
Section 30-469 outlines residential noise standards for interior and exterior uses. Within a residential
zone, no use shall create a noise greater than 65 dB at an exterior use and 45 dB at an interior use. The
code does not specify the weighting scale or specific location of the measurement, but generally
environmental noise standards are in dBA and taken at the property line of a useable area.
Section 30-470 states that any vibration occurring on a residential property which can be felt beyond the
property line is prohibited.
Section 30-542 is similar to Sections 30-469 and 30-470 for noises occurring on industrial properties.
Daytime residential levels, however, are limited to 70 dBA at any residential property line and 65 dBA at
night at any residential property line. This section also prohibits vibration which can be felt beyond the
property line.
Section 30-943(a)(6) outlines noise restrictions for extraction permits including daytime limits of 55 dBA
at residential properties, 60 dBA at commercial properties at any time, and 70 dBA at industrial properties
at any time. These limits are reiterated in Section 9-62(c)(3)(d)(3).
5.11.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Initial Study
Environmental Checklist, which includes questions related to noise and groundborne vibrations. A project
may create a significant environmental impact if it would 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 (refer to Impact Statement 5.11-1);
• Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (refer to Impact
Statement 5.11-2); and/or
• For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-17 Noise
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise (refer to Section 8.0, Effects Found Not
to be Significant).
Transportation Noise Standards
A significant impact would occur if noise levels are increased by 3 dBA or more and result in a future noise
level above 65 dBA CNEL in areas with sensitive uses.
Stationary Noise Standards
Section 30-469 outlines residential noise standards for interior and exterior uses. Within a residential
zone, no use shall create a noise greater than 65 dB at an exterior use and 45 dB at an interior use. A
significant impact would occur if the Project involves a use within a residential zone that creates a noise
greater than 65 dB at an exterior use and 45 dB at an interior use.
Construction Noise Standards
Construction noise would be significant if construction activities occur outside of the permitted
construction hours. Municipal Code Section 18-63 limits construction during the hours of 6PM to 7AM on
weekdays and 5PM to 8AM on Saturday.
Construction vibration would be significant if construction activities result in vibration that can be felt
beyond the property line.
Based on these standards and significance thresholds and criteria, the Project’s effects have been
categorized as either “no impact,” a “less than significant impact,” or a “potentially significant impact.”
Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant
impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant impact through the application of mitigation, it is
categorized as a “significant unavoidable impact.”
5.11.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 5.11-1: Would the project result in the 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?
Impact Analysis: The City is proposing to create a new focused area in the Downtown Core (Project Area)
by creating and implementing a new General Plan land use category and six new FBC districts specific to
the Project Area. The Project would involve amending General Plan Chapter 9, Community Mobility and
Circulation, including Exhibit 9.2, Hierarchy of Streets in Fontana, Chapter 14, Downtown Area Plan, and
Chapter 15, Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design, including establishing a new General Plan land use
category, amending the General Plan Land Use Map to apply the new land use category, and amending
the Zoning and Development Code, including the Zoning District Map.
The proposed General Plan, General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning District Map, and Zoning and
Development Code amendments would apply the new General Plan WMXU-3 land use category and new
Zoning and Development Code FBC districts to the Project Area. Although the proposed Project does not
involve site-specific development, the intent is to promote additional residential development and
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-18 Noise
supportive commercial uses and amenities based on the highest residential development and commercial
potential that could be built. Further, the Project would allow for the complete closure of Sierra Avenue
to vehicular traffic between Arrow Boulevard and Orange Way.
Based on the maximum development potential and existing (on-the-ground) development anticipated to
remain, implementation of the Downtown Core Project would allow for new development of
approximately 10,920 dwelling units (8,900 units over existing conditions) and new development of
approximately 3,992,868 square feet of non-residential uses (2,685,404 square feet over existing
conditions).
Transportation Noise Impacts
The primary noise source in the Project Area would continue to be vehicle traffic. Future traffic noise level
contours with implementation of the Proposed Project are presented in Figure 5.11-3, 2040 Future Noise
Contours With Project. Table 5.11-10, 2040 Future Traffic Noise Levels With Downtown Core Project, shows
that future noise levels at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of studied roadways would range
between 58.6 and 73.8 dBA CNEL by the year 2040 with the proposed Project.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-19 Noise
Table 5.11-10
2040 Future Traffic Noise Levels with Downtown Core Project (dBA, CNEL)
Roadway
Segment Limits
CNEL, dBA
@50 ft
Distance to Contour (feet)
70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA
Arrow Blvd. Juniper to Rosena 70.7 59 187 591 1,869
Arrow Blvd. Rosena to Nuevo 69.6 46 144 456 1,441
Arrow Blvd. Nuevo to Sierra 71.8 75 238 751 2,376
Arrow Blvd. Sierra to Wheeler 72.2 83 261 826 2,611
Arrow Blvd. Wheeler to Emerald 68.9 39 123 389 1,229
Arrow Blvd. Emerald to Mango 70.0 50 157 495 1,565
Ceres Ave. Nuevo to Sierra 58.6 4 12 37 115
Foothill Blvd. Juniper to Sierra 73.6 116 365 1,156 3,654
Foothill Blvd. Sierra to Mango 73.4 109 345 1,092 3,454
Juniper Ave. Foothill to Upland 68.5 36 113 357 1,127
Juniper Ave. Upland to Arrow 69.7 47 149 472 1,491
Juniper Ave. Arrow to Valencia 69.1 41 129 409 1,292
Mango Ave. Foothill to Upland 67.3 27 85 268 847
Mango Ave. Upland to Valencia 68.7 37 117 369 1,168
Mango Ave. Valencia to Merrill 69.6 46 144 455 1,440
Merrill Ave. Juniper to Mango 70.2 53 167 530 1,675
Nuevo Ave. Arrow to Valencia 66.1 20 64 203 643
Nuevo Ave. Valencia to Orange 66.7 23 74 234 740
Orange Way Nuevo to Sierra 70.1 51 163 514 1,625
Orange Way Sierra to Wheeler 69.1 40 127 402 1,272
Randall Ave. Juniper to Mango 67.7 29 92 292 925
Sierra Ave. Foothill to Upland 70.8 59 188 594 1,879
Sierra Ave. Upland to Arrow 68.4 35 110 349 1,102
Sierra Ave. Arrow to Valencia -- -- -- -- --
Sierra Ave. Valencia to Orange -- -- -- -- --
Sierra Ave. Orange to Merrill 70.4 55 173 548 1,732
Sierra Ave. Merrill to Athol 72.1 81 255 807 2,551
Sierra Ave. Athol to Randall 73.8 120 378 1,196 3,783
Valencia Ave. Juniper to Sierra 59.3 4 13 42 134
Valencia Ave. Sierra to Mango 58.9 4 12 39 124
Wheeler Ave. Arrow to Valencia 65.7 18 58 184 583
Wheeler Ave. Valencia to Orange 64.9 15 49 155 490
Source: MD Acoustics, LLC, Fontana Downtown FBC – Noise Impact Study, January 2023.
Notes:
1. Exterior noise levels calculated at 5-feet above ground.
2. Noise levels calculated from centerline of subject roadway.
3. Contour Distances do not take into account potential noise reduction from existing barriers such as buildings, walls or
berms as a worst-case scenario for planning screening purposes. Overall levels are likely lower at sensitive receptors.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-20 Noise
As shown in Table 5.11-10 and Figure 5.11-3, by the year 2040, existing land uses adjacent to the studied
roadways would be exposed to noise levels that exceed the City's exterior standards with implementation
of the proposed Project.
Table 5.11-11, Change in Traffic Noise Along Project Area Roadways (dBA, CNEL at 50 feet), shows the
change in ambient noise levels under 2040 with Project conditions. Compared to existing traffic noise
levels, 2040 with Project traffic volumes are expected to be up to 13.6 dBA CNEL louder than existing
ambient noise levels at existing land uses and would result in audible increases in ambient noise along
Nuevo Avenue, Orange Way, and Wheeler Avenue.
Traffic noise would be significant if levels are increased by more than 3 dBA to levels above 65 dBA CNEL
in areas with sensitive uses. As shown in Table 5.11-11, noise levels along Nuevo Avenue from Arrow
Boulevard to Orange Way, Orange Way from Nuevo Avenue to Wheeler Avenue, and Wheeler Avenue
from Arrow Boulevard to Valencia Avenue would increase more than 3 dB and would be above 65 dBA
CNEL. Sensitive receptors along Nuevo Avenue include single-family residential uses and multifamily
residential uses. There are no sensitive uses along Nuevo Avenue from Arrow Boulevard to Valencia
Avenue. Sensitive receptors along Orange Way include a park and multifamily residential uses. Sensitive
receptors along Wheeler Avenue include single-family residential uses. As noise levels would be increased
by more than 3 dBA to levels above 65 dBA CNEL in areas with sensitive uses, implementation of the
proposed Project would result in substantial permanent increases in existing noise levels at existing and
future sensitive receptors along these segments.
Implementation of the proposed Project would result in significant impacts related to exceedances of the
65 dBA CNEL land use compatibility criteria, as outlined in the actions of General Plan Noise and Safety
Element Goal 8, and substantial increases in ambient noise levels, as shown in Table 5.11-11. It is noted
that Table 5.11-11 does not include sensitive uses that are further than 50 feet from the centerline and
does not consider noise reduction factors such as property line walls. Where existing land uses would be
impacted, the impact would be significant and unavoidable as setback distances of existing sensitive
receptors are already established.
The use of sound walls or quiet pavements could potentially be employed to reduce these impacts, but
neither is a feasible method here. Sound walls already exist in most places within the Project area where
they could be effective in reducing noise impacts. Many impacted residential uses along the roadway
segments listed above are accessed directly via driveways off the main roadway, meaning any new sound
wall along such roadways would require many driveway openings, substantially reducing the noise barrier
performance. Additionally, raising the heights of sound walls or constructing new noise barriers would
result in encroachment on private property. Raising sound wall heights would likely require enlarging
footings, thereby requiring the demolition of existing sound walls. Therefore, the use of new sound walls
or modifying sound walls is not practical and is not a feasible method of mitigating the Project’s noise
impacts.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-21 Noise
Table 5.11-11
Change in Traffic Noise Along Project Area Roadways (dBA, CNEL at 50 feet)
Roadway
Segment Limits
Existing 2040 With Project
CNEL, dBA
@50 ft
CNEL, dBA
@50 ft
Change in
Noise Level
Arrow Blvd. Juniper to Rosena 71.0 70.7 -0.3
Arrow Blvd. Rosena to Nuevo 69.3 69.6 0.3
Arrow Blvd. Nuevo to Sierra 70.2 71.8 1.6
Arrow Blvd. Sierra to Wheeler 70.1 72.2 2.1
Arrow Blvd. Wheeler to Emerald 69.3 68.9 -0.4
Arrow Blvd. Emerald to Mango 69.3 70.0 0.7
Ceres Ave. Nuevo to Sierra 58.1 58.6 0.5
Foothill Blvd. Juniper to Sierra 73.4 73.6 0.2
Foothill Blvd. Sierra to Mango 72.9 73.4 0.5
Juniper Ave. Foothill to Upland 68.4 68.5 0.1
Juniper Ave. Upland to Arrow 67.9 69.7 1.9
Juniper Ave. Arrow to Valencia 69.0 69.1 0.1
Mango Ave. Foothill to Upland 66.9 67.3 0.4
Mango Ave. Upland to Valencia 68.2 68.7 0.5
Mango Ave. Valencia to Merrill 67.5 69.6 2.1
Merrill Ave. Juniper to Mango 70.0 70.2 0.2
Nuevo Ave. Arrow to Valencia 54.9 66.1 11.2
Nuevo Ave. Valencia to Orange 54.5 66.7 12.2
Orange Way Nuevo to Sierra 61.6 70.1 8.5
Orange Way Sierra to Wheeler 59.2 69.1 9.8
Randall Ave. Juniper to Mango 67.9 67.7 -0.3
Sierra Ave. Foothill to Upland 70.2 70.8 0.5
Sierra Ave. Upland to Arrow 68.6 68.4 -0.2
Sierra Ave. Arrow to Valencia 70.3 -- --
Sierra Ave. Valencia to Orange 69.0 -- --
Sierra Ave. Orange to Merrill 70.7 70.4 -0.3
Sierra Ave. Merrill to Athol 71.8 72.1 0.3
Sierra Ave. Athol to Randall 73.6 73.8 0.2
Valencia Ave. Juniper to Sierra 56.9 59.3 --
Valencia Ave. Sierra to Mango 56.0 58.9 3.0
Wheeler Ave. Arrow to Valencia 54.7 65.7 11.0
Wheeler Ave. Valencia to Orange 51.3 64.9 13.6
Source: MD Acoustics, LLC, Fontana Downtown FBC – Noise Impact Study, January 2023.
Notes:
1. Existing and Future traffic volumes compiled from the traffic study prepared for the Project (Kittelson &
Associates, Inc. Dec 2022).
2. An impact would occur if the Project increased the roadway segment level by 3 dB or more (an audible
difference) and resulting in a future level above 65 dBA CNEL. Significant Impacts are in bold.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-22 Noise
Quiet pavements have been used to mitigate traffic noise and are typically assumed to provide a 3 to 5
dBA reduction. Although quiet pavement would likely reduce some of the noise impacts outlined in the
previous tables to a less than significant level, noise impacts would remain significant as the introduction
of quiet payments would not reduce all of the impacted roadway segments to a level that would be less
than significant due to the magnitude of the traffic noise increases that would occur with the proposed
Project. Additionally, widespread repaving of Project Area streets with quiet pavements would be
extremely expensive. Given the marginal benefit that the use of quiet pavement would provide, relative
to its cost, it is not considered to be a feasible form of mitigation given the circumstances. As there are no
feasible noise reduction measures for the potential of significant noise exposure to existing sensitive land
uses that can be identified at this time, traffic noise impacts to existing sensitive land uses associated with
Project implementation would be significant and unavoidable.
Stationary Noise Sources
Stationary noise would be significant if stationary noise levels exceed the levels outlined in the Fontana
Municipal Code. Implementation of the Project could result in the future development of land uses that
generate noise levels in excess of applicable City noise standards for non-transportation noise sources as
outlined in the Fontana Municipal Code. While the Project does not explicitly propose any new noise-
generating uses, the Land Use Map includes mixed-use land use designations, which may result in new
noise sources. Specific development projects and the details of future noise-generating land uses that
may be located in the City in the future are not known at this time. Additionally, noise from existing
stationary sources, as identified in Section 5.11.2, Environmental Setting, would continue to impact noise-
sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the noise sources.
While no specific development projects are proposed under the Project, changes in land use may allow
for more intensive noise-generating uses in closer proximity to noise-sensitive uses. Where this occurs,
detailed noise studies would be required to ensure that noise control measures are implemented into the
project design. Such measures could include the redesign of stationary noise sources away from sensitive
uses, construction of sound walls or berms between noise generating uses and sensitive uses, using
buildings to create additional buffer distance and screening, or other site design measures to ensure that
non-transportation (stationary) noise sources do not cause exterior noise levels to exceed allowable
standards at sensitive receptors. Future development associated with implementation of the proposed
Project would be required to implement General Plan EIR mitigation measure MM-NOI-1 (incorporated
herein as NOI-1), which requires a noise study be performed prior to issuance of a grading permit and
mitigation implemented if noise levels exceed 65 dBA. Compliance with Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would
reduce stationary noise impacts to a less than significant level.
Construction Noise and Vibration
The degree of construction noise may vary for different development projects associated with
implementation of the proposed Project and also vary depending on the construction activities. Noise
levels associated with construction activities vary depending on the different phases of construction.
Construction must occur between the times of 7AM and 6PM on weekdays and 8AM to 5PM on Saturdays
per Section 18-63(b)(7) of the Fontana Municipal Code. There are no specific limits for noise levels during
those times.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-23 Noise
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has compiled data regarding the noise-generated
characteristics of typical construction activities. The data is presented in Table 5.11-12, Typical
Construction Noise Levels. These noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction
site at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 86 dBA measured 50 feet
from the noise source would reduce to 80 dBA at 100 feet. At 200 feet from the noise source, the noise
level would reduce to 74 dBA. At 400 feet, the noise source would reduce by another 6 dBA to 68 dBA.
Table 5.11-12
Typical Construction Noise Levels
Equipment Powered by Internal Combustion Engines
Type Noise Levels (dBA) at 50 Feet
Earth Moving
Compactors (Rollers) 73 - 76
Front Loaders 73 - 84
Backhoes 73 - 92
Tractors 75 - 95
Scrapers, Graders 78 - 92
Pavers 85 - 87
Trucks 81 - 94
Materials Handling
Concrete Mixers 72 - 87
Concrete Pumps 81 - 83
Cranes (Movable) 72 - 86
Cranes (Derrick) 85 - 87
Stationary
Pumps 68 - 71
Generators 71 - 83
Compressors 75 - 86
Impact Equipment
Saws 71 - 82
Vibrators 68 - 82
Source: MD Acoustics, LLC, Fontana Downtown FBC – Noise Impact Study, January 2023
Notes:
Source: Reference Noise Levels from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Construction noise would be significant if construction occurs outside of the hours specified in Section 18-
63(7) of the Fontana Municipal Code. The potential impact is site-specific and depends on the construction
equipment used and distance to adjacent sensitive receptors. Implementation of the proposed Project
could result in short-term noise impacts associated with construction activities. Two types of short-term
noise impacts could occur during construction activities, on-site and off-site.
Construction crew commute and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site for
the proposed Project would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site. Truck
traffic associated with individual project construction would be limited to within the permitted
construction hours as listed in the City's Municipal Code. Although there would be a relatively high single-
event noise exposure potential at a maximum of 87 dBA Lmax at 50 ft from passing trucks, causing possible
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-24 Noise
short-term intermittent annoyances, the effect on ambient noise levels would be less than 1 dBA when
averaged over one hour or 24 hours. In other words, the changes in noise levels over 1 hour or 24 hours
attributable to passing trucks would not be perceptible to the normal human ear. Therefore, short-term
construction-related impacts associated with worker commute and equipment transport on local streets
leading to the specific project site would result in a less than significant impact on noise-sensitive
receptors along the access routes.
The site preparation phase of on-site construction activities, which includes grading and paving, tends to
generate the highest noise levels since the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment.
Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backhoes, bulldozers, and front loaders.
Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating
cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation
followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings. Site-specific construction activities associated with
future development is expected to require the use of scrapers, bulldozers, motor graders, and water and
pickup trucks. The maximum noise level generated by each scraper is assumed to be approximately 87
dBA Lmax at 50 feet from the scraper in operation. Each bulldozer would also generate approximately 85
dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The maximum noise level generated by the sound sources with equal strength
increases the noise level by 3 dBA. Noise reduction potential would be project and site-specific. Future
construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be required to
implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1 and General Plan EIR mitigation measure MM-NOI-2 (incorporated
herein as Mitigation Measure NOI-2). Mitigation Measure NOI-1 requires future development projects
within 200 feet of a sensitive use prepare a noise study that addresses the potential impacts upon off-site
sensitive uses due to construction. Further, Mitigation Measure NOI-2 provides procedures for
construction activities to reduce impacts related to equipment moving and operation. Compliance with
Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 and Section 18-63(7) of the Fontana Municipal Code during
construction associated with site-specific projects would reduce noise impacts from on-site construction
activities to a less than significant level.
Conclusion
With the exception of traffic noise on existing noise-sensitive uses along identified roadway segments,
which would result in a significant unavoidable impact, the Project would not result in generation of a
substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project Area in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies with the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2.
Mitigation Measures:
NOI-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a developer shall contract for a site-specific noise study for
a parcel within 200 feet of a sensitive use as identified within Goal 8 of the 2015-2035 General
Plan. The noise study shall be performed by an acoustic consultant experienced in such studies,
and the consultant's qualifications and methodology to be used in the study must be presented
to City staff for consideration. The site-specific acoustic study shall specifically identify potential
noise impacts upon any proposed sensitive uses, as well as potential project impacts upon off-site
sensitive uses due to construction, stationary and mobile noise sources. Mitigation shall be
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-25 Noise
required if noise levels exceed 65 dBA, as identified in Goal 8 of the 2015-2035 General Plan
(General Plan EIR MM-NOI-1, updated).
NOI-2: To reduce impacts related to heavy construction equipment moving and operating on site during
project construction, grading, demolition, and paving prior to issuance of grading permits, the
applicant shall ensure that the following procedures are followed:
Construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be properly outfitted and maintained with
feasible noise-reduction devices to minimize construction generated noise.
Laydown and construction vehicle staging areas shall be located away from noise sensitive
land uses if feasible.
Stationary noise sources such as generators shall be located away from noise sensitive land
uses, if feasible.
Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent
shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow surrounding property owners to
contact the job superintendent 24 hours a day to report noise and other nuisance-related
issues, if necessary. The point of contact shall be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and
have authority to commit additional assets to control dust after hours, on weekends, and on
holidays. In the event that the City of Fontana receives a pattern of noise complaints,
appropriate corrective actions shall be implemented, such as on- site noise monitoring during
construction activities, and a report of the action shall be provided to the reporting party
(General Plan EIR MM-NOI-2).
Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
Impact 5.11-2: Would the project result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
Impact Analysis: The main sources of vibration in the Project Area are related to vehicles and construction
and railway vibration. Typical roadway traffic, including heavy trucks, rarely generates vibration
amplitudes high enough to cause structural or cosmetic damage. However, there have been cases in which
heavy trucks traveling over potholes or other discontinuities in the pavement have caused vibration high
enough to result in complaints from nearby residents. These types of issues typically can be resolved by
smoothing the roadway surface
Construction activities that produce vibration that can be felt by adjacent land uses include the use of
vibratory equipment, large bulldozers, and pile drivers. The primary sources of vibration during
construction are usually vibratory rollers and large bulldozers. As shown in Table 5.11-13, Vibration Source
Levels for Construction Equipment, a vibratory roller has a peak particle velocity (inches/second) of 0.21
and a large bulldozer has a peak particle velocity of 0.089 (inches per second) at 25 feet. The use of pile
driving equipment can generate a peak particle velocity of 1.5 (inches per second) depending on the size
and model.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-26 Noise
Table 5.11-13
Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment Peak Particle Velocity Approximate Vibration Level
(inches/second) at 25 feet LV (VdB) at 25 feet
Pile driver (impact)
1.518 (upper range) 112
0.644 (typical) 104
Pile driver (sonic)
0.734 upper range 105
0.170 typical 93
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Hydromill 0.008 in soil 66
(slurry wall) 0.017 in rock 75
Vibratory Roller 0.21 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.
The California Department of Transportation has published one of the seminal works for the analysis of
ground-borne noise and vibration relating to transportation- and construction-induced vibrations and,
although the Project is not subject to these regulations, it serves as a useful tool to evaluate vibration
impacts. Table 5.11-14, Human Response to Transient Vibration, provides maximum PPV levels
(inches/second) to be used to determine the typical human response to transient vibration. When
evaluated in light of the estimated groundborne vibration levels presented in Table 5.11-13, it can be
determined that construction activities in the Project Area have the potential to result in significant
impacts related to groundborne vibration associated with construction activities. However, projects must
ensure that vibration levels comply with Section 30-470 and 30-543 of the Fontana Municipal Code, which
require vibration levels to be imperceptible beyond adjacent residential property lines. Additionally,
implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would help to achieve this requirement by providing
procedures for construction activities to reduce impacts related to equipment moving and operation.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-27 Noise
Table 5.11-14
Human Response to Transient Vibration
PPV (in/sec) Human Response
2.0 Severe
0.9 Strongly perceptible
0.24 Distinctly perceptible
0.035 Barely perceptible
Source: California Department of Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020.
Note: transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent
sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory
compaction equipment.
Construction vibration would be significant if vibration can be felt beyond the property line per Section
30-470 and 30-543 of the Fontana Municipal Code. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 requires noise studies be
performed in the Project Area, and these studies would ensure that construction vibration levels are
below perceptible levels. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 provides additional procedures for construction
activities that would reduce impacts related to equipment moving and operation. Compliance with
Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2, and federal, State, and local regulations would reduce the
generation of groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
5.11.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Analysis: Table 5.11-15, Change in Traffic Noise With and Without Proposed Project (dBA, CNEL at
50 feet), shows the cumulative noise levels associated with traffic on the local roadway network with and
without implementation of the proposed Project and the estimated noise level increases which may occur
under cumulative conditions.
As shown in Table 5.11-15, cumulative conditions under Project implementation would contribute to an
exceedance of the City’s transportation noise standards and would result in significant increases in traffic
noise levels at existing sensitive receptors. Similarly, growth and development anticipated without the
proposed Project would result in increased traffic on roadways within the Project Area, which would cause
an increase in traffic noise when compared to existing conditions. The associated increase in traffic noise
would impact existing uses that occur within the Project Area under both With Project and Without
Project conditions. Project traffic noise on existing noise-sensitive uses along identified roadway segments
within the Project Area would result in a significant unavoidable cumulative impact.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-28 Noise
Table 5.11-15
Change in Traffic Noise With and Without Proposed Project (dBA, CNEL at 50 feet)
Roadway
Segment Limits
Existing 2040 With Project 2040 Without Project
CNEL, dBA
@50 ft
CNEL,
dBA
@50 ft
Change in
Noise
Level
CNEL, dBA
@50 ft
Change
in Noise
Level
Arrow Blvd. Juniper to Rosena 71.0 70.7 -0.3 71.1 0.1
Arrow Blvd. Rosena to Nuevo 69.3 69.6 0.3 70.0 0.7
Arrow Blvd. Nuevo to Sierra 70.2 71.8 1.6 70.9 0.7
Arrow Blvd. Sierra to Wheeler 70.1 72.2 2.1 70.4 0.4
Arrow Blvd. Wheeler to Emerald 69.3 68.9 -0.4 69.6 0.3
Arrow Blvd. Emerald to Mango 69.3 70.0 0.7 70.1 0.8
Ceres Ave. Nuevo to Sierra 58.1 58.6 0.5 58.6 0.5
Foothill Blvd. Juniper to Sierra 73.4 73.6 0.2 74.0 0.5
Foothill Blvd. Sierra to Mango 72.9 73.4 0.5 73.6 0.7
Juniper Ave. Foothill to Upland 68.4 68.5 0.1 68.5 0.1
Juniper Ave. Upland to Arrow 67.9 69.7 1.9 69.7 1.8
Juniper Ave. Arrow to Valencia 69.0 69.1 0.1 69.1 0.1
Mango Ave. Foothill to Upland 66.9 67.3 0.4 67.3 0.4
Mango Ave. Upland to Valencia 68.2 68.7 0.5 68.1 -0.1
Mango Ave. Valencia to Merrill 67.5 69.6 2.1 68.4 0.9
Merrill Ave. Juniper to Mango 70.0 70.2 0.2 70.2 0.1
Nuevo Ave. Arrow to Valencia 54.9 66.1 11.2 55.7 0.8
Nuevo Ave. Valencia to Orange 54.5 66.7 12.2 55.2 0.7
Orange Way Nuevo to Sierra 61.6 70.1 8.5 66.4 4.8
Orange Way Sierra to Wheeler 59.2 69.1 9.8 58.6 -0.6
Randall Ave. Juniper to Mango 67.9 67.7 -0.3 68.0 0.0
Sierra Ave. Foothill to Upland 70.2 70.8 0.5 71.3 1.1
Sierra Ave. Upland to Arrow 68.6 68.4 -0.2 69.3 0.7
Sierra Ave. Arrow to Valencia 70.3 -- -- 71.1 0.8
Sierra Ave. Valencia to Orange 69.0 -- -- 69.9 0.9
Sierra Ave. Orange to Merrill 70.7 70.4 -0.3 71.8 1.1
Sierra Ave. Merrill to Athol 71.8 72.1 0.3 72.6 0.8
Sierra Ave. Athol to Randall 73.6 73.8 0.2 74.2 0.6
Valencia Ave. Juniper to Sierra 56.9 59.3 -- 60.2 3.4
Valencia Ave. Sierra to Mango 56.0 58.9 3.0 59.9 4.0
Wheeler Ave. Arrow to Valencia 54.7 65.7 11.0 55.5 0.8
Wheeler Ave. Valencia to Orange 51.3 64.9 13.6 52.7 1.4
Source: MD Acoustics, LLC, Fontana Downtown FBC – Noise Impact Study, January 2023.
Notes:
1. Existing and Future traffic volumes compiled from the traffic study prepared for the Project (Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Dec 2022).
2. An impact would occur if the Project increased the roadway segment level by 3 dB or more (an audible difference) and
resulting in a future level above 65 dBA CNEL. Significant Impacts are in bold.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.11-29 Noise
Implementation of land use planning and policies and actions can minimize cumulative noise impacts
related to stationary sources by avoiding the placement of noise generating equipment near noise-
sensitive land uses and where unavoidable, include design measures to the degree practicable, such as
building location and orientation, building design features, placement of noise-generating equipment
away from sensitive receptors, shielding of noise-generating equipment, placement of noise-tolerant
features between noise sources and sensitive receptors, and use of noise-minimizing materials, to avoid
violating the noise criteria. Compliance with Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce cumulative noise
impacts from stationary noise sources to a less than significant level.
Short-term construction noise and vibration is a localized activity and would affect only land uses that are
immediately adjacent to a specific project site. Each construction project would have to comply with the
local noise ordinance and Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2, which provides for a noise study to
address potential impacts due to construction activities and procedures for construction activities to
reduce impacts related to equipment moving and operation. Thus, a less than significant cumulative
impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2.
Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
5.11.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Project implementation would result in a significant and unavoidable project and cumulatively
considerable impact relative to transportation noise. All other noise impacts associated with
implementation of the Downtown Core Project would be less than significant.
If the City of Fontana approves the Downtown Core Project, the City will be required to make findings in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations
for consideration by the City’s decisionmakers in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.
5.11.8 REFERENCES
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance
Manual, September 2013.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise
Analysis Protocol, September 2013.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September
2018.
MD Acoustics, LLC, Downtown FBC Districts – Noise Impact Study, January 2023.
Arrow Blvd
Ceres Ave
Merrill Ave
Pe
p
p
e
r
A
v
e
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
A
v
e
Ma
n
g
o
A
v
e
Upland Ave
Ivy Ave
Se
w
e
l
l
A
v
e
Randall Ave
Si
e
r
r
a
A
v
e
Pine Ave
Si
e
r
r
a
A
v
e
Ol
i
v
e
S
t
Pinedale Ave
Valencia Ave
Arrow Blvd
Orange Way
Ceres Ave
Lerner Ln
Spring St
Ivy Ave
Seville Ave
Nu
e
v
o
A
v
e
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
C
t
Terrace Ln
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
A
v
e
Ro
s
e
n
a
A
v
e
Emerald
Ave
Newport
Ave
Pinedale Ct
Be
n
n
e
t
t
A
v
e
Bla
n
c
h
a
r
d
A
v
e
Ke
m
p
s
t
e
r
A
v
e
Anastasia Ave
Athol St
Hibiscus St
Foothill Blvd
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
A
v
e
Be
n
n
e
t
t
A
v
e
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
A
v
e
Athol St
Pe
p
p
e
r
A
v
e
Se
w
e
l
l
A
v
e
Owen St
Upland Ave
Martin Ave
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8
1
2
DOWNTOWN CORE PROJECT
Figure 5.11-1.
Legend
Project Area
Noise Measurement Locations
Short-Term Measurement(10-minute)
Long-Term Measurement
(24-hour)
0 500 1,000
Feet
\
Sources: ArcGIS Online World Imagery map service; USGS National Map Roads; MD Acoustics. Map date: January 17, 2023.
Noise Measurement
Location Map
Merrill Ave
Cy
p
r
e
s
s
A
v
e
Pe
p
p
e
r
A
v
e
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
A
v
e
Upland Ave
Cy
p
r
e
s
s
A
v
e
Ma
n
g
o
A
v
e
Pa
l
m
e
t
t
o
A
v
e
Foothill Blvd
Randall Ave
Ivy Ave
Pine Ave
Hibiscus St
Orchid Dr
Arrow Blvd
Orange Way
Ch
a
n
t
r
y
A
v
e
Se
w
e
l
l
A
v
e
Arrow Blvd
Owen St
Upland Ave
Si
e
r
r
a
A
v
e
Ac
a
c
i
a
A
v
e
Em
e
r
a
l
d
A
v
e
Barbee St
Pa
l
m
e
t
t
o
A
v
e
Sie
r
r
a
A
v
e
Ma
n
g
o
A
v
e
Filbert St
Oli
v
e
S
t
Pinedale Ave
Valencia Ave
Fontlee Ln
Barbee St
Anastasia AveCeres Ave
Bl
a
n
c
h
a
r
d
A
v
e
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
A
v
e
Spring St
Ivy Ave
Seville Ave
Nu
e
v
o
A
v
e
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
C
t
Terrace Ln
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
A
v
e
Rosena
Ave
Em
e
r
a
l
d
A
v
e
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
A
v
e
Pinedale Ct
Be
n
n
e
t
t
A
v
e
Ka
i
s
e
r
A
v
e
Bla
n
c
h
a
r
d
A
v
e
Ke
m
p
s
t
e
r
A
v
e
Paine St
Athol St
Ke
m
p
s
t
e
r
A
v
e
Ka
i
s
e
r
A
v
e
Be
n
n
e
t
t
A
v
e
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
A
v
e
Athol St
Pe
p
p
e
r
A
v
e
Se
w
e
l
l
A
v
e
Martin Ave
Ch
a
n
t
r
y
A
v
e
DOWNTOWN CORE PROJECT
Figure 5.11-2.
Legend
Project Area
Levels in dB(A)
< 45
45 - 50
50 - 55
55 - 60
60 - 65
>= 65
0 500 1,000
Feet
\
Sources: USGS National Map Roads; MD Acoustics. Map date: January 17, 2023.
Existing Roadway
Noise Level Contours
Merrill Ave
Cy
p
r
e
s
s
A
v
e
Pe
p
p
e
r
A
v
e
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
A
v
e
Upland Ave
Cy
p
r
e
s
s
A
v
e
Ma
n
g
o
A
v
e
Pa
l
m
e
t
t
o
A
v
e
Foothill Blvd
Randall Ave
Ivy Ave
Pine Ave
Hibiscus St
Orchid Dr
Arrow Blvd
Orange Way
Ch
a
n
t
r
y
A
v
e
Se
w
e
l
l
A
v
e
Arrow Blvd
Owen St
Upland Ave
Si
e
r
r
a
A
v
e
Ac
a
c
i
a
A
v
e
Em
e
r
a
l
d
A
v
e
Barbee St
Pa
l
m
e
t
t
o
A
v
e
Sie
r
r
a
A
v
e
Ma
n
g
o
A
v
e
Filbert St
Oli
v
e
S
t
Pinedale Ave
Valencia Ave
Fontlee Ln
Barbee St
Anastasia AveCeres Ave
Bl
a
n
c
h
a
r
d
A
v
e
Ju
n
i
p
e
r
A
v
e
Spring St
Ivy Ave
Seville Ave
Nu
e
v
o
A
v
e
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
C
t
Terrace Ln
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
A
v
e
Ro
se
na
A
v
e
Em
e
r
a
l
d
A
v
e
Ne
w
p
o
r
t
A
v
e
Pinedale Ct
Be
n
n
e
t
t
A
v
e
Ka
i
s
e
r
A
v
e
Bla
n
c
h
a
r
d
A
v
e
Ke
m
p
s
t
e
r
A
v
e
Paine St
Athol St
Ke
m
p
s
t
e
r
A
v
e
Ka
i
s
e
r
A
v
e
Be
n
n
e
t
t
A
v
e
Wh
e
e
l
e
r
A
v
e
Athol St
Pe
p
p
e
r
A
v
e
Se
w
e
l
l
A
v
e
Martin Ave
Ch
a
n
t
r
y
A
v
e
Project Area
Levels in dB(A)
< 45
45 - 50
50 - 55
55 - 60
60 - 65
>= 65
0 500 1,000
Feet
\
Sources: USGS National Map Roads; MD Acoustics. Map date: January 17, 2023.
DOWNTOWN CORE PROJECT
Figure 5.11-3.
2040 Future Noise
Contours with Project
Legend
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.12-1 Population and Housing
5.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
5.12.1 PURPOSE
This section identifies the existing regulatory and environmental conditions related to population and
housing within the City of Fontana and Project Area, as applicable, and provides an analysis of potential
impacts associated with Project implementation.
5.12.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD GROWTH
The Inland Empire region, including San Bernardino County, has been one of the fastest-growing regions
in Southern California over the past two decades. This growth has been driven in part by the relative
affordability and availability of land in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, making it an attractive place
to build new housing. Table 5.12-1, Historic Population Trends (2010 – 2020), shows the historical
population and household growth trends for the City of Fontana and San Bernardino County from 2010
to 2020 according to the U.S. Census. The existing (2022) population in the City is 212,809 according to
2022 California Department of Finance estimates.
Table 5.12-1
Historic Population Trends (2010 – 2020)
Category
City of Fontana San Bernardino County
20101 20202 % Change 20101 20202 % Change
Total Population 196,069 208,393 6.3% 2,035,210 2,181,654 7.2%
Source:
1. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010.
2. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2020.
For the City, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) projects a 35.9 percent
population growth between 2016 and 2045, from 211,000 to 286,700 people, growing at a greater rate
compared to the County (31.5 percent); refer to Table 5.12-2, SCAG Growth Forecasts (2016-2045).
Conversely, employment growth in the City is forecast to grow at a lower rate than that of the County
(32.5 percent versus 38.9 percent).
It is important to note that the SCAG projections, which are compiled using a number of sources including
adopted plans, historical trends, and interviews with local jurisdictions, tend to be more accurate on a
regional level than on a local or city level. It is likely that through a combination of market changes,
catalytic projects, land use direction in the General Plan, and other factors, the City could capture either
more or less of expected regional growth than forecasted by SCAG.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.12-2 Population and Housing
Table 5.12-2
SCAG Growth Forecasts (2016-2045)
Description 2016 2045 % Change
City of Fontana
Population 211,000 286,700 35.9%
Households 51,500 77,800 51.1%
Employment 56,700 75,100 32.5%
San Bernardino County
Population 2,141,000 2,815,000 31.5%
Households 630,000 875,000 38.9%
Employment 791,000 1,064,000 34.5%
Source: Southern California Council of Governments, Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report,
adopted September 3, 2020.
HOUSING UNITS
Similar to the region overall, the housing stock in Fontana consists primarily of single-family detached
homes. This home type makes up 80.3 percent of all housing units in the City, which is a higher proportion
than in the County (70.7 percent). The City’s proportion of single-family attached units is 2.3 percent,
which is lower than the County (4.0 percent). The City’s proportion of units within multifamily buildings is
15.3 percent; in comparison, similar unit types make up 19.9 percent of housing in San Bernardino County.
The breakdown of unit types is shown in Table 5.12-3, Existing Housing Supply Mix.
Table 5.12-3
Existing Housing Supply Mix
Category City of Fontana San Bernardino County
Count Percent Count Percent
Single-family Detached units 42,983 80.3% 445,867 70.7%
Single-family Attached units 1,246 2.3% 25,178 4.0%
Multi-family units 8,147 15.3% 125,372 19.9%
Mobile home 1,134 2.1% 34,216 5.4%
Total Housing Units 53,510 100% 630,633 100%
Vacant Rate 2,051 3.8% 8,5538 13.6%
Source: American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
As indicated in Table 5.12-3, the City’s housing stock as of 2018 was an estimated 53,510 housing units.
The total number of existing dwelling units (2022) within the City is 57,483 according to 2022 California
Department of Finance estimates. As indicated in Section 3.0, Project Description, approximately 2,020
dwelling units are located within the Project Area, comprised of 896 single-family and 1,124 multi-family
units.
Vacancy rates are a measure of general availability of housing. They also indicate how well the types of
available units meet the housing market demand. The availability of vacant housing units provides
households with choices of type and price to accommodate their specific needs. Low vacancy rates can
result in higher prices, limited choices, and settling with inadequate housing. It may also contribute to
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.12-3 Population and Housing
overcrowding. A vacancy rate between 4.0 and 6.0 is considered “healthy.” As indicated in Table 5.12-3,
the City’s 2018 vacancy rate was 3.8 percent, which is much lower than the County’s vacancy rate of 13.6
percent. The lower vacancy rate in Fontana suggests there may not be enough housing units to meet
housing demand; consequently, residents may have difficulty finding housing within their price range.
EMPLOYMENT
Like many cities in San Bernardino County, Fontana functions primarily as a bedroom community, with
the majority of residents commuting out of the City for work. As shown in Table 5.12-4, Labor Force
Participation and Unemployment, Fontana has a labor force participation rate of 66.3 percent among
residents aged 16 and older, and an unemployment rate of 7.4 percent. Fontana’s unemployment rate is
lower than the whole of San Bernardino County. There are approximately 55,448 jobs within the City as
of 2017 (SCAG, 2019).
Table 5.12-4
Labor Force Participation and Unemployment
Category City of Fontana San Bernardino County
Population 16 years and over 156,500 1,628,558
In labor force 103,825 989,158
Labor Force Participation Rate 66.3% 60.7%
Employment/Population Ratio 61.3% 54.8%
Unemployment Rate 7.4% 8.8%
Mean travel time to work (minutes) 33.7 31.4
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
There are approximately 3,156 jobs within the Project Area as of 2016 (Kittelson and Associates, 2022).
5.12.3 REGULATORY SETTING
STATE
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
State law requires that jurisdictions provide their fair share of regional housing needs. The State of
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is mandated to determine the
State-wide housing need. In cooperation with HCD, local governments and Councils of Governments
(COGs) are charged with making a determination of the existing and projected housing needs as a share
of the State-wide housing need of their city or region.
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) quantifies the housing need by income group within
each jurisdiction during specific planning periods. The RHNA is incorporated into local General Plans. The
RHNA allows communities to anticipate growth, so that collectively the region can grow in ways that
enhance quality of life, improve access to jobs, promote transportation mobility, and address social equity
and fair share housing needs. The 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan was adopted by the SCAG Regional
Council on March 4, 2021 and covers the planning period from October 15, 2021 to October 15, 2029.
Table 5.12-5, Fontana 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation, shows the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA for the
2021-2029 planning period.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.12-4 Population and Housing
Table 5.12-5
Fontana 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Income Level Dwelling Unit Allocation
Very-low income 5,109
Low income 2,950
Moderate income 3,035
Above-moderate income 6,425
Total 17,519
Source: Southern California Council of Governments, SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation
Plan, July 1, 2021.
LOCAL
Southern California Association of Governments
Regional planning agencies such as SCAG recognize that planning issues extend beyond the boundaries of
individual cities. Efforts to address regional planning issues such as affordable housing, transportation,
and air pollution have resulted in the adoption of regional plans that affect the City of Fontana.
SCAG has evolved as the largest council of governments in the United States, functioning as the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for six counties (Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino,
Riverside, Ventura and Imperial) and 191 cities. The region encompasses an area more than 38,000 square
miles. As the designated MPO, the federal government mandates SCAG research and develop plans for
transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality. As a result, SCAG
prepares comprehensive regional plans to address these concerns.
SCAG is responsible for the maintenance of a continuous, comprehensive and coordinated planning
process resulting in a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and a Regional Transportation Improvement
Program. SCAG is responsible for development of demographic projections and is also responsible for
development of the integrated land use, housing, employment, transportation programs, measures, and
strategies for the Air Quality Management Plan.
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)
The passage of California Senate Bill (SB) 375 in 2008 requires that an MPO, such as SCAG, prepare and
adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that sets forth a forecasted regional development pattern
which, when integrated with the transportation network, measures, and policies, will reduce greenhouse
gas emissions from automobiles and light duty trucks (Government Code Section 65080(b)(2)(B)). The SCS
outlines certain land use growth strategies that provide for more integrated land use and transportation
planning and maximize transportation investments. The SCS is intended to provide a regional land use
policy framework that local governments may consider and build upon.
On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council approved and fully adopted Connect SoCal (2020-2045
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy). Connect SoCal is a long-range visioning
plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several
planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. Connect
SoCal outlines more than $638 billion in transportation system investments through 2045. It was prepared
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.12-5 Population and Housing
through a collaborative, continuous, and comprehensive process with input from local governments,
county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non-profit organizations, businesses and local
stakeholders within the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura.
Growth Forecasts
SCAG’s Forecasting Section is responsible for producing socio-economic estimates and projections at
multiple geographic levels and in multiple years. The Forecasting Section develops, refines, and maintains
SCAG’s regional and small area socio-economic forecasting/allocation models. Adopted 2020 RTP/SCS
Growth Forecasts provide population, household, and employment data for 2045. The socio-economic
estimates and projections are used by federal and State mandated long-range planning efforts such as the
RTP, Air Quality Management Plan, Regional Transportation Improvement Program, and the Regional
Housing Needs Assessment. SCAG’s Adopted 2020 RTP/SCS Growth Forecasts are used to assess a
project’s consistency with adopted plans that have addressed growth management from a local and
regional standpoint; refer to Section 6.3, Growth Inducing Impacts.
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana Forward 2015-2035 General Plan update was adopted in 2018 to guide future development
and provide a strategic framework for decision making based both on the community’s vision and goals
and on the State’s goals for California’s long-term development. The General Plan is comprised of 16
chapters or “elements” that include a summary of existing conditions and current trends, the planning
process, and goals, policies and actions for different topic areas that will affect the physical and economic
development of the City.
As indicated in the General Plan EIR, implementation of Fontana Forward would accommodate 70,560
households, a population of 315,852, and total employment of 99,129 throughout the planning horizon.
The focus for growth in the General Plan Update is in the Downtown Core of the City and “Livable
Corridors” as described in Chapter 14 - Downtown Area Plan. These Livable Corridors are envisioned for
Sierra Avenue from Baseline to I-10, Foothill Blvd through the entire City, and Valley Boulevard for several
blocks east and west of Sierra Boulevard. The two corresponding zoning categories for these corridors are
Walkable-Mixed Use, or “WMXU.” WMXU-1 allows residential densities ranging from 24 to 39 dwelling
units (du) per acre and non-residential uses have a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0. WMXU-2 with
residential densities range from 12 to 24 du per acre, and non-residential uses up to a Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) of 1.0.
The General Plan Housing Element was prepared pursuant to State law and provides planning guidance in
meeting the housing needs identified in SCAG’s RHNA. The Housing Element identifies and plans for the
City’s existing and projected housing needs; it contains a detailed outline and work program of the City’s
goals, policies, quantified objectives, and programs for the preservation, improvement, and development
of housing for a sustainable future (City of Fontana, 2022). The City adopted the 6th Cycle Housing
Element Update (2021-2029) on February 8, 2022.
The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce potential impacts associated with
population and housing. Chapter 13, Economy, Education, and Workforce Development, Chapter 14,
Downtown Area Plan, and Chapter 15, Land Use, Zoning, Urban Design, and Housing Elements of the
Fontana General Plan contain the following goals and policies potentially relevant to the proposed Project:
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.12-6 Population and Housing
Chapter 13 – Economy, Education, and Workforce Development
• Goal 3: Plan Fontana as a “complete community” with a balance of diverse neighborhoods,
amenities, services, and infrastructure that supports a qualified workforce and attracts business.
o Policy: Strengthen community institutions and development patterns that provide a high
quality of life and that correspond to the values of the millennial generation—the majority
of workers starting in 2016.
o Policy: Ensure that essential support services, such as child care, enable workers to seek
and maintain employment.
o Policy: Seek partnerships with other governmental agencies to provide planning and
funding resources to build infrastructure necessary to support new development
• Goal 4: Revitalize Fontana’s downtown and Sierra Avenue corridor to provide an attractive area
for new businesses to locate and create a lively center of government, education, medical care,
arts, culture and entertainment, restaurants and new housing.
o Policy: Implement a comprehensive Downtown Area Plan (Chapter 14 in this General
Plan).
o Policy: Establish a position for a downtown manager with the experience needed to
implement the Downtown Plan.
o Policy: Work with the education and medical institutions downtown to maximize their
positive presence.
o Policy: Promote initiatives to attract housing in the downtown vicinity for households of
all types as a way to support new retail, restaurant, and entertainment options in
downtown.
Chapter 14 – Downtown Area Plan
• Goal: A Range of New Housing. Provide housing for a broad range of household sizes, types and
incomes within the Downtown Area to help support the health and growth of the downtown
economy.
o Policy: Encourage mixed-use development within the Downtown and along major
corridors.
o Policy: Encourage new medium-density housing on vacant and underutilized parcels
within the neighborhoods of the Downtown Area.
o Policy: Ensure that new infill development is compatible in scale and character with the
existing neighborhoods.
o Policy: Ensure that transportation and utility infrastructure keeps pace with infill
development so that the neighborhood character and quality steadily improves over time.
o Policy: Encourage new “in-town” housing types targeted to young people and young
families to help attract and retain the next generation of Fontanans.
• Goal: Strengthened Connections Between Downtown Core And Major Corridors. Reinvigorate the
Foothill and Sierra Corridors with a mix of retail, employment, mixed-use and housing
development as an economic engine for the Downtown Area, and as gateways to Downtown.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.12-7 Population and Housing
o Policy: Ensure that future street improvements to Foothill and Arrow Boulevards and
Sierra Avenue improve the appearance and pedestrian environment while
accommodating traffic flows.
o Policy: In addition to high quality commercial development, encourage housing in
appropriate forms along these corridors.
o Policy: Concentrate higher development intensities within a 1/4 mile of planned transit
stops, with shared parking arrangements when feasible.
• Goal: Center for Education. The area along Sierra Avenue and Merrill Street will become a College
District, with a mix of housing and employment surrounding and supporting the growing Chaffey
College campus.
o Policy: The City will work collaboratively with the College to attain this goal.
o Policy: Encourage higher density housing on appropriate sites that is targeted to student,
faculty and staff.
o Policy: Encourage the formation and growth of start-up and spin-off businesses related
to or supported by the College on appropriate sites.
Chapter 15 – Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design
• Goal 1: The Strategic Policy Map and the Future Land Use Map guide land-use decision making.
o Policy: Review citywide land use strategies when considering changes to the land use
map.
o Policy: Keep zoning and other regulations up to date and consistent with the Future Land
Use Map.
• Goal 2: Fontana development patterns support a high quality of life and economic prosperity.
o Policy: Preserve and enhance stable residential neighborhoods.
o Policy: Locate multi-family development in mixed-use centers, preferably where there is
nearby access to retail, services, and public transportation.
o Policy: Locate industrial uses where there is easy access to regional transportation routes.
o Policy: Promote interconnected neighborhoods with appropriate transitions between
lower intensity and higher intensity land uses.
o Policy: Preserve land to achieve an interconnected network of environmentally-sensitive
areas, parks, multi-use paths, and recreation areas.
• Goal 3: Downtown is a dynamic center of activity, with new housing options, walkable
environments, and a mixture of uses attracting residents and visitors.
o Policy: Promote revitalization and redevelopment of older neighborhoods.
o Policy: Encourage infill on vacant and underutilized parcels.
o Policy: Transform downtown into a vibrant local and regional destination.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.12-8 Population and Housing
• Goal 4: Compact, walkable, mixed-use centers are located at key locations along corridors to be
served by public transit in the future and at intersections where neighborhood retail and diverse
housing options can succeed.
o Policy: Promote a land use pattern that provides connections among land uses and a
mixture of land uses.
2021-2029 Housing Element
• Housing Goal 1: Adequate housing to meet the needs of all residents in Fontana.
o Housing Policy 1.1: Establish a range of rental and for sale housing opportunities in the
city.
o Housing Policy 1.2: Maintain an adequate land inventory to accommodate the City’s
Regional Housing Needs allocation for the years 2021 to 2029.
o Housing Policy 1.3: Promote the development and access to housing affordable to all
income levels in Fontana.
• Housing Goal 2: A high standard of quality in existing affordable housing stock.
o Housing Policy 2.1: Conserve the existing housing stock and preserve housing
opportunities for Fontana’s residents.
• Housing Goal 3: Housing development that is not affected by governmental constraints.
o Housing Policy 3.2: Facilitate the development of quality housing that is affordable to all
income levels and residents of Fontana through flexible development standards.
• Housing Goal 4: Affirmatively further fair housing in Fontana.
o Housing Policy 4.1: Enhance opportunities for affordable housing for all segments of
Fontana’s population.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
Zoning regulations provide for the types and densities of residential and other uses permitted in each of
the City’s zones. Chapter 30 of the Fontana Municipal Code contains the City’s Zoning and Development
Code, which establishes official land use zoning regulations and design guidelines for the City of Fontana.
Zoning establishes the maximum allowable development in a zone, and includes height limitations and
other development standards which together regulate setbacks, building heights, floor area ratios (FAR),
open space and parking for each parcel within the City, as applicable.
5.12.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Initial Study
Environmental Checklist, which includes questions related to population and housing. A significant impact
related to population and housing would occur if the project would:
• Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or
other infrastructure) (refer to Impact Statement 5.12-1); and
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.12-9 Population and Housing
• Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere (refer to Impact Statement 5.12-2).
Based on these standards and significance thresholds and criteria, the Project’s effects have been
categorized as either “no impact,” a “less than significant impact,” or a “potentially significant impact.”
Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant
impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant impact through the application of mitigation, it is
categorized as a “significant unavoidable impact.”
5.12.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 5.12-1: Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure?
Impact Analysis: The City currently has 57,483 dwelling units, 212,809 residents, and 55,448 jobs. The
proposed Project accommodates future growth in the Project Area by creating and implementing a new
land use category and six new FBC districts. As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, and
summarized in Table 3-2, Proposed Project Development Potential, Project implementation could yield a
net change over existing conditions of an additional 8,900 dwelling units and 2,685,404 square feet of
non-residential uses. This new growth may increase the City’s population by approximately 33,731
residents (based on the 2022 California Department of Finance estimated household size of 3.79 persons
per household). Implementation of the proposed Project would also provide additional employment
opportunities for approximately 6,852 employees (Kittelson and Associates, 2022).
Given the historical and current population, housing, and employment trends, growth in the City, as well
as the entire state, is inevitable. The primary factors that account for population growth are natural
increase and net migration. Other factors that affect growth include the cost of housing, the location of
jobs, the economy, the climate, and transportation. As discussed above, the Inland Empire region,
including San Bernardino County, has been one of the fastest-growing regions in Southern California over
the past two decades. This growth has been driven in part by the relative affordability and availability of
land in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, making it an attractive place to build new housing. While
these factors would likely result in growth in the City, including the Project Area, growth would continue
to occur based primarily on the demand of the housing market and demand for new non-residential uses.
The Project Area is an urbanized area and existing development is served by existing roads, infrastructure,
and public services. Further, the area surrounding the Project Area is developed. There is the potential for
infrastructure improvements within and surrounding the Project Area associated with site-specific
development and overall development growth; however, the Project would not require the extension of
roads or other infrastructure into an area that is not already served.
Potential impacts associated with substantial unplanned population growth in an area are also assessed
based on a project’s consistency with adopted plans that have addressed growth management from a
local and regional standpoint. As indicated above, the General Plan EIR anticipates the General Plan to
accommodate 70,560 households, a population of 315,852, and total employment of 99,129 throughout
the planning horizon. More specifically, the focus for growth in the General Plan is in the Downtown Core
and “Livable Corridors” as described in General Plan Chapter 14 – Downtown Area Plan. Thus, population
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.12-10 Population and Housing
growth within the Downtown Core Project has been anticipated by the General Plan. The current General
Plan would allow for a Project Area population of 36,077 persons based on the residential development
potential of 9,519 units and 3.79 persons per household. In comparison, the proposed Project would allow
for a Project Area population of 42,842 persons based on the residential development potential of 11,304
units. Although the proposed Project would provide for increased population growth within the Project
Area when compared to the current General Plan, the proposed Project is intended to implement the
goals and policies of the General Plan and accommodate the City’s fair share of statewide housing needs,
which are allocated by SCAG, based on regional numbers provided by the HCD on a regular basis (every
five to eight years). As described above, the City of Fontana 2021-2029 Housing Element was adopted
February 8, 2022 and accommodates the City’s share of the regional housing need for the 2021-2029
RHNA period of 17,519 units. The City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element identifies the existing Project Area,
as accommodating a portion of City’s Low-, Very-Low-, and Above-Moderate-income RHNA allocation.
The Project is anticipated to yield an additional 8,900 dwelling units, 33,731 residents, and 6,852
employees over existing conditions. The population and employment growth anticipated as a result of
Project implementation is within the overall City’s growth projections of the Fontana Forward General
Plan and SCAG’s RHNA allocation. Thus, the Project would be within the population projections
anticipated and planned for by the City’s General Plan and would not induce substantial unplanned
population growth in the area.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Impact 5.12-2: Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Impact Analysis: As indicated in Section 3.0, the Project Area contains a mix of existing on-site
development, including approximately 1.3 million square feet of non-residential uses and 2,020 dwelling
units. The Project does not propose the removal of any existing housing within the Project Area. The
proposed Project would accommodate a mix of new residential and non-residential development in more
dense and sustainable patterns. The Project would create and implement the new WMXU-3: Walkable
Mixed-Use Downtown Core land use category and six new FBC districts within the Project Area, which
would support higher-density residential and mixed-use development within the Project Area. As most of
the new development would occur through infill and new mixed-use development on underdeveloped
parcels, it is not anticipated that substantial numbers of housing or people would be displaced. Although
the Project Area contains existing residential uses, the development in these areas is anticipated to remain
or redevelop gradually with residential and mixed-use residential uses at higher densities. Future
development projects may propose the removal of some existing housing in order to accommodate new
development. However, Project implementation is projected to increase the overall number of dwelling
units in the Project Area by approximately 8,900 units over existing conditions, providing additional
housing to serve the diverse needs of the community at various socioeconomic levels. Thus, the proposed
Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.12-11 Population and Housing
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.12.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Analysis: The proposed General Plan, General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning District Map, and Zoning
and Development Code amendments would apply the new General Plan WMXU-3 land use category and
new Zoning and Development Code FBC districts to the Project Area, which would provide opportunities
for new housing and associated population growth. Additionally, the Project would allow for increased
non-residential development, resulting in employment growth within the area. The proposed Project
combined with cumulative development would combine to directly increase the City and region’s
population and housing. The Project is anticipated to yield an additional 8,900 dwelling units, 33,731
residents, and 6,852 employees over existing conditions. The population and employment growth
anticipated as a result of Project implementation is within the City’s growth projections of the Fontana
Forward General Plan and SCAG’s RHNA allocation. Thus, the Project would be within the population
projections anticipated and planned for by the City’s General Plan and would not induce substantial
unplanned population growth in the area.
The proposed Project would support the General Plan goals and policies to guide growth and development
to the Downtown. Further, the Project would provide the residential densities needed to provide
opportunities for new housing projects at varying income levels to serve the needs of the community,
consistent with the City’s Housing Element. Future development within the Project Area would further
support the General Plan policies and actions intended to encourage mixed-use development within the
Downtown and along major corridors; encourage new medium-density housing on vacant and
underutilized parcels within the neighborhoods of the Downtown Area; locate multi-family development
in mixed-use centers, preferably where there is nearby access to retail, services, and public transportation;
transform downtown into a vibrant local and regional destination; and facilitate the development of
quality housing that is affordable to all income levels and residents of Fontana through flexible
development standards. Thus, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth.
Lastly, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, the proposed Project’s incremental
contribution to cumulative population and housing impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.12.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts associated with population and housing would occur with the
proposed Project.
5.12.8 REFERENCES
California Department of Finance (DOF), E-5 Population & Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the
State: January 2021-2022, with 2020 Benchmark,
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.12-12 Population and Housing
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2021/, accessed
November 16, 2022.
City of Fontana, 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029), February 2022.
Kittelson and Associates, Fontana Downtown Core Project Transportation Study, December 22, 2022.
Southern California Council of Governments (SCAG), Local Profiles Report 2019: Profile of the City of
Fontana, May 2019.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.13-1 Public Services and Recreation
5.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
5.13.1 PURPOSE
This section identifies the existing public services and recreation facilities available within the Project Area
and provides an analysis of potential impacts associated with Project implementation.
5.13.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
The Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD) provides emergency, preventive, and administrative services
across 52.4 square miles within City limits and the sphere of influence (SOI) through a contract with the
San Bernardino County Fire Department (City of Fontana, 2018). There are seven fire stations, an
administrative office, and a fire prevention office serving the City. 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 (City of Fontana,
2022). Station 71 is located within the Project Area at 16980 Arrow Boulevard. Station 71 is equipped with
one medic engine, one medic truck, and one squad vehicle, and is staffed with two captains, two
engineers, three firefighter medics, and one firefighter (City of Fontana, 2022a).
An eighth fire station, located 16615 Casa Grande Avenue, is currently under construction and anticipated
to be completed by Spring 2023 (City of Fontana, 2022b; City of Fontana, 2021). The new fire station is
intended to improve response times in the northern area of the City. As part of the Fire District Master
Plan, the new station will help meet the goal of response times that are less than five minutes within the
District 90 percent of the time.
Fire Hazards
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire Hazard Severity
Zone Maps, the Project Area is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Portions of the
northern and southern border of the City, both located approximately three miles from the Project Area,
are within a designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE, 2022).
Emergency Management and Response
The City of Fontana Emergency Management Program is a function of the City Manager’s Office in
cooperation with the San Bernardino County Fire, Office of Emergency Services (City of Fontana, 2022c).
City personnel prepare for disaster situations by developing effective plans, conducting training and
exercises, and ensuring facilities and equipment are ready for response. The City of Fontana Emergency
Management Program utilizes the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and the National
Incident Management System (NIMS). Both SEMS and NIMS are emergency management systems that
provide a consistent template for all levels of government, non-governmental organizations, and the
private sector to work together to prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the
effects of incidents, regardless of their cause, size, location, or complexity.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.13-2 Public Services and Recreation
The City is a participant in the San Bernardino County Operational Area Coordinating Council. The San
Bernardino County Fire, Office of Emergency Services provides Emergency Management services to the
City of Fontana through the provision of an Emergency Services Officer (ESO). This ESO is responsible for
the development of the City’s disaster plans, disaster training and exercise program, and oversight of the
City’s Emergency Operations Center.
LAW ENFORCEMENT
The Fontana Police Department (FPD) provides police protection services to the City, including the Project
Area. The FPD station is located within the Project Area at 17005 Upland Avenue. According to the FPD,
there are currently 188 sworn officers providing law enforcement services (City of Fontana, 2022d).
SCHOOLS
According to the Fontana General Plan, two public school districts serve most of the City of Fontana:
Fontana Unified School District (FUSD) and the Etiwanda School District (pre-K to 8). In addition to these
two school districts, small areas of Fontana are covered by the Colton Joint Unified School District
(southeast Fontana); the Chaffey Joint Union High School District (northern Fontana), and the Rialto
School District (northeast).
The Project Area is located within the service boundaries of FUSD, which serves most of the City and had
an enrollment of 35,101 students in the 2021-22 academic year (Ed-Data, 2022). Enrollment has been
trending consistently downward since at least 2011-12, when enrollment was 40,592. The FUSD operates
46 schools, including 30 elementary schools; seven middle schools; five high schools and two continuation
high schools; one adult school; and two online schools (FUSD, 2022a).
Schools that serve the Project Area include: Randall Pepper Elementary School; Palmetto Elementary
School; Date Elementary School; South Tamarind Elementary School; Oleander Elementary School;
Juniper Elementary School; Fontana Middle School; Truman Middle School; Fontana High School; and
Jurupa Hills High School (FUSD, 2022b).
As described in the FUSD Developer Fee Justification Study for Residential and Commercial/Industrial
Development prepared in June 2022, the FUSD capacity to house students in permanent structures is
based on an inventory of 1,672 permanent classrooms being “loaded” at the District’s standard of 25
students per classroom for TK-3 students; 32 students per classroom for Grades 4 through 6; 34 students
per classroom for grades seven through 12; 15 students per classroom for its Special Education non-severe
students; and 9 students per classroom for Special Education severe students (EH&A, 2022). The results
indicate that while there is a surplus of 390 seats across all school levels, there is a shortage of permanent
capacity at the elementary school level of 1,474 seats; refer to Table 5.13-1, Fontana Unified School
District Existing School Capacity.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.13-3 Public Services and Recreation
Table 5.13-1
Fontana Unified School District Existing School Capacity
School Level 2021-22
Facilities Capacity1
2021-22
Student Enrollment2
Surplus/(Shortage)
of Permanent Capacity
Elementary School 14,310 15,784 (1,474)
Middle School 7,373 7,187 186
High School 13,742 12,064 1,678
Total 35,425 35,035 390
Source: EH&A, Developer Fee Justification Study for Residential & Commercial/Industrial Development prepared
for the Fontana Unified School District Board of Trustees (Public Review Draft), June 22, 2022.
Notes:
1. Represents permanent capacity (i.e., does not include portable classrooms).
2. Unofficial enrollment per Fontana Unified School District.
As indicated in Table 5.13-1, capacities at FUSD elementary school facilities are not adequate to
accommodate the existing student population, with a shortage of 1,474 seats. The middle and high school
facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate existing student populations with a remaining capacity
of 1,864 seats.
PARKS AND RECREATION
The City of Fontana maintains over 40 parks, sports facilities, and community centers (City of Fontana,
2022e). According to Fontana General Plan Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails Element, there are
approximately 1,196.3 acres of land in the City for park and recreation use. As noted in the Fontana
General Plan, the City also counts 25 percent of the school lands available through joint use agreements
with Fontana Unified School District and the Colton Joint Unified School District as usable recreation areas,
resulting in an additional 163 acres (City of Fontana, 2018). Therefore, the City has approximately 1,359.3
acres of park and recreation land.
LIBRARIES
Library services in the City are provided by the San Bernardino County Library System, which operates the
Fontana Lewis Library & Technology Center at 8437 Sierra Avenue and the Kaiser Branch Library at 11155
Almond Avenue (San Bernardino County Library, 2022).
5.13.3 REGULATORY SETTING
STATE
California Building Code & California Fire Code
The California Building Code is a compilation of building standards, including fire safety standards for new
buildings, which are provided in the California Fire Code. The California Fire Code is Chapter 9 of Title 24
of the California Code of Regulations. The California Fire Code provides regulations for safeguarding life
and property from fire and explosion hazards derived from the storage, handling, and use of hazardous
substances, materials, and devices. The provisions of this code apply to construction, alteration,
movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance,
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.13-4 Public Services and Recreation
removal, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenance connected or attached to
such building structures throughout the state.
California Constitution Article XIII, Section 35
Section 35 of Article XIII of the California Constitution at subdivision (a)(2) provides: “The protection of
public safety is the first responsibility of local government and local officials have an obligation to give
priority to the provision of adequate public safety services.” Section 35 of Article XIII of the California
Constitution was adopted by the voters in 1993 under Proposition 172. Proposition 172 directed the
proceeds of a 0.50 percent sales tax to be expended exclusively on local public safety services. California
Government Code Sections 30051-30056 provide rules to implement Proposition 172. Section 30056
mandates that cities are not allowed to spend less of their own financial resources on their combined
public safety services in any given year compared to the 1992-93 fiscal year. An agency is required to use
Proposition 172 to supplement its local funds used on fire protection services, as well as other public
safety services. In City of Hayward v. Board of Trustee of California State University (2015) 242 Cal. App.
4th 833, the court found that Section 35 of Article XIII of the California Constitution requires local agencies
to provide public safety services, including fire protection, emergency medical services, and police
protection services.
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
In accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 1270, Fire Prevention, and 6773, Fire
Protection and Fire Equipment, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration has
established minimum standards for fire suppression and emergency medical services. The standards
include, but are not limited to, guidelines on the handling of highly combustible materials; fire hose size
requirements; restrictions on the use of compressed air; requirements for access roads; and guidelines
for testing, maintaining, and using all firefighting and emergency medical equipment.
Mutual Aid Agreements of the California Emergency Services Act
The California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement, as provided by the California
Emergency Services Act, provides statewide mutual aid between and among local jurisdictions and the
state. The statewide mutual aid system exists to ensure that adequate resources, facilities, and other
supports are provided to jurisdictions whenever resources prove to be inadequate for a given situation.
Each jurisdiction controls its own personnel and facilities but can give and receive help whenever needed.
Senate Bill 50 & Proposition 1A
Senate Bill (SB) 50, the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, was signed into law on August 27,
1998. It placed a $9.2 billion state bond measure (Proposition 1A), which includes grants for
modernization of existing schools and construction of new schools, on the ballot for the November 3,
1998, election. Proposition 1A was approved by voters, thereby enabling SB 50 to become fully operative.
Under SB 50, a program for funding school facilities largely based on matching funds was created. The
construction grant provides funding on a 50/50 state and local match basis, while the modernization grant
provides funding on a 60/40 basis. Districts unable to provide some, or all, of the local match requirement
may meet financial hardship provisions and are potentially eligible for additional state funding.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.13-5 Public Services and Recreation
In addition, SB 50 allows governing boards of school districts to establish fees to offset costs associated
with school facilities made necessary by new development in their district. Pursuant to SB 50, FUSD
collects development fees for new construction within its district boundaries. Currently, FUSD collects the
maximum new school construction facility fee at a rate of $4.79 per square foot of new residential
construction, $0.78 per square foot of commercial/industrial construction, $0.78 per square foot of senior
housing, $0.75 per square foot of community shopping center, $0.66 per square foot of industrial
parks/warehousing, $0.03 per square foot of rental/self-storage, and $0.56 per square foot of
hospitality/lodging (FUSD, 2022c). Payment of these fees is required prior to issuance of building permits.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65995, the payment of these fees by a developer serves
to fully mitigate all potential project impacts on school facilities.
California Education Code
Library facilities and services are subject to the rules and regulations of the California Education Code and
governance of the State Board of Education. Traditionally, the state has passed legislation for the funding
of local and public schools and provided the majority of monies to fund education in the state. To assist
in providing facilities to serve students generated from new development projects, the state passed
Assembly Bill (AB) 2926 in 1986, allowing school districts to collect impact fees from developers of new
residential, commercial, and industrial developments. Section 65996 of the California Government Code
designates Section 17620 of the Education Code (the mitigation fees authorized by Senate Bill 50) and
Section 65970 of the Government Code to be the exclusive method for considering and mitigating
development impacts on school facilities.
Mitigation Fee Act
The California Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code Sections 66000, et seq., allows cities to establish fees
which would be imposed upon development projects for the purpose of mitigating the impact that the
development projects have upon the City’s ability to provide specified public facilities. In order to comply
with the Mitigation Fee Act, the City must follow four primary requirements: 1) Make certain
determinations regarding the purpose and use of a fee and establish a nexus or connection between a
development project or class of project and the public improvement being financed with the fee; 2)
Segregate fee revenue from the General Fund in order to avoid commingling of capital facilities fees and
general funds; 3) For fees that have been in the possession of the City for five years or more and for which
the dollars have not been spent or committed to a project, the City must make findings each fiscal year
describing the continuing need for the money; and 4) Refund any fees with interest for developer deposits
for which the findings noted above cannot be made.
California Public Park Preservation Act of 1971
The California Public Park Preservation Act is the primary measure for protecting and preserving parkland
in California. The legislation states that “No city, city and county, county, public district, or agency of the
state, including any division department or agency of the state government, or public utility, shall acquire
any real property, which property is in use as a public park at the time of such acquisition, for the purposes
of utilizing such property for any non-park purpose, unless the acquiring entity pays or transfers to the
legislative body of the entity operating the park sufficient compensation or land, or both.”
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.13-6 Public Services and Recreation
Quimby Act
The Quimby Act of 1975, (California Government Code § 66477), commonly called the “Quimby Act”,
allows a city or county to pass an ordinance that requires, as a condition of approval of a subdivision,
either the dedication of land, the payment of a fee in lieu of dedication, or a combination of both for park
and recreational purposes allows a city or county to require a maximum parkland dedication standard of
3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents for new subdivision development unless the jurisdiction can
demonstrate that the amount of existing neighborhood and community parkland exceeds that limit. In
accordance with Section 66477, a jurisdiction may establish a parkland dedication standard based on its
existing parkland ratio, provided required dedications do not exceed 5 acres per 1,000 persons.
LOCAL
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce potential impacts to public
services and recreation. Chapter 7, Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails, and Chapter 8, Public and
Community Services Elements contain the following goal and policies potentially relevant to the proposed
Project:
Chapter 7 – Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails
• Goal 4: The city of Fontana has a no-net-loss policy for public parkland.
o Policy: Establish legal requirements for replacement, when any city-owned park land
listed in the California Protected Lands database is transferred to other uses, with land of
equivalent environmental, recreational, or aesthetic value.
• Goal 5: All Fontana residents live within walking or biking distance of a public park, and there are
sufficient public parks to serve all areas of the city.
o Policy: Establish park access by walking and biking as a criterion for locating parks and for
design of active transportation networks.
o Policy: Continue to use a minimum standard of 5 acres of public parkland per 1,000
persons.
o Policy: Pursue park development where parkland is insufficient.
Chapter 8 – Public and Community Services
• Goal 1: Fontana's crime rate continues to be below state and county rates.
o Policy: Continue the Police Department’s successful community policing programs.
o Policy: Provide appropriate security for new amenities, such as trails and parks.
o Policy: Support Police Department needs for staff and technology to keep up with
population growth and contemporary policing methods.
o Policy: Promote and enhance use of anti-crime design strategies and programs.
• Goal 2: Fontana's Fire Department meets or exceeds state and national benchmarks for
protection and responsiveness.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.13-7 Public Services and Recreation
o Policy: Continue the City’s successful partnership with the San Bernardino County Fire
Department.
• Goal 3: Fontana has modern, well-maintained public facilities that meet the needs of residents of
all ages, businesses, and government.
o Policy: Support development of a City facilities master plan and use an asset-management
system for all City property.
o Policy: Support initiatives to reduce energy costs in public facilities.
o Policy: Develop an “Aging in Fontana” plan to prepare to serve an increasing number of
senior citizens.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
Fontana Municipal Code Sections 5-8 and 5-9 provide for police capital facilities fees and library capital
facilities fees to be paid by the owners of all new or expanded development of real property in the City.
Chapter 10, Article IX establishes a method pursuant to Government Code Section 65970 et seq., whereby
a school district which operates an elementary or high school may finance interim school facilities if
conditions of overcrowding exist. Per Fontana Municipal Code Section 11-2, any new development or
improvement of real property within the City is subject to the imposition of fees for capital improvements
necessary to provide fire protection services. Municipal Code Chapter 21, Article IV specifies the
requirements that must be met by new development in order to comply with the requirements of
Government Code Sections 66477 et seq. and 66000 et seq. for the provision of necessary park and
recreational facilities for the City. Chapter 30 (Zoning and Development Code), Article V, Division 2,
Development Policies, requires that all residential development projects must have proof that adequate
school facilities are or will be available to accommodate the students generated by the project in
accordance with State law.
City of Fontana Development Impact Fees
The City of Fontana requires the payment of development impact fees (DIFs) to offset the impacts of new
developments on public services and facilities, including fire, police, parks, and library facilities. Fees were
most recently updated on May 10, 2022 (Resolution 2022-034) (City of Fontana, 2022f).
5.13.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Initial Study
Environmental Checklist, which includes questions related to public facilities and recreation. A significant
impact will occur if implementation of the proposed Project will:
• 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:
o Fire Protection (refer to Impact Statement 5.13-1);
o Police Protection (refer to Impact Statement 5.13-2);
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.13-8 Public Services and Recreation
o Schools (refer to Impact Statement 5.13-3);
o Other Public Facilities (refer to Impact Statement 5.13-4); and
o Parks (refer to Impact Statement 5.13-5);
• 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 (refer to
Impact Statement 5.13-5); and
• Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment (refer to Impact Statement 5.13-
5).
Based on these standards and significance thresholds and criteria, the Project’s effects have been
categorized as either “no impact,” a “less than significant impact,” or a “potentially significant impact.”
Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant
impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant impact through the application of mitigation, it is
categorized as a “significant unavoidable impact.”
5.13.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 5.13-1: 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:
• Fire Protection
Impact Analysis: Development accommodated through implementation of the proposed Project would
result in additional residential and non-residential uses in the Project Area. Based on the anticipated
growth, as described in Section 3.0, Project Description, and summarized in Table 3-2, Proposed Project
Development Potential, Project implementation could yield a net change over existing conditions of an
additional 8,900 dwelling units and 2,685,404 square feet of non-residential uses.
Future development may result in the need for additional FFPD resources (i.e., additional staffing,
equipment, expanded/new facilities). At this time, it is unknown whether FFPD would need to expand or
construct new facilities to meet the demand of future development in the Project Area. Future
development is assumed to occur over time; thus, any increase in demand for fire protection services
would occur gradually as additional development and associated population growth is added to the
Project Area. FFPD would continue to regularly monitor fire department resources to ensure that
adequate facilities, staffing, and equipment are available to serve existing and future development and
population increases. Further, as development occurs, a proportional increase in property tax, charges for
FFPD services, and other funding sources would increase and offset impacts of new development on
FFPD’s existing resources in the City and Project Area. Fontana Municipal Code Section 11-2, requires any
new development or improvement of real property within the City to pay certain fees for capital
improvements necessary to provide fire protection services.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.13-9 Public Services and Recreation
Additionally, new development that could occur under the proposed Project would be required to comply
with all applicable California Fire Code requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and
hydrants. Individual project development plans would be reviewed by FFPD to determine specific fire
requirements (e.g., fire flow capacities, emergency access, fuel modification plans) applicable to the
specific development and to ensure compliance with these requirements. The Fontana General Plan also
includes goals, policies, and actions to ensure that fire protection and emergency services are provided in
a timely fashion, are adequately funded, and that new development funds its fair share of services.
As previously stated, new fire facilities would potentially be needed to serve growth accommodated
through Project implementation. The environmental effect of providing fire protection services is
associated with the physical impacts of providing new and expanded facilities. The specific impacts of
providing new and expanded facilities cannot be determined at this time, as the Project does not propose
or authorize development, nor does it designate specific sites for new or expanded public facilities.
However, the facilities would be primarily provided on sites with land use designations that allow such
uses and the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the facilities would likely be similar to
those associated with new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects under the Project.
Any future development would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included
in the Fontana General Plan and Municipal Code, and would be subject to CEQA review as appropriate.
Therefore, impacts related to the provision of fire protection services are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Impact 5.13-2: 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:
• Police Protection
Impact Analysis: Development accommodated through implementation of the proposed Project would
result in additional residential and non-residential uses in the Project Area, which would increase demand
for police protection services provided by FPD. Based on the anticipated growth, as described in Section
3.0, and summarized in Table 3-2, Project implementation could yield a net change over existing
conditions of an additional 8,900 dwelling units and 2,685,404 square feet of non-residential uses.
Additional facilities, personnel, and equipment may be required to maintain adequate levels of police
protection within the City and Project Area. Development accommodated through Project
implementation is expected to occur gradually over time; thus, any increase in demand for police
protection services would similarly occur gradually as additional development and associated population
growth is added to the Project Area, which also depends on the economic market demands. As individual
projects are proposed within the Project Area, FPD service levels and staffing requirements would be
evaluated on an annual basis to determine if additional staffing and/or facilities would be required.
Further, as development occurs, a proportional increase in property tax, charges for FPD services, and
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.13-10 Public Services and Recreation
other funding sources would increase and offset impacts of new development on FPD’s existing resources
in the City and Project Area. Fontana Municipal Code Section 5-8 provides for police capital facilities fees
to be paid by the owners of all new or expanded development of real property in the City. The Fontana
General Plan also includes goals, policies, and actions to ensure that police protection services are
provided in a timely fashion, are adequately funded, and that new development funds its fair share of
services.
The environmental effect of providing police protection services is associated with the physical impacts
of providing new and expanded facilities. The specific impacts of providing new and expanded facilities
cannot be determined at this time, as the Project does not propose or authorize development, nor does
it designate specific sites for new or expanded public facilities. If new police facilities are needed to serve
growth associated with future development, the facilities would most likely be provided on sites with land
use designations that allow such uses and the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the
facilities would likely be similar to those associated with new development, redevelopment, and
infrastructure projects under the Project. Any future development would be required to comply with
regulations, policies, and standards included in the Fontana General Plan and Municipal Code, and would
be subject to CEQA review as appropriate. Therefore, impacts related to the provision of police protection
services are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Impact 5.13-3: 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:
• Schools
Impact Analysis: Development accommodated under the Project would result in additional residential
uses with the potential of school-aged children. Based on the anticipated growth, as described in in
Section 3.0, and summarized in Table 3-2, Project implementation could yield a net change over existing
conditions of an additional 8,900 dwelling units.
Implementation of the Project would lead to new population growth within the Project Area, which would
increase the demand for schools and school facilities in the City. The Project Area is primarily served by
the FUSD, which serves students grades K-12. The FUSD operates 46 schools, including 30 elementary
schools; seven middle schools; five high schools and two continuation high schools; one adult school; and
two online schools (FUSD, 2022a). Schools that serve the Project Area include: Randall Pepper Elementary
School; Palmetto Elementary School; Date Elementary School; South Tamarind Elementary School;
Oleander Elementary School; Juniper Elementary School; Fontana Middle School; Truman Middle School;
Fontana High School; and Jurupa Hills High School.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.13-11 Public Services and Recreation
School districts typically use student generation factors to determine the potential number of students
that would be generated by the amount of residential development in order to accurately anticipate the
needs for new/expanded facilities. Table 5.13-2, Fontana Unified School District Student Generation Rates,
identifies the number of potential students that would be generated from development anticipated by
buildout of the proposed Project.
Table 5.13-2
Fontana Unified School District Student Generation Rates
School Level
Student
Generation
Factor
Proposed Net
Increase
Dwelling Units
Total
Students
Generated1
Existing Excess/
(Shortage)
Capacity
Able to
Accommodate
Project?
Elementary School 0.1905 8,900 1,695 (1,474) No
Middle School 0.0704 8,900 627 186 No
High School 0.1303 8,900 1,160 1,678 Yes
Total 0.3912 8,900 3,482 390 No
Source: EH&A, Developer Fee Justification Study for Residential & Commercial/Industrial Development prepared for the
Fontana Unified School District Board of Trustees (Public Review Draft), June 22, 2022.
Notes:
1. Rounded to the nearest whole number.
Based on FUSD’s student generation rates, residential development accommodated under the proposed
Project would generate approximately 3,482 students (1,695 elementary school students, 627 middle
school students, and 1,160 high school students). As shown in Table 5.13-2, FUSD does not currently have
excess capacity at the elementary or middle school levels, or have excess capacity overall. The high schools
have an excess capacity of 518 seats, but as shown, that capacity is not sufficient for future growth
associated with buildout of the Project. However, the projected student generation assumes full buildout
of the Project Area, which would occur over time based on market conditions. Based on the conservative
assumption that buildout of the Project Area would occur as proposed, and all 8,900 residential units
would attend schools within the FUSD, FUSD would not have capacity to adequately accommodate the
increase in student population. Therefore, new facilities would need to be created, or existing facilities
would need to be expanded, to accommodate for future population growth. As mentioned above, there
is already a shortage of permanent capacity at existing FUSD facilities which necessitate the construction
of new facilities or expansion of existing facilities.
The exact location of future development and associated student generation is currently unknown.
However, future development projected within the Project is anticipated to occur gradually and would be
largely based on market demand. Thus, any increase in demand for school services would occur gradually
as additional development occurs in the Project Area. School districts assess development impact fees
against residential and non-residential development to mitigate impacts resulting from the increase in
demand for school related services. Pursuant to SB 50, payment of fees to the applicable school district is
considered full mitigation for project impacts, including impacts related to the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, or other performance objectives for schools. Therefore, individual development projects
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.13-12 Public Services and Recreation
accommodated under the proposed Project would be required to pay the statutory fees, so that school
facilities can be constructed/expanded, if necessary, at the nearest sites to accommodate the impact of
project-generated students, reducing impacts to a less than significant level. Additionally, Fontana
Municipal Code Chapter 10, Article IX establishes a method pursuant to Government Code Section 65970
et seq., whereby a school district which operates an elementary or high school may finance interim school
facilities if conditions of overcrowding exist, and Chapter 30 (Zoning and Development Code), Article V,
Division 2, Development Policies, requires that all residential development projects must have proof that
adequate school facilities are or will be available to accommodate the students generated by the project
in accordance with State law. The Fontana General Plan also includes goals, policies, and actions to ensure
that public facilities, including schools, are provided in a timely fashion, are adequately funded, and that
new development funds its fair share of services.
The environmental effect of providing school services is associated with the physical impacts of providing
new and expanded facilities. The specific impacts of providing new and expanded facilities cannot be
determined at this time, as the Project does not propose or authorize development of new or expanded
school facilities. If the school districts serving the Project Area determine that new school facilities are
needed to serve growth associated with future development anticipated by the Project, the schools would
most likely be provided on sites with land use designations that allow such uses and the environmental
impacts of constructing and operating the facilities would likely be similar to those associated with new
development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects under the Project. Any future development
under the Project would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the
Fontana General Plan and Municipal Code, and development of school facilities would be subject to CEQA
review as appropriate. Therefore, impacts related to the provision of schools are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Impact 5.13-4: 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:
• Libraries & Other Facilities
Impact Analysis: Development accommodated under the proposed Project would result in additional
residents and businesses in the City, which could increase the demand for public services, including library
services. Library services in Fontana are provided by the San Bernardino County Library System, which
operates the Fontana Lewis Library & Technology Center at 8437 Sierra Avenue and the Kaiser Branch
Library at 11155 Almond Avenue.
Future development accommodated by the Project may result in the need for additional library resources
(i.e., additional staffing, equipment, expanded/new facilities) in the City. At this time, it is unknown
whether the San Bernardino County Library System would need to expand or construct new facilities to
meet the demand of future development in the Project Area. Future development is assumed to occur
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.13-13 Public Services and Recreation
over time; thus, any increase in demand for library services would occur gradually as additional
development and associated population growth is added to the Project Area. Fontana Municipal Code
Section 5-9 provides for library capital facilities fees to be paid by the owners of all new or expanded
development of real property in the City.
The environmental effect of providing library services is associated with the physical impacts of providing
new and expanded facilities. The specific impacts of providing new and expanded library facilities cannot
be accurately determined at this time. However, the proposed Project does assume some development
of public facilities uses could occur within the Civic Core district; the impacts of which have been
addressed within this Draft EIR. Any future development of library facilities or other public facilities to
serve demand associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be required to comply with
regulations, policies, and standards included in the Fontana General Plan and Municipal Code, and would
be subject to CEQA review as appropriate. Therefore, impacts related to the provision of other facilities,
including library services, are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Impact 5.13-5: 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:
• Parks
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?
Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Impact Analysis: Development accommodated through implementation of the proposed Project would
result in additional residential and non-residential uses in the Project Area, which would increase demand
for parks and recreational facilities. Based on the anticipated growth, as described in Section 3.0,
summarized in Table 3-2, Project implementation could yield a net change over existing conditions of an
additional 8,900 dwelling units and 2,685,404 square feet of non-residential uses. As described in Section
5.12, Population and Housing, an additional 33,731 people are expected to be added to the population as
a result of Project implementation. These new residents are expected to use park and recreational
facilities, and this additional use may result in greater demands on parks and recreational facilities in the
City such that deterioration of these facilities could occur or be accelerated. The additional demand on
existing parks and recreational facilities would increase the need for maintenance and improvements.
These improvements could have environmental impacts, although the exact impacts cannot be
determined at this time since the potential improvements are currently unknown.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.13-14 Public Services and Recreation
According to Fontana General Plan, there are approximately 1,196.3 acres of land in the City for park and
recreation use. As noted in the Fontana General Plan, the City also counts 25 percent of the school lands
available through joint use agreements with Fontana Unified School District and the Colton Joint Unified
School District as usable recreation areas, resulting in an additional 163 acres (City of Fontana, 2018).
Therefore, the City has approximately 1,359.3 acres of park and recreation land.
The provision of new parks and recreation facilities would reduce the potential for adverse impacts and
physical deterioration of existing parks and recreation facilities, by providing additional facilities to
accommodate the demand for parks and recreation facilities. These new facilities would be provided at a
pace and in locations appropriate to serve new development, as required to maintain the City adopted
standard for park space acreage at five acres for every 1,000 residents. Table 5.13-3, Required Parkland
Dedication, shows the required parkland dedication to meet the City’s standard of five acres per 1,000
people.
Table 5.13-3
Required Parkland Dedication
Existing Conditions (2022) Downtown Core Project
Population Parkland
Acreage
Required
Parkland
Parkland
Surplus
(acres)
Net Population
Growth
Required
Parkland
212,809 1,359.3 1,064.0 +295.3 +33,731 1,232.7
As shown in Table 5.13-3, development under the Project could indirectly lead to the construction of new
parks and recreation facilities to serve new growth and to meet existing parks and recreation needs. The
Project does not specifically propose any development projects, including parks. As a result, site-specific
physical impacts of future park development and construction cannot be determined until future projects
are brought forward for review. As future parks and recreation projects are considered by the City, each
project will be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable
regulations. Parks and recreation projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts,
consistent with the requirements of CEQA.
Although implementation of the proposed Project would cause an incremental increase in demand for
parks in the future, this increase would be further reduced to a less than significant level by the provision
of public parkland and private on-site recreational amenities and through the payment of park fees, as
established in the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 21, Article IV, which specifies the requirements that
must be met by new development in order to comply with the requirements of Government Code Sections
66477 et seq. and 66000 et seq. for the provision of necessary park and recreational facilities for the City.
Compliance with the Municipal Code would ensure parks and recreational facilities would not be overused
to the point of substantial deterioration.
It is anticipated that any new parks or recreational facilities that may be constructed in the future would
be primarily provided on sites with land use designations that allow such uses and the environmental
impacts of constructing and operating the parks and recreational facilities would likely be similar to those
associated with new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects under the Project. Any
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.13-15 Public Services and Recreation
future development under the Project would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and
standards included in the Fontana General Plan and Municipal Code, and would be subject to CEQA review
as appropriate. Therefore, impacts to parks and recreational facilities associated with implementation of
the Project would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.13.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Analysis: Development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would
result in additional residential and non-residential uses in the Project Area and associated increase in the
demand for public services, as well as parks and recreation facilities. As the demand for public services
and recreation increases, new or expanded service structures (e.g., offices, maintenance and
administrative buildings, schools, parks, fire facilities, libraries, etc.) may be needed to provide for
adequate staffing, equipment, and appropriate facilities to serve growth within the Project Area.
As with specific projects resulting from implementation of the Project, cumulative development would be
subject to all applicable State and local policies and regulations in place for public services and recreational
facilities. Payment of applicable impact fees, and ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes,
sales taxes, and other revenues generated by the future projects, would ensure that the City maintains
acceptable service ratios and facilities within the Project Area and the City. Therefore, the proposed
Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative public services and recreational facilities impacts would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.13.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts associated with public services and recreation would occur as a result
of Project implementation.
5.13.8 REFERENCES
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), FHSZ Viewer,
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, accessed November 9, 2022.
City of Fontana, Fontana Forward: General Plan Update 2015-2035, November 2018.
City of Fontana, Stations and Equipment, https://www.fontana.org/639/Stations-Equipment, accessed
November 9, 2022a.
City of Fontana, Fire Station 81, https://www.fontana.org/3413/Fire-Station-81, accessed November 9,
2022b.
City of Fontana, About Ready Fontana, https://www.fontana.org/3257/About-Ready-Fontana, accessed
November 9, 2022c.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.13-16 Public Services and Recreation
City of Fontana, About Us, https://www.fontana.org/2509/About-Us, accessed November 9, 2022d.
City of Fontana, Facilities & Parks, https://www.fontana.org/156/Facilities-Parks, accessed November 9,
2022e.
City of Fontana, Development Fees,
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/2271/Development-Impact-Fees?bidId=,
accessed November 9, 2022f.
City of Fontana, Fire Protection District Regular Agenda, December 14, 2021.
Ed-Data, Fontana Unified, http://www.ed-data.org/district/San-Bernardino/Fontana-Unified, accessed
November 9, 2022.
EH&A, Developer Fee Justification Study for Residential & Commercial/Industrial Development prepared
for the Fontana Unified School District Board of Trustees (Public Review Draft), June 22, 2022.
Fontana Police Department (FPD), Annual Report 2021, posted January 2022,
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/37288/ANNUAL-REPORT-2021, accessed
November 9, 2022.
Fontana Unified School District (FUSD), School Directory,
https://www.fusd.net/site/Default.aspx?PageID=561, accessed November 9, 2022a.
Fontana Unified School District (FUSD), New School Boundaries 2019-2020,
https://fusd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=4faad1b570994ad09e39040551077
c2e, accessed November 9, 2022b.
Fontana Unified School District (FUSD), Developer Fees, https://www.fusd.net/Page/639, accessed
November 9, 2022c.
San Bernardino County Library, Library Locations and Hours, https://sbclib.org/library-locations/,
accessed November 9, 2022.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.14-1 Transportation
5.14 TRANSPORTATION
5.14.1 PURPOSE
This section describes the existing physical and operational conditions for the transportation system and
provides an analysis of potential impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Downtown
Core Project. The impact analysis examines the roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian components of
the Project Area’s transportation system. This section is based on the Fontana Downtown Core Project
Transportation Study, prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc., dated January 16, 2023, and included as
Appendix E, Transportation Analysis, of this Draft EIR.
Under Senate Bill 743 as of July 1, 2020, local agencies may no longer rely on roadway/intersection delay
and capacity-based analyses for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purposes, but rather,
agencies must analyze transportation impacts utilizing vehicle miles travelled (VMT), which measures the
number of vehicle trips generated by a project and their average distance of travel to and from a project.
These are calculated and assessed as rates (e.g., per capita for residential projects or per employee for
commercial projects). This is a change from the prior method of analyzing transportation impacts, which
measured travel time delay at intersections and roadway segments, assessed with a Level-of-Service (LOS)
grade from LOS A to LOS F. Travel delay as measured by LOS is no longer a CEQA-related topic and is not
discussed in this EIR.
5.14.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK
The Project Area is supported by a network of core regional streets, including Foothill Boulevard, Sierra
Avenue, Arrow Boulevard, Juniper Avenue, Merrill Avenue, Mango Avenue, Randall Avenue, and several
smaller connecting streets that provide local connectivity. On-street parallel parking is generally allowed
on both sides of the road. Within the boundaries of the Downtown Area Plan, there are generally
sidewalks, in good condition, on both sides of the road.
Local Roadways
Key streets within the Project Area include:
Foothill Boulevard: an east-west major highway with two travel lanes in each direction. The corridor
serves as the north gateway to the Downtown area. Within the Project Area boundaries, a raised center
median helps divide the roadway. It is also designated by Caltrans as one of the City’s main truck routes.
Arrow Boulevard: an east-west primary highway with two travel lanes in each direction. The corridor is
primarily characterized by a mix of commercial uses and vacant parcels and serves as one of the key
corridors that links the westside and eastside neighborhoods together. A raised center median helps
divide the roadway. It is also designated by Caltrans as one of the City’s main truck routes.
Orange Way: an east-west primary highway with a total of three travel lanes. It provides direct
connections to local transit facilities, in particular the Fontana Metrolink Station. Double yellow lines help
divide the roadway. To the west of Sierra Avenue, bike lanes are generally on both sides of the road.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.14-2 Transportation
Ceres Avenue: an east-west primary highway with one travel lane in each direction. The corridor is
primarily characterized by single-family residential units and provides residents access to the Downtown
Core (as specified in the General Plan Downtown Area Plan). Double yellow lines help divide the roadway.
To the east of Sierra Avenue, sidewalks are only located on the north side of the road.
Merrill Avenue: an east-west primary highway with two travel lanes in each direction. Acting as the
southern gateway to the Downtown Area, the corridor provides direct access to Chaffey College and local
bus routes. The corridor is characterized by a mix of commercial and residential uses. East of Wheeler
Avenue, sidewalks appear only on the south side. Double yellow lines help divide the roadway.
Randall Avenue: an east-west primary highway with two travel lanes in each direction. Residential uses
are primarily along the roadway. The corridor also serves as a bike route. Double yellow lines help divide
the roadway. There are sidewalks buffered by landscaping on some segments along Randall Avenue.
Juniper Avenue: a north-south primary highway with one travel lane in each direction. Commercial uses
are along the corridor north of Ceres Avenue. Residential uses are along the corridor south of Ceres
Avenue. Double yellow lines help divide the roadway.
Sierra Avenue: a north-south major highway with two travel lanes in each direction. It is the primary
roadway through the City’s Downtown Area connecting visitors, residents, and employees to residential
neighborhoods, major commercial areas, and industrial centers. It also provides direct access to the
Interstate 10 (I-10), Interstate 15 (I-15), and Interstate 210 (I-210) freeways. A raised median helps divide
the roadway.
Mango Avenue: a north-south primary highway with two travel lanes in each direction. The roadway is
primarily surrounded by residential uses and provides direct access to local parks and schools such as
Veterans Park and Fontana Middle School. Double yellow lines help divide the roadway. South of Merrill
Avenue, sidewalks start to become buffered by landscape.
BICYCLE FACILITIES
Existing bicycle facilities in the Project Area include:
• The 6.4-mile regional Pacific Electric Trail (PET), which is the only fully dedicated and buffered bike
path in the Project Area and allows for multi-use travel;
• Class II bike lanes along Orange Way and Juniper Avenue; and
• Class III bike routes along segments of Sierra Avenue, Foothill Boulevard, and Arrow Boulevard.
TRANSIT SERVICE
Omnitrans
Omnitrans is the primary transit service provider for the City of Fontana. As of August 2022, Omnitrans
routes 10, 14, 15, 19, 61, 66, 67, 82, and 312 operate within the Project Area. All routes mentioned serve
as a transit connection for the Fontana Metrolink Station. A summary of each route is provided in Table
5.14-1, Existing Omnitrans Fixed-Route System.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.14-3 Transportation
Table 5.14-1
Existing Omnitrans Fixed-Route System
Route
Number Route Path Description Within Project Area Operational Days Service
Frequency
10 East-west travel via Orange Way
North-south travel via Juniper Avenue Monday - Sunday 60 min
14 North-south travel via Sierra Avenue Monday - Sunday 20 - 30 min
15
East-west travel via Merrill Avenue
North-south travel via Sierra Avenue Monday - Sunday 60 min
19 North-south travel via Sierra Avenue Monday - Sunday 60 min
61 North-south travel via Sierra Avenue Monday - Sunday 20 - 30 min
66
East-west travel via Orange Way
North-south travel via Juniper Avenue Monday - Sunday 20 - 50 min
67 North-south travel via Sierra Avenue Monday - Friday 60 min
82 East-west travel via Orange Way
North-south travel via Juniper Avenue and Sierra Avenue Monday - Sunday 60 - 65 min
312
East-west travel via Arrow Boulevard
North-south travel via Nuevo Avenue and Sierra Avenue Monday - Sunday 60 min
Sources: Omnitrans, accessed October 17, 2022.
Within the Project Area, there are approximately 30 bus stops with an additional seven serving the
Fontana Metrolink Station. Outside of Sierra Avenue, most bus stops are lacking at least one of the
following amenities: shelter, benches, lighting, and shading.
Omnitrans also offers a curb-to curb ADA service, called OmniAccess, for qualified applicants whose
physical or cognitive limitations prevent them from using regular Omnitrans fixed-route services.
OmniAccess complements the existing fixed-route services by serving within a buffer of 0.75-mile of an
existing bus route. The OmniAccess service is available during the same operational times as its fixed-
route service. OmniAccess riders are required to make reservations for trips or arrange a subscription
service for recurring trips.
Metrolink
Metrolink provides rail passenger service within the Los Angeles metropolitan region. The San Bernardino
Line, which stops at the Fontana Metrolink Station, runs between Downtown Los Angeles and San
Bernardino. Metrolink operates approximately 34 passenger trains daily through the Fontana Metrolink
Station. It operates daily from 4:00 AM to 12:00 AM with a frequency of 20-30 minutes during weekday
morning and afternoon peak periods and 60-120 minute on weekday off-peak periods and weekends.
Morning trains are primarily westbound trains (Los Angeles Union Station) whereas afternoon trains are
more frequently eastbound trains (Downtown San Bernardino).
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.14-4 Transportation
The Fontana Metrolink station is accessible through Sierra Avenue and Orange Way. The station serves as
a regional transit hub for Omnitrans and has stops for the following bus routes: 10, 14, 15, 19, 61, 66, 67,
82, and 312.
City of Fontana Transportation Program
The City’s Transportation Program is designed as a demand-response/ride-sharing program for local
senior citizens (55 and older) and medically disabled residents of the City of Fontana. This service
transports residents within City limits to doctor’s offices, Fontana Community Senior Center, hospitals,
shopping centers, and fitness facilities. Services are available Monday through Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Most crosswalks within the Project Area are located at signalized or stop-controlled intersections on the
arterial and collector roads. They are generally standard crosswalks and on all four approaches. Mango
Avenue is missing a west-leg crossing at Merrill Avenue and Randall Avenue. Arrow Boulevard and
Wheeler Avenue is missing an east-leg crossing. Skewed crossings are common along principal arterials
and cause longer pedestrian crossing times and distances.
5.14.3 REGULATORY SETTING
FEDERAL
Americans With Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) provides comprehensive rights and protections to
individuals with disabilities. The goal of the ADA is to assure equality of opportunity, full participation,
independent living, and economic self-sufficiency. To implement this goal, the United States Access Board
has created accessibility guidelines for public rights-of-way. The guidelines address various issues,
including roadway design practices, slope and terrain issues, pedestrian access to streets, sidewalks, curb
ramps, street furnishings, pedestrian signals, parking, and other components of public rights-of-way.
Federal Highway Administration
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is a federal agency that focuses on national highway
programs. FHWA administers and manages federal highway programs and establishes national standards.
The FHWA publishes the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) which specifies the
standards for street markings, traffic signals, and street signs in the United States. The California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) developed the California MUTCD based on the FHWA MUTCD.
STATE
California Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the primary State agency responsible for
transportation issues. One of its duties is the construction and maintenance of the State highway system.
Caltrans has established standards for roadway traffic flow and developed procedures to determine if
State-controlled facilities require improvements. For projects that may physically affect facilities or
require access to a state highway, Caltrans requires encroachment permits before such activity may be
undertaken. For projects that would not physically affect facilities but may influence traffic flow and levels
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.14-5 Transportation
of services at such facilities, Caltrans may recommend measures to mitigate the traffic impacts of such
projects.
Assembly Bill 32, Senate Bill 32, and Senate Bill 375
On June 1, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order (EO) S-3-05. The goal of this EO is to
reduce California’s GHG emissions to: 1) 2000 levels by 2010, 2) 1990 levels by the 2020 and 3) 80 percent
below the 1990 levels by the year 2050. EO-S-20-06 establishes responsibilities and roles of the Secretary
of Cal/EPA and State agencies in climate change.
In 2006, this goal was further reinforced with the passage of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 sets the same overall GHG emissions reduction goals while further mandating
that CARB create a plan, which includes market mechanisms, and implement rules to achieve “real,
quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases.” EO S-20-06 further directs State agencies to
begin implementing AB 32, including the recommendations made by the State’s Climate Action Team.
On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted its Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan), which functions as
a roadmap of CARB’s plans to achieve GHG reductions in California required by Assembly Bill (AB) 32
through subsequently enacted regulations. The Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will
implement to reduce carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e) emissions by 169 million metric tons (MMT), or
approximately 30 percent, from the State’s projected 2020 emissions level of 596 MMT of CO2e under a
business‐as‐usual scenario. (This is a reduction of 42 MMT CO2e, or almost 10 percent, from 2002–2004
average emissions, but requires the reductions in the face of population and economic growth through
2020.) The Scoping Plan also breaks down the amount of GHG emissions reductions CARB recommends
for each emissions sector of the State’s GHG inventory. The Scoping Plan calls for the largest reductions
in GHG emissions to be achieved by implementing the following measures and standards:
• Improved emissions standards for light-duty vehicles (estimated reductions of 31.7 MMT CO2e);
• The Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (15.0 MMT CO2e);
• Energy efficiency measures in buildings and appliances and the widespread development of
combined heat and power systems (26.3 MMT CO2e); and
• A renewable portfolio standard for electricity production (21.3 MMT CO2e).
CARB updated the Scoping Plan in 2013 (First Update to the Scoping Plan) and again in 2017. The 2013
Update built upon the initial Scoping Plan with new strategies and recommendations, and also set the
groundwork to reach the long-term goals set forth by the State. Successful implementation of existing
programs (as identified in previous iterations of the Scoping Plan) has allowed California to meet the 2020
target. The 2017 Update expands the scope of the plan further by focusing on the strategy for achieving
the State’s 2030 GHG target of 40 percent emissions reductions below 1990 levels (to achieve the target
codified into law by SB 32), and substantially advances toward the State’s 2050 climate goal to reduce
GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels.
The 2017 Update relies on the preexisting programs paired with an extended, more stringent Cap-and-
Trade Program, to deliver climate, air quality, and other benefits. The 2017 Update identifies new
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.14-6 Transportation
technologically feasible and cost-effective strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction
goals.
CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan Update (2022 Scoping Plan) on December 15, 2022. The 2022
Scoping Plan Update assesses progress towards the SB 32 GHG reduction target of at least 40 percent
below 1990 emissions by 2030, while laying out a path to achieving carbon neutrality no later than 2045
and a reduction in anthropogenic emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels.
SB 375 (Stats. 2008, ch. 728) (SB 375) was built on AB 32. SB 375’s core provision is a requirement for
regional transportation agencies to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in order to reduce
GHG emissions from passenger vehicles. The SCS is one component of the existing Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP).
The SCS outlines the region’s plan for combining transportation resources, such as roads and mass transit,
with a realistic land use pattern, in order to meet a State target for reducing GHG emissions. The strategy
must take into account the region’s housing needs, transportation demands, and protection of resource
and farmlands.
Additionally, SB 375 modified the State’s Housing Element Law to achieve consistency between the land
use pattern outlined in the SCS and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation. The legislation
also substantially improved cities’ and counties’ accountability for carrying out their housing element
plans.
Finally, SB 375 amended CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) to ease the environmental
review of developments that help reduce the growth of GHG emissions.
California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358)
Originally passed in 2008, California’s Complete Streets Act took effect in 2011 and requires local
jurisdictions to plan for land use transportation policies that reflect a “complete streets” approach to
mobility. “Complete streets” comprises a suite of policies and street design guidelines which provide for
the needs of all road users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit operators and riders, children, the
elderly, and the disabled. From 2011 onward, any local jurisdiction—county or city—that undertakes a
substantive update of the circulation element of its general plan must consider “complete streets” and
incorporate corresponding policies and programs. In 2010, OPR released guidelines for compliance with
this legislation which provide direction on how circulation elements can best plan for a variety of travel
modes such as transit, walking, bicycling, and freight.
Senate Bill 743
On September 27, 2013, Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed into law. Previously, CEQA transportation analyses
of individual projects were focused on the determination of impacts in the circulation system in terms of
roadway capacity at specific locations, mostly located in proximity to a project site. SB 743 has
fundamentally changed transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. These changes include
the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion
as a basis for determining significant. Further, parking impacts are not considered significant impacts on
the environment for select development projects within infill areas with nearby frequent transit service.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.14-7 Transportation
SB 743 was passed to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of
multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.
OPR published the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018) to
provide recommendations for jurisdictions to apply VMT metrics and thresholds compliant with SB 743.
OPR’s advisory includes recommendations pertaining to screening criteria, metrics, and significant impact
thresholds. OPR’s recommendations are not binding, and lead agencies ultimately have the discretion to
set or apply their own significance thresholds, provided they are based on significant evidence.
For land use and transportation projects, SB 743-compliant CEQA analysis became mandatory on July 1,
2020. The City of Fontana identified methodologies and thresholds to evaluate transportation impacts
using VMT metrics from land use and transportation projects, which are discussed below.
REGIONAL
Southern California Association of Governments
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a federally designated MPO and is made
up of six counties and 191 cities. SCAG develops long-range regional transportation plans including
sustainable communities strategies and growth forecast components, regional transportation
improvement programs, regional housing needs allocations, and a portion of the South Coast Air Quality
Management Plans.
SCAG adopted its most recent Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS),
Connect SoCal, in September 2020. Connect SoCal is a long-range visioning plan that provides a vision for
the region’s future and includes over 4,000 transportation projects. The plan is supported by a
combination of transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve state greenhouse gas
emission reduction goals.
San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA), formerly known as the San Bernardino
Associated Governments (SANBAG), is responsible for cooperative regional planning and furthering an
efficient multi-modal transportation system countywide. The SBCTA administers Measure I, the half-cent
transportation sales tax approved by county voters in 1989, and supports freeway construction projects,
regional and local road improvements, train and bus transportation, railroad crossings, call boxes,
ridesharing, congestion management efforts, and long-term planning studies.
San Bernardino Countywide Transportation Plan
SBCTA developed the County’s Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP), which was updated in 2021. The
plan serves as the County’s input into SCAG’s RTP/SCS. The purpose of the CTP is to lay out a strategy for
long-term investment in and management of the County’s transportation system. Key issues addressed
by the CTP include transportation funding, congestion relief, economic competitiveness, system
preservation and operations, transit system interconnectivity, air quality, sustainability, and GHG emission
reductions. The CTP has developed a set of strategies to address issues such as air quality, goods
movement, sustainability, and active transportation.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.14-8 Transportation
San Bernardino County Non-Motorized Transportation Plan
SBCTA released the most recent update of the San Bernardino County Non-Motorized Transportation Plan
in June 2018. SBCTA serves in an advisory role, including identifying projects on the regional network,
providing advisory support for project development, supporting local education and safety efforts,
encouraging the incorporation of nonmotorized facilities into general and specific plans, and working to
identify grant opportunities. The plan includes goals to develop an integrated plan and identify sources of
funds to implement that plan to promote increased bicycle and pedestrian access, increased travel by
cycling and walking, routine accommodation in transportation and land use planning, and improved
bicycle and pedestrian safety. The plan lays out design guidelines, bikeway and pedestrian system
recommendations, implementation strategies and priorities, and funding opportunities. It points out that
local jurisdictions are ultimately responsible for implementing projects included in the plan.
Short Range Transit Plan
SBCTA developed a Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to help guide transit service improvements in the
region over the next five years. The SRTP identifies transit service plans and help prioritize major capital
improvement projects for the region’s transit needs. Goals of the SRTP include connectivity between the
various transit agencies in the County, facilitating transit travel between regions of the County and
between the County and surrounding counties, and cost-effective accessibility programs for seniors and
persons with disabilities. The SRTP was released in December 2016.
Long Range Transit Plan
SBCTA developed a Long Range Transit Plan (LRTP) to address the County’s current and future travel
challenges and create a transportation system that can increase the role of transit in the future. The LRTP
establishes a transit vision for the next 25 years, prioritizes goals and projects for transit growth, and
prioritizes connecting land use and transportation strategies. The LRTP developed four alternatives:
Baseline (with existing transit services), Plan (existing transit and currently planned improvements), Vision
(existing transit, planned improvements, and rapid bus and rail), and Sustainable Land Use (redistributing
growth to transit corridors and creating Transit Oriented Developments at station areas). The SRTP was
released in April 2010.
San Bernardino Countywide Points of Interest Pedestrian Plan
SBCTA developed a Countywide Points of Interest Pedestrian Plan to assist member agencies with the
development of tools and guidelines for identifying and prioritizing pedestrian improvements. The
project’s goals include connecting various SBCTA member agencies and synchronizing project planning
and implementation, given that each agency has varying pedestrian accommodations, capital
improvement programs, and maintenance regimes.
Congestion Management Program for San Bernardino County
The Congestion Management Program (CMP) for San Bernardino County, published and periodically
updated by SBCTA, defines a network of state highways and arterials in the County and provides guidelines
regarding LOS standards, impact criteria, and a process for mitigation of impacts on CMP facilities in the
County. The CMP was last updated in June 2016. Based on SBCTA’s CMP, the level-of-service (LOS)
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.14-9 Transportation
standard for the regional CMP roadway system is E for all segments and intersections. Within the Project
Area, Sierra Avenue and Foothill Boulevard are part of the County’s CMP Road System.
LOCAL
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce potential impacts to
transportation-related impacts. Chapter 9, Community Mobility and Circulation, and Chapter 14,
Downtown Area Plan Elements contain the following goals and policies potentially relevant to the
proposed Project:
Chapter 9 – Community Mobility and Circulation
Goal 1: The City of Fontana has a comprehensive and balanced transportation system with safety and
multimodal accessibility the top priority of citywide transportation planning, as well as accommodating
freight movement.
o Policy: Provide roadways that serve the needs of Fontana residents and commerce, and
that facilitate safe and convenient access to transit, bicycle facilities, and walkways.
o Policy: Make safety and multimodal accessibility the top priority of citywide
transportation planning.
o Policy: Apply the six “E’s” of the Safe Routes to School program to transportation planning
and implementation—Encouragement, Education, Engineering, Enforcement, Evaluation,
and Equity.
o Policy: Make land use decisions that support walking, bicycling, and public transit use, in
alignment with the 2014-2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable
Communities Strategy.
Goal 2: Fontana’s street network is safe and accessible to all users, especially the most vulnerable such as
children, youth, older adults and people with disabilities.
o Policy: When constructing or modifying roadways, design the roadway space for use by
all users when feasible, including motor vehicles, buses, bicyclists, mobility devices, and
pedestrians, as appropriate for the context of the area.
o Policy: Support designated truck routes that avoid negative impacts on residential and
commercial areas while accommodating the efficient movement of trucks on designated
truck routes and arterial streets.
Goal 3: Local transit within the City of Fontana is a viable choice for residents, easily accessible and serving
destinations throughout the city.
o Policy: Maximize the accessibility, safety, convenience, and appeal of transit service and
transit stops.
o Policy: Promote concentrated development patterns in coordination with transit
planning to maximize service efficiency and ridership.
Goal 4: Fontana’s neighborhood streets maintain a residential character and support a range of
transportation options.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.14-10 Transportation
o Policy: Balance neighborhood traffic circulation needs with the goal of creating walkable
and bike friendly neighborhoods.
o Policy: Develop and implement Best Practice Street Design standards for new residential
street development projects.
Goal 5: Fontana’s commercial and mixed-use areas include a multifunctional street network that ensures
a safe, comfortable, and efficient movement of people, goods, and services to support a high quality of
life and economic vitality.
o Policy: Provide a transportation network that is compatible with the needs of commerce
and those who live, work and shop in mixed-use areas.
o Policy: Encourage mixed use and commercial developments that support walking,
bicycling, and public transit use while balancing the needs of motorized traffic to serve
such developments.
Goal 6: The city has attractive and convenient parking facilities for both motorized and non-motorized
vehicles that fit the context.
o Policy: Provide the right amount of motor vehicle and bicycle parking in commercial and
employment centers to support vibrant economic activity.
o Policy: Encourage approaches that reduce the overall number of new parking spaces that
must be provided on-site for new development.
Goal 7: The city of Fontana participates in shaping regional transportation policies to reduce traffic
congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.
o Policy: Lead and participate in initiatives to manage regional traffic.
o Policy: Coordinate with regional agencies and Caltrans to participate in regional efforts to
maintain transportation infrastructure in Fontana.
o Policy: Participate in the efforts of the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) to coordinate transportation planning and services that support greenhouse gas
reductions.
o Policy: Participate in the efforts by Caltrans to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow
on area freeways.
Chapter 14 – Downtown Area Plan
Chapter 14, Downtown Area Plan, provides a comprehensive vision for the City’s Downtown Area. The
plan specifies goals, strategies and actions that aid in the implementation of the vision over time. The
Downtown Area Plan divides the Downtown area into three primary districts: Downtown Core, Gateway
Corridors, and In-Town Neighborhoods. Each district has their own set of goals as laid out below:
• Downtown Core: primary area consisting of retail, transit, and civic destinations for the general
public
o Livable public realm that consist of street network, parks, and other publicly accessible
open spaces along with public and civic buildings and facilities
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.14-11 Transportation
o Buildings that accommodate a lively mix of uses that contribute to Downtown’s
envisioned character with beautiful facades, pedestrian-oriented frontages, warm
lighting, and artistic signage
o Activity-rich downtown that offer a wide range of commercial and civic amenities that
attract people to the Downtown center
o User-friendly district parking that are conveniently located, clearly marked, easy to find,
and adequate for the public needs
o Clear branding and wayfinding system for the area that’ll help the growing multi-use
district compete with suburban shopping centers and entertainment districts
• Gateway Corridors: carrying large volumes of people into the Downtown Core
o Foothill Boulevard will be transformed into highly-visible gateways that are designed to
direct visitors into the Downtown Core
o South Sierra Avenue will include new mixed-use development, streetscape
improvements, and branding and wayfinding signage along Sierra
o Organized corridor infill with commercial, mixed-use, and housing of various forms and
intensities in and around Downtown
• In-Town Neighborhoods: enhancing neighborhoods near the Downtown Core
o Shady streets and open spaces that are pedestrian friendly and create a nice walkable
environment
o Neighborhood-scale blocks that connect together conveniently for all road users
o Neighborhood-scale buildings that provide a degree of privacy for residents, improving
safety and security
Fontana Active Transportation Plan
The City of Fontana developed and approved an Active Transportation Plan (ATP) in 2017 to guide
infrastructure improvements towards improving mobility throughout the City through safe, convenient,
accessible, and comfortable walking and bicycling linkages. The following goals are the most relevant to
the Downtown Area Plan:
• Increase and improve pedestrian and bicyclist access to employment centers, schools, transit,
recreation facilities, and other community destinations through the City
• Improve safety through the design and maintenance of sidewalks, streets, intersections, and
other roadway improvements such as signage, striping, lighting, wayfinding, and landscaping
• Improve the quality, operation, and integrity of the pedestrian and bicycle network infrastructure
and facilities that allows for convenient and direct connections throughout the City
Within the Project Area, the ATP includes new planned bike facilities on Foothill Boulevard, Arrow
Boulevard, Valencia Avenue, Orange Way, Ceres Avenue, and Sierra Avenue.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
City of Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 17, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, contains ordinances for traffic
administration; operation of motor vehicles; stopping, standing and parking; loading and unloading;
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.14-12 Transportation
pedestrians and bicycles; truck routes; funding of air pollution reduction programs; and illegal street
racing.
City of Fontana Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
The City of Fontana developed their own traffic impact analysis (TIA) guidelines to consistently assess the
traffic impacts generated by development projects on the surrounding transportation network. The TIA
guidelines serve as a tool for the City to evaluate the effects a development will have on the City’s
transportation infrastructure, identify improvements required to maintain the City’s Level of Service (LOS)
standards and address Section XVII (Transportation) of Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The TIA guidelines include requirements to determine the analysis study area,
analyses scenarios, and analyses processes. Finally, the TIA guidelines include recommendations for
determining VMT impact thresholds and mitigation requirements for various land use projects.
5.14.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Initial Study
Environmental Checklist, which includes questions related to transportation. A significant transportation
impact would occur if the Project would:
• Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities (refer to Impact Statement 5.14-1);
• Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) (refer to Impact
Statement 5.14-2);
• Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) (refer to Impact Statement 5.14-3);
and/or
• Result in inadequate emergency access (refer to Impact Statement 5.14-4).
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED THRESHOLDS
The City’s VMT significant impact thresholds for land use plans are:
• Project Threshold: a significant impact would occur if the VMT per service population for the land
use plan exceeds 15 percent below the countywide average VMT per service population. This
provides a comparison to the countywide average VMT per service population. Service population
is defined as the sum of resident population and employees working in the City (Fontana residents
who also work in Fontana are counted twice).
• Cumulative Threshold: a significant impact would occur if the Project caused total daily VMT
within the City to be higher than the No Project alternative under cumulative conditions. In other
words, if within the City the Project causes an increase in VMT compared to the No Project
alternative a significant impact would occur. This would indicate if the Project changes VMT within
the City network.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.14-13 Transportation
Cumulative conditions are measured for the General Plan horizon year (2040). VMT is calculated using the
SBTAM travel demand model. The model output includes total VMT, which includes vehicle trips for all
trip purposes, and VMT per service population (population plus employment).
Based on these standards and significance thresholds and criteria, the Project’s effects have been
categorized as either “no impact,” a “less than significant impact,” or a “potentially significant impact.”
Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant
impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant impact through the application of mitigation, it is
categorized as a “significant unavoidable impact.”
5.14.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 5.14-1: Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing
the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Impact Analysis: A conflict could occur if the proposed Project would preclude the ability of Fontana to
implement its goals or policies. For the purpose of this analysis, the Project could result in a significant
impact if it results in a conflict with any adopted City of Fontana programs, plans, ordinances, and policies.
ROADWAYS
The Project proposes to modify the existing circulation within the Project Area specific to Nuevo Avenue,
Wheeler Avenue, and Sierra Avenue. As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, General Plan Chapter
9, Community Mobility and Circulation, Exhibit 9.2, Hierarchy of Streets in Fontana, would be amended to
modify the roadway functional class for Nuevo Avenue and Wheeler Avenue and to remove the roadway
functional class for Sierra Avenue between Arrow Boulevard and Orange Way. The proposed street
closure and associated pedestrian improvements would help to implement several City policies, as noted
below. A local transportation analysis is being prepared to evaluate the performance of the circulation
system so that intersections and roadways are designed to accommodate future traffic volumes.
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE TRAVEL
The City’s ATP describes the related policies necessary to ensure that pedestrian and bicycle facilities are
safe and effective for Fontana residents, employees and visitors. Using the ATP as a guide, significant
impacts to these facilities would occur when a plan or project:
• creates a hazardous condition that currently does not exist for pedestrians and bicyclists, or
otherwise interferes with pedestrian accessibility; or
• conflicts with an existing or planned pedestrian or bicycle facility; or
• conflicts with policies related to bicycle and pedestrian facilities as adopted by the City of Fontana
for its respective facilities.
The Project would enhance the pedestrian experience by providing a more walkable and denser
environment. It would also close a quarter-mile portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic. Within the
Project Area, the City of Fontana’s ATP includes new planned bike facilities on Foothill Boulevard, Arrow
Boulevard, Valencia Avenue, Orange Way, Ceres Avenue, and Sierra Avenue. The Project would close a
quarter-mile segment of Sierra Avenue to traffic while still allowing for a Class I bike path on that segment.
The Project would also allow for Class 2 bike lanes on Valencia Avenue and Orange Way to provide for
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.14-14 Transportation
east-west bicycle traffic in the area. The Project is consistent with the goals and policies of Fontana’s ATP
by focusing on land use development near high-quality transit service and implementing Complete Streets
improvements that would enhance the safety and attractiveness of bicycle and pedestrian travel. The
development would be fully consistent with local and regional policies for reducing VMT and greenhouse
gas emissions as well as improving transportation safety.
TRANSIT
Generally, a plan/project causes a significant impact to transit facilities and services if an element of it
conflicts with existing or planned transit services. The evaluation of transit facilities shall consider if:
• a plan or project creates demand for public transit services above the capacity that is provided or
planned;
• a plan or project or related mitigation disrupts existing transit services or facilities;
• a plan or project or related mitigation conflicts with an existing or planned transit facility; or
• a plan or project or related mitigation conflicts with transit policies adopted by the City of Fontana
for its respective facilities.
The Downtown Core Project would provide for increased activity adjacent to existing bus and rail transit
services and be consistent with regional plans to provide service improvements and increase ridership on
those services. The proposed plans would not conflict with transit policies adopted by the City of Fontana
or San Bernardino County for their respective facilities.
CONCLUSION
The City has numerous policies supporting complete streets and to promote use of transit and active
transportation. The proposed Project would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs regarding
roadways, bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities or the performance or safety of those facilities. The
Project would support the implementation of policies and programs to provide new and improved
facilities to support multi-modal transportation and access within the Project Area. Impacts would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Impact 5.14-2: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Impact Analysis: Consistent with the City’s TIA Guidelines, a project may be screened out of a detailed
VMT analysis if one of the four following conditions apply:
• Development is located in a transit priority area
• Development is located in a low VMT generating area
• Development is considered to be a low VMT generating project type
• Development generates net daily trips less than 500 average daily trips (ADT)
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.14-15 Transportation
The Project as a whole does not meet any of screening criteria above. While most of the Project is located
within a transit priority area, it is not entirely located within a transit priority area, and therefore cannot
be screened out as a whole.
For projects that are not screened out, a detailed VMT analysis and forecast through the SBTAM model
should be conducted to determine if the project will result in a significant VMT impact. A project would
result in a significant project-generated VMT impact if:
• Project Threshold: the project’s VMT per service population exceeds 15 percent below the existing
countywide average VMT per service population.
• Cumulative Threshold: the project causes total daily VMT within the City to be higher than the no
project alternative under cumulative conditions.
Table 5.14-2, Project Area VMT, summarizes the VMT results under existing, 2040 without Project, and
2040 with Project conditions.
Table 5.14-2
Project Area VMT
Units Existing1 2040 Without
Project2
2040 With
Project
San Bernadino County
VMT per Service Population 38.62 35.13 35.11
Impact Threshold (15% below regional average) 32.82 32.82 32.82
Total Project VMT
Total VMT 320,765 884,989 983,134
VMT per Service Population 30.00 20.13 19.29
Exceeds Threshold? NO - NO
Source: Kittelson and Associates, 2022.
Notes:
1. Existing conditions correspond to the model base year 2016 conditions.
2. 2040 Without Project corresponds to 2040 conditions under currently adopted plans consisting of the
adopted General Plan network and land use; assumes allowable land use buildout with existing zoning.
As shown in Table 5.14-2, future conditions with the proposed Project would result in decreased VMT per
service population in comparison to both existing conditions and 2040 Without Project conditions.
• The VMT per service population with the Project would be 36 percent lower than existing
conditions.
• The VMT per service population with the Project would be four percent lower than 2040 Without
Project conditions.
The reductions from the existing (base) year to the future year indicate that future development
anticipated by the proposed Project, in particular planned mixed-use development, would provide more
opportunities for Fontana residents and employees to access jobs and services within shorter distances.
The shorter trip distances reduce VMT by vehicles, and also increase the likelihood that trips would be
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.14-16 Transportation
made by non-auto modes such as bicycling and walking. Improved transit service and accessibility to
transit also help to reduce VMT even as travel activity increases.
Implementation of the Project would result in reductions in VMT per service population compared to
existing conditions and would not exceed the impact threshold. Therefore, the Project would not conflict
or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) and the impact of the Project
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Impact 5.14-3: Would the project substantially increase hazards due to geometric design
features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Impact Analysis: Buildout of the Project would involve the alteration, intensification, and redistribution
of land uses in the Project Area. Hazards are typically assessed at the individual project level when an
actual design and construction of a circulation facility is proposed. Potential impacts associated with
future development projects would be analyzed and evaluated in detail through the City review process
for those individual projects. The City’s design and construction standards and specifications provide for
coordinated and standardized development of City facilities, including roadways. The standards apply to,
regulate, and guide the design and preparation of plans, and the construction of streets, highways, alleys,
drainage, traffic signals, site access, and related public improvements. As individual projects would
undergo review for approval and construction and would have to meet design guidelines, potential safety
design hazards associated with future site-specific development projects would be addressed and result
in less than significant impacts.
The proposed modifications to Sierra Avenue in the area between Orange, Arrow, Wheeler and Nuevo
that would consist of roadway and intersection modifications that would affect all modes of travel. These
improvements are currently under concept-level review. Prior to implementation, these improvements
would be subject to a detailed review and future consideration by the City’s Public Works engineering
staff. An evaluation of the roadway alignments, intersection geometrics, and traffic control features would
be conducted at the project design level. Roadway improvements would have to be made in accordance
with the City’s circulation plan and roadway design guidelines and meet design guidelines in the California
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the Caltrans Roadway Design Manual. In addition, the City
of Fontana General Plan Community Mobility and Circulation Element includes goals, policies, and actions
to improve the safety of all users of the transportation system in the City, including ensuring all streets,
intersections, and parking areas are designed with safety and all users in mind; working with Metrolink to
increase safety at train crossings, including improving gate technology, grade separation, and signal
coordination; and implementing access-management techniques in commercial and mixed-use areas that
allow for smooth traffic flow while creating a safe environment for non-motorized users. Overall,
implementation of the Downtown Core Project would not result in hazardous conditions.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.14-17 Transportation
Impact 5.14-4: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Impact Analysis: The proposed Downtown Core Project would provide for increased residential and non-
residential uses within the Project Area. Additionally, the Project proposes roadway modifications that
would ultimately close a quarter-mile portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic. This would occur in
two phases. Phase I (interim condition) would reduce the number of travel lanes on Sierra Avenue from
two lanes in each direction to one lane in each direction, convert Wheeler Avenue to a one-way
northbound street, and convert Nuevo Avenue to a one-way southbound street. Phase II (the ultimate
condition) would close Sierra Avenue between Arrow Boulevard and Orange Way to vehicular traffic,
diverting traffic to parallel streets.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Emergency
access associated with future site-specific development would be analyzed and evaluated in detail
through the City review process for those individual projects. As described in Section 5.13, Public Services
and Recreation, the Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD) provides fire and emergency response service
to the City of Fontana, including the Project Area. Future development within the Downtown Core 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 City’s emergency access
standards would apply to all development proposed under the proposed Project.
The ultimate closure of a quarter-mile portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic would not result in
inadequate emergency access. Closure of a portion of Sierra Avenue would also involve the conversion of
Wheeler Avenue to a one-way northbound street, and Nuevo Avenue to a one-way southbound street,
providing continued emergency access within the area. Further, the proposed closure and ultimate design
of Sierra Avenue would be reviewed by the FFPD to ensure that adequate emergency access would be
maintained within the area.
The City has adopted the current edition of the California Fire Code and access for emergency vehicles
would be required to be incorporated into project design. Construction activities that may temporarily
restrict vehicular traffic would be required to implement appropriate measures to facilitate the passage
of persons and vehicles through/around any required road closures. Primary access to all major roads
would be maintained during construction of future developments within the Project Area. As part of the
site review process, future development projects would be reviewed for adequate infrastructure and
access as well as consistency with adopted emergency and evacuation plans in order to ensure adequate
emergency access would be provided. Therefore, Project implementation would not result in inadequate
emergency access and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.14-18 Transportation
5.14.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Analysis:
CIRCULATION SYSTEM
As discussed, the Project proposes to modify specific roadways within the Project Area. The proposed
modifications are within the interior of the Project Area and would not combine with other potential
roadway modifications that may be proposed by development outside of the Project Area. Any proposed
roadway modifications within the City would be analyzed and designed to ensure operation of the City’s
circulation system is consistent with the General Plan Community Mobility and Circulation Element.
The Project would enhance the pedestrian experience by providing a more walkable and denser
environment and would continue to allow for implementation of the City’s ATP specific to bicycle and
pedestrian facilities. The Project is consistent with the goals and policies of Fontana’s ATP by focusing on
land use development near high-quality transit service and implementing Complete Streets improvements
which would enhance the safety and attractiveness of bicycle and pedestrian travel. Cumulative
development within the City would be reviewed for consistency with the City’s ATP to ensure
implementation of the ATP would not be impeded by development and that proposed pedestrian and
bicycle facilities comply with the ATP.
The Downtown Core Project would provide for increased activity adjacent to existing bus and rail transit
services and be consistent with regional plans to provide service improvements and increase ridership on
those services. Cumulative development within the City would also be reviewed to ensure it would not
conflict with existing transit services.
Overall, the proposed Project would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs regarding roadways,
bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities or the performance or safety of those facilities. The Project would
support the implementation of policies and programs to provide new and improved facilities to support
multi-modal transportation and access within the Project Area. Cumulative development within the City
would also be reviewed to ensure that proposed development would not conflict with the City’s policies,
plans, and programs related to the circulation system. The proposed Downtown Core Project’s
incremental contribution to cumulative circulation impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
VMT
A significant cumulative VMT impact would occur if there were a net increase in total regional VMT under
horizon year 2040 conditions. The total VMT within the City’s boundaries was calculated under the
Cumulative (2040) condition without and with implementation of the Project; refer to Table 5.14-3, VMT
Within Fontana City Boundary. The Cumulative VMT within the City under No Project conditions is
5,456,350. The Cumulative VMT with the proposed Project would be 5,484,250. Therefore, the Project
(under maximum development potential) would result in a citywide VMT increase of 27,900. This
corresponds to a 0.51 percent increase in the total VMT compared to the No Project scenario.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.14-19 Transportation
Table 5.14-3
VMT Within the Fontana City Boundary
Units Existing1 2040 Without
Project2
2040 With
Project
Total VMT 3,832,922 5,456,350 5,484,250
Source: Kittelson and Associates, 2022.
Notes:
1. Existing conditions correspond to the model base year 2016 conditions.
2. 2040 Without Project corresponds to 2040 conditions under currently adopted plans consisting of the
adopted General Plan network and land use; assumes allowable land use buildout with existing zoning.
To offset the 27,900 VMT increase with the Project, it would be necessary to reduce the cumulative VMT
generated by the Project. Under horizon year 2040, the Project would generate 989,134 total VMT
(including travel both within and outside the Fontana city boundary). As such, the VMT within the Project
Area would need to be reduced by 2.8 percent to address the 27,900 increase in VMT with the Project.
It should be noted that the SBTAM travel demand model used to estimate the Project’s VMT impacts does
not fully account for effects of the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit environment enhancements proposed
as part of the Project, which would promote pedestrian and bicycle travel and the use of transit. The
majority of the Project Area is within a Transit Priority Area and the Project would provide for a mix of
existing and new buildings, with the development of new residential units near transit and along major
corridors.
To assess the reduction in VMT with features of the Project, potential VMT reductions have been
identified from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity,
published in December 2021 (CAPCOA’s Handbook). The Project would primarily consist of transit-
oriented development (TOD), consistent with the definition in CAPCOA’s Handbook. CAPCOA’s Handbook
defines TOD projects as “built in compact, walkable areas that have easy access to public transit, ideally
in a location with a mix of uses, including housing, retail offices, and community facilities. Project site
residents, employees, and visitors would have easy access to high-quality public transit, thereby
encouraging transit ridership and reducing the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips.
For example, CAPCOA Measure T-3, Provide Transit-Oriented Development has been shown to reduce car
use and encourage use of transit, which can reduce VMT from between 6.9 to 31 percent. Assuming the
lower range reduction, the Project would have a daily VMT reduction of 67,836 (6.9% of 983,134). A
reduction of this magnitude due to the Project features would result in less VMT compared to 2040 No
Project conditions.
The proposed improvements to the transportation network and the new land uses associated with the
Project would be consistent with Measure T-3, and therefore could expect to have a reduction of in excess
of 27,900 VMT. Applying this reduction to the Cumulative Project-level VMT analysis indicates that the
Project would not result in an increase in the regional VMT. Therefore, the Project’s incremental
contribution to cumulative VMT would not be cumulatively consideration and impacts would be less than
significant.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.14-20 Transportation
HAZARDS AND EMERGENCY ACCESS
Site-specific development associated with Project implementation and cumulative development projects
would be evaluated through the City’s review process to ensure compatibility of uses, including
consistency with General Plan goals, policies, and actions and compliance with the City’s Municipal Code.
Individual development, including any proposed roadways or roadway modifications, would be required
to adhere to the City’s design and construction standards and specifications related to public
improvements to ensure hazard conditions would not occur. The proposed Project would not result in a
cumulative contribution to an increase in hazards and impacts would be less than significant.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Emergency
access associated with future site-specific development would be analyzed and evaluated in detail
through the City review process for those individual projects. Similarly, cumulative development projects
would be reviewed to ensure adequate emergency access is provided in compliance with applicable City
codes and regulations.
The Project’s proposed roadway modifications, resulting in the ultimate closure of a quarter-mile portion
of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic would not result in inadequate emergency access. Closure of a portion
of Sierra Avenue would also involve the conversion of Wheeler Avenue to a one-way northbound street,
and Nuevo Avenue to a one-way southbound street, providing continued emergency access within the
area. Further, the proposed closure and ultimate design of Sierra Avenue would be reviewed by the FFPD
to ensure that adequate emergency access would be maintained within the area. As stated, the proposed
modifications are within the interior of the Project Area and would not combine with other potential
roadway modifications that may be proposed by development outside of the Project Area. Any proposed
roadway modifications within the City would be analyzed and designed to ensure operation of the City’s
circulation system is consistent with the General Plan Community Mobility and Circulation Element.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulative contribution to inadequate emergency
access and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.14.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts associated with transportation would occur with the proposed Project.
5.14.8 REFERENCES
Kittelson & Associates, Inc., Fontana Downtown Core Project Transportation Study, January 2023.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.15-1 Tribal Cultural Resources
5.15 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
5.15.1 PURPOSE
This section discusses tribal cultural resources within the Project Area, and provides an analysis of
potential impacts associated with implementation of the Project. This section is based primarily on the
Fontana Forward: General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse No. 016021099) (City of Fontana, 2018).
5.15.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
ETHNOHISTORIC OVERVIEW
During the Ethnohistoric period two groups claimed this area as their use area. These were the Gabrielino
and the Serrano. Both of these groups trace their ancestry through artifacts, oral history, and cultural
traditions to the San Bernardino County areas. The Gabrielino territory lies mainly to the west and the
Serrano to the east from the City but the boundary is broad and undefined, allowing for interaction and
trade between the groups. Both groups practiced a hunting-gathering subsistence strategy and both were
decimated by disease and forceful eviction as more settlers discovered the rich valleys of historic San
Bernardino County.
Gabrielino
The group that inhabited much of southern California from the Pacific Coast near present day Los Angeles,
including three of the Channel Islands and, into the current San Bernardino County area were historically
referred to by association with the San Gabriel Mission. The name was spelled Gabrieliño or Gabrieleño
and although there is little evidence that they used a general name to define their cultural groups they
most likely identified by the community or area they were from. Today various groups prefer the
designation of Tongva or Kizh, rather than Gabrielino. This section will use the name Tongva for this group.
The Tongva territory encompassed a vast area that covered an area of more than 2,500 square miles (Bean
and Smith 1978, McCawley 1996). At European contact, the tribe consisted of more than 5,000 people
living in various settlements throughout the region. The Tongva are considered to have been one of the
wealthiest tribes and they appear to have greatly influenced tribes they traded with.
The Tongva practiced hunting and gathering economy and at the time of Spanish contact, as early as 1542
for coastal groups with the Cabrillo expedition, with plant foods playing a significant part of the Tongva
diet. Seeds were parched then ground and cooked as mush in various combinations according to
availability and personal preferences. Plant foods would be eaten raw or cooked and would also be dried
for storage. Bulbs, roots, and tubers were dug in the spring and summer and usually eaten fresh. Various
teas were made from flowers, fruits, stems, and roots for medicinal cures as well as beverages. The
principal game animals were deer, rabbit, jackrabbit, woodrat, mice, ground squirrels, antelope, quail,
dove, ducks, and other birds. Predators were largely avoided as food, as were tree squirrels and most
reptiles. Houses were domed, circular structures that were thatched with tule or similar materials. The
coastal Tongva groups are renowned for their workmanship of steatite and these artifacts were highly
prized. Common everyday steatite items were often decorated with inlaid shell or carvings reflecting the
intricately developed skill of the creator.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.15-2 Tribal Cultural Resources
Serrano
The Serrano, like the Tongva, occupied large areas of land that included the City. Their territory was as
diverse as the Tongva and included the San Gabriel and San Jacinto Mountains and the Mojave and
Colorado Desert. Historically, they have been referred to as Desert Serrano and Mountain Serrano. The
name Serrano, given the group by the Spanish, means “mountain dwellers”. Serrano who lived at
Yuhaviat, near present day Big Bear Lake, were called the Yuhaviatam, People of the Pines.
The Serrano practiced a hunting and gathering economy with an expansive variety of subsistence choices
ranging from the valleys and desert to the mountains. Plant food would have included honey mesquite,
acorn, pinyon, yucca, berries, and chia seeds. The cultural area of the Serrano would have allowed deer,
pronghorn, and bighorn sheep as well as small game such as rabbits, birds, and aquatic life from the
Mojave and Santa Ana Rivers. The desert and mountain Serrano would share resources to supplement
their local supplies. The Serrano used willow and yucca fiber to build dome-shaped homes, called a Kiic,
that measured 12-14-feet across. Yucca fiber, along with deergrass, and juncus were used to weave
magnificent baskets durable enough to hold water and hot stones and to boil water.
The Serrano, called kuko’mkar or qaqa’yvit by the Tongva, were able to avoid many of the disrupting
influences of Spanish settlers and the California Mission system until 1819 when an asistencia, a mission
outpost, was built in the what is now known as Redlands. After this time and until the secularization in
1834, many Serrano were forcibly removed from their homelands to missions. In 1866 militia forces killed
many Serrano men, women, and children in a 32-day campaign. A Yuhaviatam tribal leader named Santos
Manuel safely led the remaining Yuhaaviatam from their mountain homelands to valley floor. The San
Manual Reservation, and associated San Manual Band of Mission Indians, are named in honor of this
heroic leader.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
As discussed in Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, over 80 previously recorded prehistoric and historic-era
archaeological sites have been identified in the City. Prehistoric sensitivity in Fontana is mostly
concentrated in the southern and northern portions of the City. A cluster of prehistoric sites was
previously identified in the southern portion of the City and has been interpreted by archaeologists to be
the remains of an important Native American village with associated campsites and habitation sites
nearby. The majority of the prehistoric sites within the City represent evidence of Native American food-
processing activity, such as bedrock milling features, which are common to the area. All of the prehistoric
sites previously identified are clustered along the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains and the Jurupa
Hills.
NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION
A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
on November 21, 2022. NAHC’s response stated the SLF search had been completed with positive results
and included a list of Native American individuals or tribal organizations that may have knowledge of
cultural resources within or near the Project site.
The City of Fontana conducted Native American consultations under Senate Bill (SB) 18 (Chapter 905,
Statutes of 2004), which requires local governments to consult with Tribes prior to making certain
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.15-3 Tribal Cultural Resources
planning decisions and requires consultation and notice for a general and specific plan adoption or
amendments in order to preserve, or mitigate impacts to, cultural places that may be affected. In addition
to SB 18 consultation, the City conducted tribal consultations under the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 subdivisions (b), (d) and (e)),
also known as Assembly Bill (AB) 52, which requires consulting for projects within the City of Fontana’s
jurisdiction and within the traditional territory of the Tribal Organizations who have previously requested
AB 52 consultations with the City.
On November 30, 2022, December 12, 2022, and December 20, 2022, the City of Fontana sent letters via
certified mail to Native American individuals and/or Tribal Organizations in compliance with AB 52 and SB
18; refer to Appendix F, Tribal Consultation/Correspondence. The City received a response from one tribe,
the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (formerly known as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians). The
Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (YSMN) noted the Project Area exists within Serrano ancestral
territory and is of interest to the Tribe.
5.15.3 REGULATORY SETTING
FEDERAL
National Historic Preservation Act
Enacted in 1966 and amended in 2000, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) declared a national
policy of historic preservation and instituted a multifaceted program, administered by the Secretary of
the Interior, to encourage the achievement of preservation goals at federal, State, and local levels. The
NHPA authorized the expansion and maintenance of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP),
established the position of State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and provided for the designation of
State Review Boards, set up a mechanism to certify local governments to carry out the purposes of the
NHPA, assisted Native American tribes to preserve their cultural heritage, and created the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).
Section 106 Process
Through regulations associated with the NHPA, an impact to a cultural resource would be considered
significant if government action would affect a resource listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP. The
NHPA codifies a list of cultural resources found to be significant within the context of national history, as
determined by a technical process of evaluation. Resources that have not yet been placed on the NRHP,
and are yet to be evaluated, are afforded protection under the Act until shown not to be significant.
Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800) state
that for a cultural resource to be determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, the resource must meet
specific criteria associated with historic significance and possess certain levels of integrity of form,
location, and setting. The criteria for listing on the NRHP are applied within an analysis when there is some
question as to the significance of a cultural resource. The criteria for evaluation are defined as the quality
of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. This quality must
be present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A property is eligible for the NRHP if it is
significant under one or more of the following criteria:
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.15-4 Tribal Cultural Resources
• Criterion A: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
• Criterion B: It is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
• Criterion C: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction; or
• Criterion D: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Criterion (D) is usually reserved for archaeological resources. Eligible cultural resources must meet at least
one of the above criteria and exhibit integrity, measured by the degree to which the resource retains its
historical properties and conveys its historical character.
The Section 106 evaluation process does not apply to projects undertaken under City environmental
compliance jurisdiction. However, should the undertaking require funding, permits, or other
administrative actions issued or overseen by a Federal agency, analysis of potential impacts to cultural
resources following the Section 106 process would likely be necessary. The Section 106 process typically
excludes cultural resources created less than 50 years ago unless the resource is considered highly
significant from the local perspective. Finally, the Section 106 process allows local concerns to be voiced
and the Section 106 process must consider aspects of local significance before a judgment is rendered.
STATE
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires a lead agency determine whether a project may have a significant effect on historical
resources (Public Resources Code Section 21084.1). A historical resource is a resource listed in, or
determined to be eligible for listing, in the CRHR, a resource included in a local register of historical
resources, or any object building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency
determines to be historically significant (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5[a][1-3]).
A resource is considered historically significant if it meets any of the following criteria:
1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California’s history and cultural heritage;
2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
In addition, if it can be demonstrated that a project would cause damage to a unique archaeological
resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources
to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left
undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (Public Resources Code Section 21083.2[a], [b], and [c]).
Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.15-5 Tribal Cultural Resources
artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the
current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
• Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that
there is a demonstrable public interest in that information;
• Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available
example of its type; or
• Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person.
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)
Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the CRHR is “an authoritative guide in California to be used by
State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the State’s historical resources and to
indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse
change.” Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP
and California Historical Landmarks numbered 770 and higher, are automatically included in the CRHR.
Other properties recognized under the California Points of Historical Interest program, identified as
significant in historical resources surveys, or designated by local landmarks programs, may be nominated
for inclusion in the CRHR. A resource, either an individual property or a contributor to a historic district,
may be listed in the CRHR if the State Historical Resources Commission determines that it meets one or
more of the criteria modeled on the NRHP criteria.
Public Resources Code Section 5097 (Related to Cultural Resources)
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097 addresses the disposition of Native American burials
in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction;
establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during
construction of a project; and establishes the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to
resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains. It has been incorporated into Section
15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines.
The NAHC, created in statute in 1976 (Chapter 1332, Statutes of 1976), is a nine-member body whose
members are appointed by the Governor. The NAHC identifies, catalogs, and protects Native American
cultural resources -- ancient places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans and
known ancient graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private and public lands in California. The
NAHC is also charged with ensuring California Native American tribes’ accessibility to ancient Native
American cultural resources on public lands, overseeing the treatment and disposition of inadvertently
discovered Native American human remains and burial items, and administering the California Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (CalNAGPRA), among many other powers and duties.
(NAHC)
PRC Sections 5097.9 through 5097.991 establish that no public agency or private party using or occupying
public property (or operating on under a public license, permit, grant, lease or contract made after July 1,
1977) shall in any manner interfere with the free expression or exercise of Native American religion as
provided in the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution. It also prohibits such agencies and parties
from causing severe or irreparable damage to any Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship,
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.15-6 Tribal Cultural Resources
religious or ceremonial site or sacred shrine located on public property, except on a clear and convincing
showing that the public interest and necessity so require it.
These sections also establish the state’s NAHC. The NAHC is tasked with working to ensure the
preservation and protection of Native American human remains, associated grave goods and cultural
resources. Towards this end, the NAHC has a strategic plan for assisting the public, development
communities, local and federal agencies, educational institutions and California Native Americans to
better understand problems relating to the protection and preservation of cultural resources and to serve
as a tool to resolve these problems. In 2006, PRC Sections 5097.91 and 5097.98 were amended by
Assembly Bill 2641 to authorize the NAHC to bring legal action when necessary to prevent damage to
Native American burial grounds or places of worship. It also established more specific procedures to be
implemented in the event that Native American remains are discovered.
California Health and Safety Code (Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054)
Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054 of the California Health and Safety Code collectively address the illegality
of interference with human burial remains (except as allowed under applicable sections of the PRC), as
well as the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from
disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; and establish procedures to be implemented if Native
American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, including procedures for
treatment of the remains prior to, during, and after evaluation, and reburial procedures.
Senate Bill 18
Signed into law in 2004, Senate Bill (SB) 18 requires that cities and counties notify and consult with
California Native American Tribes about proposed local land use planning decisions for the purpose of
protecting traditional tribal cultural sites. Cities and counties must provide general and specific plan
amendment proposals to California Native American Tribes that have been identified by the Native
American Heritage Commission as having traditional lands located within the city’s boundaries. If
requested by the Native American Tribes, the city must also conduct consultations with the tribes prior to
adopting or amending their general and specific plans.
Assembly Bill 52 (Gatto, 2014)
On September 25, 2014, Governor Brown signed AB 52. In recognition of California Native American tribal
sovereignty and the unique relationship of California local governments and public agencies with
California Native American tribal governments, and respecting the interests and roles of project
proponents, of the stated goals of AB 52 are the following:
1) Recognize that California Native American prehistoric, historic, archaeological, cultural, and
sacred places are essential elements in tribal cultural traditions, heritages, and identities.
2) Establish a new category of resources in CEQA called “tribal cultural resources” that considers the
tribal cultural values in addition to the scientific and archaeological values when determining
impacts and mitigation.
3) Establish examples of mitigation measures for tribal cultural resources that uphold the existing
mitigation preference for historical and archaeological resources of preservation in place, if
feasible.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.15-7 Tribal Cultural Resources
4) Recognize that California Native American tribes may have expertise with regard to their tribal
history and practices, which concern the tribal cultural resources with which they are traditionally
and culturally affiliated. Because CEQA calls for a sufficient degree of analysis, tribal knowledge
about the land and tribal cultural resources at issue should be included in environmental
assessments for projects that may have a significant impact on those resources.
5) In recognition of their governmental status, establish a meaningful consultation process between
California Native American tribal governments and lead agencies, respecting the interests and
roles of all California Native American tribes and project proponents, and the level of required
confidentiality concerning tribal cultural resources, at the earliest possible point in CEQA
environmental review process, so that tribal cultural resources can be identified, and culturally
appropriate mitigation and mitigation monitoring programs can be considered by the decision
making body of the lead agency.
6) Recognize the unique history of California Native American tribes and uphold existing rights of all
California Native American tribes to participate in, and contribute their knowledge to, the
environmental review process pursuant to CEQA.
7) Ensure that local and tribal governments, public agencies, and project proponents have
information available, early in CEQA environmental review process, for purposes of identifying
and addressing potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources and to reduce the potential
for delay and conflicts in the environmental review process.
8) Enable California Native American tribes to manage and accept conveyances of, and act as
caretakers of, tribal cultural resources.
9) Establish that a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource has a significant effect on
the environment.
AB 52 establishes a tribal consultation procedure designed to incorporate tribal knowledge into the CEQA
environmental review and decision-making processes. Under AB 52, California tribes have the ability to
establish, through a formal notice letter, a standing request to consult with a lead agency regarding any
proposed project subject to CEQA in the geographic area with which the tribe is traditionally and culturally
affiliated. Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a
public agency to undertake a project, a lead agency must provide formal notification to the designated
contact or tribal representative of traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes
that have requested notice. Notice to the tribes must include a brief project description, the project
location, and the lead agency’s contact information. A tribe then has 30 days to request consultation. If
the tribe does not respond in that period or writes to decline consultation, the lead agency has no further
obligation. If the tribe requests consultation, the lead agency must begin the consultation within 30 days
and prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental
impact report for that proposed project.
LOCAL
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural
resources. Chapter 4, Community and Neighborhoods Element of the Fontana General Plan contains the
following goals and policies potentially relevant to the proposed Project:
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.15-8 Tribal Cultural Resources
Chapter 4 – Community and Neighborhoods
• Goal 1: The integrity and character of historic structures, cultural resources sites and overall
historic character of the city of Fontana is maintained and enhanced.
o Policy: Coordinate City programs and policies to support preservation goals.
o Policy: Support and promote community-based historic preservation initiatives.
o Policy: Designate local historic landmarks.
o Policy: Provide appropriate tools to review changes that may detract from historic
integrity and character.
• Goal 2: Residents’ and visitors’ experiences of Fontana are enhanced by a sense of the city’s
history.
o Policy: Enhance public awareness of Fontana’s unique historical and cultural legacy and
the economic benefits of historic preservation in Fontana.
o Policy: Support creation of the Fontana Historical Museum.
• Goal 3: Cultural and archaeological resources are protected and preserved.
o Policy: Collaborate with state agencies to protect cultural and archaeological resources.
5.15.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Initial Study
Environmental Checklist, which includes questions related to tribal cultural resources. A project may
create a significant environmental impact if it would:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
o Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)
(refer to Impact Statement 5.15-1); or
o A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe (refer to Impact Statement 5.15-1).
Based on these standards and significance thresholds and criteria, the Project’s effects have been
categorized as either “no impact,” a “less than significant impact,” or a “potentially significant impact.”
Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant
impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant impact through the application of mitigation, it is
categorized as a “significant unavoidable impact.”
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.15-9 Tribal Cultural Resources
5.15.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 5.15-1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and
that is:
• Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
• A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Impact Analysis: As described in Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, over 80 previously recorded prehistoric
and historic-era archaeological sites have been identified in the City. Prehistoric sensitivity in Fontana is
mostly concentrated in the southern and northern portions of the City. All of the prehistoric sites
previously identified are clustered along the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains and the Jurupa Hills,
outside of the Project Area.
Prehistoric archaeological sites and isolates are tribal cultural resources; additionally, plants and other
natural resources, as well as geographic locations can also be a tribal cultural resource. Grading of original
in situ soils could expose buried tribal cultural resources and features including sacred sites. Prehistoric
sensitivity in Fontana is mostly concentrated in the southern and northern portions of the City, outside of
the Project Area. Although the Downtown Core area is primarily urbanized and has experienced extensive
ground-disturbance, there is the potential that tribal cultural resources could occur below the surface.
While the Downtown Core Project does not directly propose site-specific development with the potential
to directly impact a tribal cultural resource, future development within the Project Area could cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. This is considered a potentially
significant impact.
According to the General Plan EIR, the City of Fontana is located within the Tongva and Serrano traditional
use area. At the time of publication of the Draft EIR, one tribe, the YSMN contacted the City in response
to the City’s correspondence notifying Native American individuals and/or Tribal Organizations of the
proposed Project in compliance with AB 52 and SB 18. The YSMN noted that the Project Area exists within
Serrano ancestral territory and is therefore of interest to the Tribe. The YSMN further stated that due to
the nature and location of the proposed Project, and given their Cultural Resources Management (CRM)
Department’s present state of knowledge, YSMN does not have any concerns with the Project’s
implementation, as planned at this time. YSMN requests mitigation measures be made part of the Project
regarding the potential discovery of cultural resources during Project activities.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.15-10 Tribal Cultural Resources
The Fontana General Plan contains goals, policies, and actions to identify and protect cultural resources
within the City, including tribal cultural resources. In addition, future development associated with
implementation of the proposed Project would be required to implement General Plan EIR mitigation
measure MM-CUL-1 (incorporated as Mitigation Measure CUL-1; refer to Section 5.4, Cultural Resources),
which requires a qualified archaeologist to perform a number of tasks prior to construction activities,
including conducting a field survey for historical resources within portions of the project site not
previously surveyed if evidence suggests the potential for resources to exist. In addition, future
development associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be required to implement
General Plan EIR mitigation measures MM-CUL-2 and MM-CUL-3 (incorporated as Mitigation Measures
CUL-2; refer to Section 5.4, Cultural Resources and herein as Mitigation Measure TCR-1). Mitigation
Measure CUL-2 would ensure that if any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or
during grading, the developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities and
to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. Additionally, Mitigation Measure
CUL-2 has been updated to include implementation of TCR-1 in the event Native American cultural
resources are discovered. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would require that in the event Native American
cultural resources are discovered during construction for future development, all work in the immediate
vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall
be hired to assess the find; that the archaeologist, in coordination with the City/project applicant, contact
YSMN, as well as other Native American tribal entities, of any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural
resources discovered during project implementation, and prepare a cultural resources Monitoring and
Treatment Plan if the find is determined to be significant. The Monitoring and Treatment Plan would
provide for a Native American monitor for the remainder of project activities associated with ground
disturbance and for archaeological/cultural documents be supplied to the applicant and City of Fontana
Planning Department for dissemination to YSMN and other Tribe(s) determined to have cultural affiliation.
Subsequent development within the Project Area would be required to comply with existing federal,
State, and local regulations, including the Fontana General Plan and Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2,
and TCR-1, which would reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: In addition to Mitigation Measure TCR-1, refer to Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and
CUL-2:
TCR-1: Site-specific development projects shall implement the following:
• In the event Native American cultural resources are discovered during construction for
future development, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer)
shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be
hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the project site outside of the
buffered area may continue during this assessment period;
• The archaeologist, in coordination with the applicant and City of Fontana Planning
Department, shall contact the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel National Cultural Resources
Department (YSMN), as well as any other Native American tribal entity (as determined by a
qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards) of any pre-contact and/or
historic-era cultural resources discovered during project implementation. The Tribe(s) shall
be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.15-11 Tribal Cultural Resources
regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by
CEQA, a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the
archaeologist, in coordination with YSMN and any other Tribe determined to have cultural
affiliation to the area, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. A copy of the
Plan shall be provided to the City of Fontana Planning Department. The Plan shall identify
how Tribal Cultural Resources will be recovered and retained. This Plan shall allow for a
monitor to be present that represents YSMN and/or other Tribe(s) determined to have
cultural affiliation for the remainder of project activities associated with ground
disturbance, should YSMN or another Tribe(s) elect to place a monitor on-site; determined
to have cultural affiliation to be present for the remainder of project activities associated
with ground disturbance;
• Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as part of the project (isolate
records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant
and City of Fontana Planning Department for dissemination to YSMN and other Tribe(s)
determined to have cultural affiliation. (General Plan EIR MM-CUL-3, updated)
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
5.15.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Analysis: Tribal cultural resource impacts are site specific and generally do not combine to result
in cumulative impacts. Construction of the individual development projects associated with
implementation of the Downtown Core Project may result in the discovery and removal of tribal cultural
resources. The Fontana General Plan policies and actions, as well as federal, State, and local regulations,
including required mitigation measures, would reduce the risk to tribal cultural resources in the region.
As discussed above, site-specific development with the potential to impact tribal cultural resources would
require a resource assessment and coordination with the tribes to determine the potential for tribal
cultural resources and identification of mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts associated with
the proposed development. Adherence to existing federal, State and local regulations would avoid and/or
minimize a cumulative loss of tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the Project’s incremental contribution
to cumulative tribal cultural resource impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.15.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts associated with tribal cultural resources would occur with the
proposed Project.
5.15.8 REFERENCES
City of Fontana, Fontana Forward: General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report,
June 2018.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.15-12 Tribal Cultural Resources
This page intentionally left blank.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.16-1 Utilities and Service Systems
5.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
5.16.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this section is to identify the existing regulatory and environmental setting related to
utilities and service systems that serve the Project Area and assess potential environmental impacts that
could result from Project implementation. Utilities and service systems addressed in this section include
water, wastewater (sewer), solid waste, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities;
stormwater is discussed in Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.
5.16.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
WATER
The Project Area is served by the Fontana Water Company (FWC), a division of the San Gabriel Valley
Water Company (West Yost Associates, 2021). The FWC 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)
was prepared in accordance with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act, Water Code
Sections 10610 through 10657. The UWMP includes an assessment of past and future water supplies and
demands, evaluation of the future reliability of water supplies, water conservation and water
management activities, discussion of water recycling activities, contingency planning for water shortages,
and evaluation of distribution system water losses.
According to the 2020 UWMP, FWC’s service area encompasses approximately 52 square miles in the San
Bernardino Valley. FWC is responsible for providing water utility service to a population of about 237,000
people within its certificated service area (as of 2020). These jurisdictional boundaries include most of the
City of Fontana (including the Project Area), portions of the Cities of Rialto and Rancho Cucamonga, and
unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County. FWC’s water supply sources include local groundwater
and local and imported surface water. Local groundwater basins include: Chino Basin, an adjudicated
basin and the primary groundwater source for FWC; Rialto-Colton Basin, an adjudicated basin; Lytle Basin,
an adjudicated basin; and No Man’s Land Basin, which is managed through Rialto-Colton Basin. Local
surface water from Lytle Creek and untreated imported State Water Project surface water from the Inland
Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) is treated
at FWC’s Summit Surface Water Treatment Plant (Summit Plant). FWC’s pumping, transmission, and
treatment facilities include groundwater wells with a total pumping capacity of approximately 41,000
gallons per minute (gpm); reservoirs with a total useable storage capacity of approximately 33.81 million
gallons of water; the Summit Plant, which can treat up to 29 million gallons per day (MGD);
interconnections to IEUA and SBVMWD; and approximately 690 miles of pipelines to transport water.
The 2020 UWMP’s Table 7-4, Table 7-5, and Table 7-6 concludes that FWC’s supplies are expected to meet
demands in normal, single dry, and multiple dry year conditions through 2045; see Table 5.16-1, FWC
Service Reliability Assessment for Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Years.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.16-2 Utilities and Service Systems
Table 5.16-1
FWC Service Reliability Assessment for Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Years
Demand and Supply Projections
(acre-feet) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Normal Year
Supply Totals 45,593 46,909 48,665 50,442 51,943
Demand Totals 45,593 46,909 48,665 50,442 51,943
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Single Dry Year
Total Water Demand 34,006 34,987 36,297 37,623 38,742
Post-Conservation Demand 34,006 34,987 36,297 37,623 38,742
Total Supplies 0 0 0 0 0
Multiple Dry Years (Year 1)
Total Water Demand 42,886 44,124 45,776 47,447 48,859
Post-Conservation Demand 42,886 44,124 45,776 47,447 48,859
Total Supplies 0 0 0 0 0
Multiple Dry Years (Year 2)
Total Water Demand 41,415 42,610 44,206 45,820 47,183
Post-Conservation Demand 41,415 42,610 44,206 45,820 47,183
Total Supplies 0 0 0 0 0
Multiple Dry Years (Year 3)
Total Water Demand 34,074 35,057 36,369 37,697 38,819
Post-Conservation Demand 34,074 35,057 36,369 37,697 38,819
Total Supplies 0 0 0 0 0
Multiple Dry Years (Year 4)
Total Water Demand 34,006 34,987 36,297 37,623 38,742
Post-Conservation Demand 34,006 34,987 36,297 37,623 38,742
Total Supplies 0 0 0 0 0
Multiple Dry Years (Year 5)
Total Water Demand 36,526 37,580 38,987 40,411 41,613
Post-Conservation Demand 36,526 37,580 38,987 40,411 41,613
Total Supplies 0 0 0 0 0
Source: West Yost Associates, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, 2021.
According to the UWMP, water use projections for 2025 to 2045 are based on a usage of 165 gallons per
capita per day (West Yost Associates, 2021). As indicated in Section 3.0, Project Description, approximately
2,020 dwelling units are located within the Project Area. Based on the 2022 California Department of
Finance estimated household size of 3.79 persons per household, the Project Area’s existing population is
approximately 7,656 people. Therefore, existing water use within the Project Area is approximately 1.26
MGD, or approximately 1,415 acre-feet per year (AFY).
As indicated in the General Plan EIR, much of the City’s anticipated growth is directed to areas in and
around the urban core of the City where water delivery infrastructure already exists. The General Plan EIR
does not anticipate the need for major water infrastructure to serve growth anticipated by the General
Plan, besides maintenance over time and service extension to new service areas.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.16-3 Utilities and Service Systems
WASTEWATER
The City owns Fontana’s wastewater collection system of over 400 miles of sanitary sewer lines, ranging
in size from 4-inches to 48-inches in diameter (CDM Smith, 2013). Wastewater treatment services in the
Project Area are provided by IEUA, a regional wastewater treatment agency that provides sewage utility
services to the City of Fontana and six other contracting agencies under the Chino Basin Regional Sewage
Service Contract (IEUA, 2022a). Wastewater from the Project Area is diverted to the San Bernardino
Avenue Lift Station and then to the IEUA Regional Water Reclamation Plant No. 4 (RP-4) (CDM Smith,
2013). RP-4, located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, has a treatment capacity of up to 14 MGD and
currently treats the liquid portion of an average influent wastewater flow of approximately 10 MGD (IEUA,
2022b). Based on Section 23-316 of the City’s Municipal Code, which calculates sewer connection charges
based upon 270 gallons per residential equivalent dwelling unit, the Project Area currently generates
approximately 545,400 gallons per day of residential wastewater. Based on the General Plan EIR’s
wastewater generation factors (Table 5.12-8) of 10.76 gallons per acre per day for commercial and
industrial uses and 5.38 gallons per acre per day for public facilities uses, the Project Area currently
generates approximately 282.9 gallons per day of non-residential wastewater. Therefore, the Project Area
currently generates approximately 0.5 MGD of wastewater.
Local sanitary sewer pipes ranging from 8- to 18-inches are located adjacent to the Project Area. The City’s
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan identifies capacity deficiencies and recommended improvements to the sewer
system within the City. The Sanitary Sewer Master Plan identified 2.07 miles of deficient sewers within
the City under the build-out scenario, however, no deficiencies were identified within the Project Area
(CDM Smith, 2013).
SOLID WASTE
Burrtec Waste Industries provides solid waste and recycling collection services to the City, including the
Project Area (City of Fontana, 2022). Waste from Fontana is disposed of at a number of solid waste
facilities, with the majority of waste disposed at the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (CalRecycle, 2022a). The
City generated approximately 172,682 tons of solid waste in 2019, with approximately 70 percent of that
waste hauled to the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill, located in Rialto, California. The facility is located on
498.00 acres, 408.00 of which are used for disposal (CalRecycle, 2022b). At this time, Mid-Valley Sanitary
Landfill has an expected closure date of 2045. The Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill has a maximum permitted
capacity of 101,300,000 cubic yards, with a remaining capacity of 61,219,377 cubic yards as of 2019.
ELECTRICAL POWER, NATURAL GAS, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Electrical power to the area is provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) (City of Fontana, 2022).
Electricity service is provided by a network of overhead and underground transmission lines. SCE obtains
electricity from various generating sources that utilize natural gas, fossil fuels, hydroelectric sources,
nuclear energy, and renewable resources, such as solar and wind (SCE, 2022). Natural gas service in the
area is provided by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) (City of Fontana, 2022). Various
companies provide telecommunications within the City, including AT&T, Spectrum, and Frontier
(HighSpeedInternet.com, 2022). SCE, SoCalGas, and local telecommunications companies operate and
maintain transmission and distribution infrastructure in the Project Area. Existing electrical transmission
lines and an electrical substation owned by SCE are located adjacent to the Project Area, along Juniper
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.16-4 Utilities and Service Systems
Avenue (California Energy Commission, 2022). A natural gas transmission line and high pressure
distribution line owned and operated by SoCalGas traverse the Project Area (SoCalGas, 2022). Existing
telecommunications infrastructure includes telecommunication lines within and adjacent to the Project
Area.
5.16.3 REGULATORY SETTING
Refer to Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality for a discussion of the regulatory setting specific to
stormwater.
FEDERAL
Water
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974
The Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to set national
health-based standards for drinking water to protect against both naturally-occurring and man-made
contaminants that may be found in drinking water. The USEPA, states, and water systems then work
together to make sure that these standards are met. Originally, the Safe Drinking Water Act focused
primarily on treatment as the means of providing safe drinking water at the tap. The 1996 amendments
greatly enhanced the existing law by recognizing source water protection, operator training, funding for
water system improvements, and public information as important components of safe drinking water.
This approach ensures the quality of drinking water by protecting it from source to tap. The Safe Drinking
Water Act applies to every public water system in the United States.
Wastewater
Federal Clean Water Act (33 USC Sections 1251, Et Seq.)
The Clean Water Act’s (CWA) primary goals are to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the nation’s waters and to make all surface waters fishable and swimmable. The
CWA forms the basic national framework for the management of water quality and the control of pollution
discharges; it provides the legal framework for several water quality regulations, including the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), effluent limitations, water quality standards,
pretreatment standards, antidegradation policy, nonpoint-source discharge programs, and wetlands
protection. The USEPA has delegated the responsibility for administration of CWA portions to state and
regional agencies. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the NPDES
permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES permitting requirements. The SWRCB works
in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to preserve, protect, enhance,
and restore water quality.
Solid Waste
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations),
Part 258 contains regulations for municipal solid waste landfills and requires states to implement their
own permitting programs incorporating the Federal landfill criteria. The Federal regulations address the
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.16-5 Utilities and Service Systems
location, operation, design (liners, leachate collection, run-off control, etc.), groundwater monitoring, and
closure of landfills.
STATE
Water
State of California Water Recycling Act
Enacted in 1991, the Water Recycling Act established water recycling as a state priority. The Water
Recycling Act encourages municipal wastewater treatment districts to implement recycling programs to
reduce local water demands.
California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3 Water Recycling Criteria
California regulates the wastewater treatment process and use of recycled water pursuant to CCR Title
22, Division 4, Chapter 3, Water Recycling Criteria. According to these regulations, recycled water to be
used for irrigation of public areas must be filtered and disinfected to tertiary standards.
California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Chapter 15, Article 20, Consumer Confidence Report
California requires all public water systems to prepare a Consumer Confidence Report for distribution to
its customers and to the Department of Health Services. The Consumer Confidence Report provides
information regarding the quality of potable water provided by the water system. It includes information
on the sources of the water, any detected contaminants in the water, the maximum contaminants levels
set by regulation, violations and actions taken to correct them, and opportunities for public participation
in decisions that may affect the quality of the water provided.
California Department of Health Services
The Department of Health Services, Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management, oversees
the Drinking Water Program. The Drinking Water Program regulates public water systems and certifies
drinking water treatment and distribution operators. It provides support for small water systems and for
improving their technical, managerial, and financial capacity. It provides subsidized funding for water
system improvements under the State Revolving Fund and Proposition 50 programs. The Drinking Water
Program also oversees water recycling projects, permits water treatment devices, supports and promotes
water system security, and oversees the Drinking Water Treatment and Research Fund for methyl tert-
butyl ether and other oxygenates.
California Urban Water Management Planning Act
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act (California Water Code [CWC] Division 6, Part 2.6,
§§10610-10656) addresses several State policies regarding water conservation and the development of
water management plans to ensure the efficient use of available supplies. The California Urban Water
Management Planning Act also requires water suppliers to prepare an UWMP every five years to identify
short-term and long-term water demand management measures to meet growing water demands during
normal, dry, and multiple-dry years. Specifically, municipal water suppliers that serve more than 3,000
customers or provide more than 3,000 AFY of water must adopt an UWMP.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.16-6 Utilities and Service Systems
Senate Bill 610
Water Code Sections 10610 to 10656 require water suppliers to prepare an UWMP to promote water
demand management and efficient use in their service areas. UWMPs are included with the
environmental document for specified projects. Concerning water supply, the Water Code requires
preparation of a Water Supply Assessment for certain projects. The Water Code requires that a Water
Supply Assessment be prepared for any “project” which would consist of one or more of the following:
• A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units;
• A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or
having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space;
• A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or
having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space;
• A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than
250,000 square feet of floor space;
• A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms;
• A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house
more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000
square feet of floor area;
• A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified above; or
• A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of
water required by a 500-dwelling unit project.
Senate Bill 221
Senate Bill 221 (SB 221) amended State law, effective January 1, 2002, to improve the link between
information on water supply availability and land use at the tentative map preparation phase of a project.
SB 610 and SB 221 are companion measures which seek to:
• Promote more collaborative planning between local water suppliers and cities and counties;
• Require detailed information regarding water availability be provided to city and county decision-
makers prior to approval of specific large development projects;
• Require that this detailed information be included in the administrative record that serves as the
evidentiary basis for an approval action by the city or county on such projects; and
• Recognize local control and decision making regarding the availability of water for projects and
the approval of projects.
SB 221 pertains only to residential projects and establishes the relationship between the Water Supply
Assessment prepared for a project and the project approval under the Subdivision Map Act. Accordingly,
the proposed Project is not subject to SB 221.
Water Efficiency Standards
CCR Title 24 contains the CBSC, including the California Plumbing Code (Part 5), which promotes water
conservation. CCR Title 20 addresses public utilities and energy and includes appliance efficiency
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.16-7 Utilities and Service Systems
standards that promote water conservation. In addition, a number of California laws listed below require
water-efficient plumbing fixtures in structures:
• CCR Title 20 Section 1604(g) establishes efficiency standards that give the maximum flow rate of
all new showerheads, lavatory faucets, sink faucets, and tub spout diverters.
• CCR Title 20 Section 1606 prohibits the sale of fixtures that do not comply with established
efficiency regulations.
• CCR Title 24 Sections 25352(i) and (j) address pipe insulation requirements, which can reduce
water used before hot water reaches equipment or fixtures. Insulation of water- heating systems
is also required.
• Health and Safety Code Section 17921.3 requires low-flush toilets and urinals in virtually all
buildings.
California Green Building Standards Code
The 2022 California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code sets standards for new buildings and
development projects with the purpose of improving public health, safety, and general welfare by
enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced
negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in
several categories, including but not limited to, water efficiency and conservation. The 2022 CALGreen
Code includes several amendments to the 2019 CALGreen Code, including new voluntary prerequisites
for builders to choose from, such as battery storage system controls and heat pump space, and water
heating, to encourage building electrification. Local jurisdictions also retain the administrative authority
to exceed the CALGreen standards. The 2022 CALGreen Code went into effect Statewide on January 1,
2023.
Solid Waste
California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939)
The Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) (California Public Resources Code Section
40050 et seq.) established an integrated waste management system that focuses on source reduction,
recycling, composting, and land disposal of waste. AB 939 requires every city and county in California to
divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills whether through waste reduction, recycling, or other means.
Compliance with AB 939 is measured in part by comparing solid waste disposal rates for a jurisdiction with
target disposal rates. Actual rates at or below target rates are consistent with AB 939. AB 939 also requires
California counties to show 15 years of disposal capacity for all jurisdictions in the county or show a plan
to transform or divert its waste.
Assembly Bill 341
Assembly Bill 341 (AB 341), which took effect on July 1, 2012, was designed to help meet California’s
recycling goal of 75 percent by the year 2020. AB 341 made “…a legislative declaration that it is the policy
goal of the state that not less than 75 percent of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or
composted by the year 2020…” AB 431 requires a business, defined to include a commercial or public
entity that generates more than 4 cubic yards (CY) of commercial solid waste per week or a multifamily
residential dwelling of 5 units or more to arrange for recycling services. Such business/residential
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.16-8 Utilities and Service Systems
development must: 1) source separate recyclable materials from the solid waste they are discarding, and
either self-haul or arrange for separate collection of the recyclables; and 2) subscribe to a service that
includes mixed waste processing that yields diversion results comparable to source separation.
Assembly Bill 1826
Assembly Bill 1826 (AB 1826) (California Public Resources Code Sections 42649.8 et seq.) requires
recycling of organic matter by businesses generating such wastes in amounts over certain thresholds. AB
1826 also requires that local jurisdictions implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic
waste generated by businesses and multi-family developments that consist of five or more units.
Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
California Electrical Code
The California Electrical Code is codified in Title 24, CCR, Part 3. The Electrical Code contains regulations
including, but not limited to, electrical materials, electrical wiring, overcurrent protection, grounding, and
installation.
LOCAL
Inland Empire Utilities Agency Sewer System Management Plan
IEUA is a regional wastewater treatment agency that provides wastewater services to the City under the
Chino Basin Regional Sewage Service Contract (IEUA, 2022a). The goal of the IEUA Sewer System
Management Plan (SSMP), adopted April 2019, is to provide a plan and schedule to properly manage,
operate, and maintain all parts of the sanitary sewer system.
Chino Basin Management Plan
The 1978 Chino Basin Judgment adjudicated water rights within the Chino Subbasin and established the
Chino Basin Watermaster to develop and implement the Optimum Basin Management Program (OBMP).
Water rights in the Chino Basin are held by representatives of three stakeholder groups, called Pools. The
three Pools are: the Overlying Agricultural Pool, representing dairymen, farmers, and the State of
California; the Overlying Non-agricultural Pool, representing area industries; and the Appropriative Pool,
representing local cities, public water districts, and private water companies (Kennedy Jenks, 2021). The
court judgment allocates groundwater rights by establishing an annual pumping “safe yield” for each Pool.
To the extent that pumping exceeds the share of the safe yield, assessments are levied by the
Watermaster to replace the overproduction. The assessments are used to purchase untreated imported
water to recharge the groundwater basin. The Judgment established a safe yield of 140,000 AFY for the
entire Basin, which was reset to 131,000 AFY effective 2021. In compliance with the Judgment, the Chino
Basin Watermaster submits an Annual Report to the RWQCB. The Annual Report provides an accounting
and audit for the previous year.
Since 2000, the OBMP has been the planning document guiding management of the basin. The Chino
Basin Watermaster recently completed the 2020 OBMP Update; a Supplemental EIR is anticipated to be
recirculated in mid-2023.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.16-9 Utilities and Service Systems
City of Fontana General Plan
The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce potential impacts to utilities and
service systems. Chapter 10, Infrastructure and Green Systems, and Chapter 12, Sustainability and
Resilience Elements of the Fontana General Plan contain the following goals and policies potentially
relevant to the proposed Project:
Chapter 10 – Infrastructure and Green Systems
• Goal 1: Fontana collaborates with public and private agencies for an integrated and sustainable
water resource management program.
o Policy: Support initiatives to provide a long-term supply of the right water for the right
use through working with regional providers and the One Water One Watershed Plan.
• Goal 2: Fontana promotes use of non-potable water for uses where drinking water is not needed.
o Policy: Encourage use of processed water from the IEUA systems using recycled water for
all non-drinking water purposes.
o Policy: Promote laundry-to-landscape greywater systems for single-family housing units.
• Goal 3: The city continues to have an effective water conservation program.
o Policy: Support landscaping in public and private spaces with drought resistant plants.
o Policy: Continue successful city water conservation programs and partnerships.
• Goal 4: The City of Fontana consistently seeks reasonable rates from the city’s drinking water
providers.
o Policy: Support City negotiations to keep drinking water rates reasonable for residents
and other users.
• Goal 5: Fontana collaborates closely with the Inland Empire Utilities Agency to promote
innovative and resource-efficient systems and reduce sewer fees.
o Policy: Support and participate in IEUA programs that help Fontana be more resource-
efficient.
o Policy: Support incorporation of greywater systems in new developments.
• Goal 6: Fontana has a stormwater drainage system that is environmentally and economically
sustainable and compatible with regional one water one watershed standards.
o Policy: Continue to implement the Water Quality Management Plan for stormwater
management that incorporates low-impact and green infrastructure standards.
o Policy: Promote natural drainage approaches (green infrastructure) and other alternative
non-structural and structural best practices to manage and treat stormwater.
• Goal 7: Fontana is an energy-efficient community.
o Policy: Promote renewable energy and distributed energy systems in new development
and retrofits of existing development to work towards the highest levels of low-carbon
energy-efficiency.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.16-10 Utilities and Service Systems
• Goal 8: All residences, businesses, and institutions have a dependable, environmentally safe
means to dispose of solid waste.
o Policy: Continue to use best practices for environmentally safe collection, transport and
disposal of hazardous wastes.
o Policy: Continue to maximize landfill capacity by supporting recycling innovations, such
as organic waste recycling for compost.
Chapter 12 – Sustainability and Resilience
• Goal 7: Conservation of water resources with best practices such as drought-tolerant plant
species, recycled water, greywater systems, has become a way of life in Fontana.
o Policy: Continue to promote and implement best practices to conserve water.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
Water
Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 31, Water Service, establishes water service and connection charges for
areas where the City of Fontana supplies retail domestic water service. These charges are to be used for
the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, replacement, maintenance, and operation of water
facilities, as well as the purchase of water supplies. Chapter 5, Article XVIII, California Green Building
Standards Code, adopts Part 11 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CALGreen), which
provides building and landscaping standards related to water efficiency and conservation. Chapter 30
(Zoning and Development Code), Article X, General Landscape Requirements, establishes landscaping
requirements and design guidelines, including landscape and irrigation plans that incorporate water-
efficiency standard design.
Stormwater
See Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality for a list of applicable regulations related to stormwater
runoff.
Wastewater
Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 23, Sewers and Sewage Disposal, regulates sewer connections within
the City. Article I, In General, requires residential, commercial, industrial and public/institutional buildings
to connect to the public sewer system, provided the public sewer is within 200 feet of the nearest point
of the building. Article II, Industrial Waste, sets forth uniform requirements for all users of the City
wastewater collection and treatment system; provides for regulation through issuance of permits to
certain industrial users and enforcement of general requirements for the other users; and authorizes
monitoring and enforcement activities and user reporting, and provides for the setting of fees for the
equitable distribution of costs for sewer service. Article IV, Permits, requires issuance of a sewer
connection permit and payment of applicable fees prior to connection to the public sewer system. Article
V, Fees, Charges and Billing, and Article VIII, Financing of Facilities, provides for sewer connection and
facilities expansion fees.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.16-11 Utilities and Service Systems
Solid Waste
Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 24, Solid Waste and Recycling, includes provisions to comply with State
law on solid waste management, including management of organic waste and recyclable materials.
5.16.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains the Initial Study
Environmental Checklist, which includes questions related to utilities and service systems. A project would
result in a significant impact related to utilities and service systems if it would:
• Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects (refer to Impact Statement
5.16-1):
o Water facilities (refer to Impact Statement 5.16-1);
o Wastewater facilities (refer to Impact Statement 5.16-2);
o Stormwater facilities (refer to Impact Statement 5.16-3);
o Electrical power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities (refer to Impact
Statement 5.16-4);
• Not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years (refer to Impact Statement 5.16-
1);
• Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments (refer to Impact Statement 5.16-2);
• 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 (refer to Impact
Statement 5.16-5);
• Not comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste (refer to Impact Statement 5.16-5).
Based on these standards and significance thresholds and criteria, the Project’s effects have been
categorized as either “no impact,” a “less than significant impact,” or a “potentially significant impact.”
Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant
impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant impact through the application of mitigation, it is
categorized as a “significant unavoidable impact.”
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.16-12 Utilities and Service Systems
5.16.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 5.16-1: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Impact Analysis: The proposed Project accommodates future growth in the Project Area by creating and
implementing a new land use category and six new FBC districts. As described in Section 3.0, Project
Description, and summarized in Table 3-2, Proposed Project Development Potential, Project
implementation could yield a net change over existing conditions of an additional 8,900 dwelling units
and 2,685,404 square feet of non-residential uses. This new growth may increase the City’s population by
approximately 33,731 residents (based on the 2022 California Department of Finance estimated
household size of 3.79 persons per household).
Water Conveyance Facilities
As discussed above, water service in the Project Area is provided by the FWC. The Project is expected to
result in increased population and employment growth in the Project Area, which could require new or
expanded water infrastructure. New or expanded water infrastructure required to serve future site-
specific development would be located within areas that are already developed and serviced by the FWC.
Additionally, the FWC confirmed that the Project is entirely within the FWC service area; that distribution
system piping and storage capacity for domestic water purposes exists for current demands in the Project
Area; and that FWC is able to provide all water utility service to meet the water supply needs of the Project
(FWC, 2022).
Since no specific development projects are proposed as part of the Project, the environmental effects
from constructing or expanding facilities are unknown at this time. All water infrastructure construction
activities associated with future development would be subject to compliance with existing local, State,
and federal laws, ordinances, and regulations, which would ensure impacts are reduced to less than
significant levels. The City and FWC would continue to ensure adequate water distribution facilities are
available to serve future development. Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 31, Water Service, establishes
water service and connection charges for areas where the City of Fontana supplies retail domestic water
service. These charges would pay for the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities.
Implementation of existing regulations and compliance with the General Plan and Municipal Code would
reduce impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities to a
level that is less than significant.
Water Demand and Supply
The Project is expected to result in increased population and employment growth in the Project Area, and
a corresponding increase in the demand for additional water supplies. As discussed above, water service
in the Project Area is provided by the FWC. FWC’s 2020 UWMP indicates that FWC can meet projected
water demands under normal, dry, and multiple dry water years through 2045 based on a service
population of 281,020 (West Yost Associates, 2021). Based on FWC’s water demand generation factor of
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.16-13 Utilities and Service Systems
165 gallons per capita per day, the Project would increase water demand within the Project Area to
approximately 6.83 MGD (7,649 AFY), an increase of 5.57 MGD (6,234 AFY) over existing conditions. As
indicted in Section 5.12, Population and Housing, the General Plan EIR anticipates approximately 70,560
households and a population of 315,852 throughout the planning horizon. The City currently has
approximately 57,483 dwelling units and 212,809 residents. Therefore, the projected 8,900 dwelling units
and 33,731 new residents associated with Project implementation have been anticipated and planned for
in the General Plan. As UWMPs are informed by the General Plans and General Plan land use designations,
the projected population growth associated with Project implementation has been accounted for in the
2020 UWMP. Additionally, the FWC confirmed that the Project is entirely within the FWC service area;
that distribution system piping and storage capacity for domestic water purposes exists for current
demands in the Project Area; and that FWC is able to provide all water utility service to meet the water
supply needs of the Project (FWC, 2022).
For future qualifying projects, a Water Supply Assessment would be required pursuant to SB 610. The
Water Supply Assessment discerns whether the expected demand from the development being proposed
has been accounted for in the forecasted demands in the most recent UWMP. A Written Verification of
Supply per SB 221 is prepared as a condition of approval for a subdivision map of 500 units or more.
Considered a fail-safe mechanism to provide sufficient evidence that adequate water supplies are
available before construction begins, the Written Verification of Supply is also prepared/adopted by the
water supplier and approved by the land use authority. Depending on the project, one or both of these
analyses may be required. Development proposals that may not warrant a Water Supply Assessment
and/or Written Verification of Supply, but meet the definition of a project under CEQA, would still require
an analysis of sufficient water supplies in the CEQA process.
The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions directed toward water conservation. These
actions would result in reduced water consumption on a per capita basis that would help offset the
increased demand from additional residential and non-residential uses. The Fontana Municipal Code
Chapter 31, Water Service, establishes water service and connection charges for areas where the City of
Fontana supplies retail domestic water service. These charges would pay for the purchase of additional
water supplies, as necessary. The Municipal Code also contains provisions to reduce water consumption.
Chapter 5, Article XVIII, California Green Building Standards Code, adopts Part 11 of Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulations (CALGreen), which provides building and landscaping standards related to
water efficiency and conservation. Chapter 30 (Zoning and Development Code), Article X, General
Landscape Requirements, establishes landscaping requirements and design guidelines, including
landscape and irrigation plans that incorporate water-efficiency standard design. Through
implementation of existing federal, State, and local regulations and compliance with the General Plan and
Municipal Code, the environmental impacts to water supplies would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.16-14 Utilities and Service Systems
Impact 5.16-2: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded wastewater facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Impact Analysis: As stated, Project implementation could yield a net change over existing conditions of
an additional 8,900 dwelling units and 2,685,404 square feet of non-residential uses. This new growth
may increase the City’s population by approximately 33,731 residents.
Wastewater Conveyance Facilities
In regard to wastewater, future development associated with Project implementation is expected to
result in increased population and employment growth within the Project Area, and thus, an overall
increase in demand on the existing sewer system associated with increased sewage flows. Based on
Section 23-316 of the City’s Municipal Code, which calculates sewer connection charges based upon 270
gallons per residential equivalent dwelling unit, growth associated with Project implementation would
generate an additional 2,403,000 gallons per day of residential wastewater within the Project Area. Based
on the General Plan EIR’s wastewater generation factors (Table 5.12-8) of 10.76 gallons per acre per day
for commercial and industrial uses and 5.38 gallons per acre per day for public facilities uses, growth
associated with Project implementation would generate an additional 332 gallons per day of non-
residential wastewater. Therefore, growth associated with Project implementation would generate an
additional 2.4 MGD of wastewater within the Project Area, an increase of 1.9 MGD over the Project Area’s
existing conditions.
The Project Area is urbanized and contains existing sewer infrastructure. As indicated in the 2013 Sanitary
Sewer Master Plan, there are no deficient sewer facilities within the City in the Existing and Intermediate
scenarios, but the Build-out scenario is estimated to have 2.07 miles of deficient sewers. No deficient
sewers were identified within the Project Area. The City is currently in the process of updating the 2013
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. As part of the update, the adequacy of existing sewers based on the City’s
existing Land Use Map will be studied and recommended improvements identified for deficient areas. The
update is anticipated to be completed prior to consideration of the proposed Downtown Core Project.
According to the City of Fontana Engineering Department, a separate study is anticipated for the Project
Area that will serve as a management plan for new or expanded sewers within the Project Area.
The Project does not include specific development proposals; therefore, the environmental effects of
future wastewater collection systems are unknown at this time. Future developments would be reviewed
by the City, during site plan review in order to determine if sufficient local and trunk sewer capacity exists
to serve the specific development, in accordance with Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 23 Article IV,
Permits. The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions related to water conservation
measures, which would serve to reduce the per capita demand over historical levels due to diversion
(graywater, recycled water), and reductions in water use from conservation efforts. Additionally, Fontana
Municipal Code Article V, Fees, Charges and Billing, and Article VIII, Financing of Facilities, provides for
sewer connection and facilities expansion fees. The implementation of existing regulations and
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.16-15 Utilities and Service Systems
compliance with the General Plan and Municipal Code would reduce impacts associated with the
relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities to a level that is less than significant.
Wastewater Treatment
As discussed above, wastewater from the Project Area is diverted to the San Bernardino Avenue Lift
Station and then to the IEUA Regional Water Reclamation Plant No. 4 (RP-4) (CDM Smith, 2013). RP-4 has
a treatment capacity of up to 14 MGD and currently treats the liquid portion of an average influent
wastewater flow of approximately 10 MGD (IEUA, 2022b). The facility currently has capacity to serve the
Project Area. As indicated above, growth associated with Project implementation would generate an
additional 2.4 MGD of wastewater within the Project Area, an increase of 1.9 MGD over the Project Area’s
existing conditions. Therefore, there is sufficient capacity to treat additional wastewater generated by
Project implementation.
As noted above, the Project enables additional development but does not include specific development
proposals. At the time future projects are proposed, they would require a separate environmental review
and compliance with regulations in existence at that time to ensure adequate wastewater treatment
capacity exists. The Fontana General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions related to water
conservation measures, which would serve to reduce the per capita demand over historical levels due to
diversion (graywater, recycled water), and reductions in water use from conservation efforts. Fontana
Municipal Code Article V, Fees, Charges and Billing, and Article VIII, Financing of Facilities, provides for
sewer connection and facilities expansion fees. Additionally, IEUA charges monthly wastewater sewer
fees, as well as sewer connection fees, in order to maintain and expand wastewater services, including
wastewater treatment. The implementation of existing federal, State, and local regulations and
compliance with the Fontana General Plan and Municipal Code would ensure adequate wastewater
treatment capacity and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Impact 5.16-3: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded stormwater facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Impact Analysis: As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project Area contains a mix of existing
on-site development, with a small amount (approximately 12.07 acres or 2.5 percent of the Project Area)
consisting of vacant land. The Project Area is generally developed; areas of impervious surfaces currently
exist throughout the Planning area. Further, the Project Area is served by existing stormwater drainage
and conveyance facilities. The proposed Project accommodates future growth in the Project Area by
creating and implementing a new land use category and six new FBC districts, and could result in increased
areas of impervious surfaces throughout the Project Area, resulting in the need for additional or expanded
stormwater drainage, conveyance and retention infrastructure.
As described in Section 5.9, the San Bernardino Flood Control District (SBCFCD) is responsible for
operations and maintenance of the regional flood control facilities, while the City is responsible for the
local drainage system, detention basins, and storm drain lines that connect to the regional facilities. The
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.16-16 Utilities and Service Systems
Project Area is primarily developed, with limited areas of pervious surfaces. Although future development
activities have the potential to slightly increase impervious areas within the Project Area, the majority of
development activities associated with implementation of the Project would consist of infill and
redevelopment on currently urbanized sites. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff. Federal, State and local regulations would
require individual projects to provide necessary on-site storm drain infrastructure and any off-site
infrastructure improvements. The specific impacts of providing new and expanded drainage facilities
cannot be determined at this time, as the Project does not propose or approve any specific development
project nor does it designate specific sites for new or expanded public facilities.
Stormwater drainage and conveyance facilities would be evaluated at the project-level in association with
subsequent development projects. However, the facilities would be primarily provided on sites with land
use designations that allow such uses and the environmental impacts of constructing and operating the
facilities would likely be similar to those associated with new development, redevelopment, and
infrastructure projects under the proposed Project. As future development and infrastructure projects are
considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, Municipal
Code, and other applicable regulations. Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would also
be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. As such, this
is a less than significant impact and no additional mitigation is required.
The implementation of existing regulations and compliance with the Fontana General Plan and Municipal
Code would reduce impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded
stormwater facilities to a level that is less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Impact 5.16-4: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded electrical, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Impact Analysis: In regard to electrical, natural gas, and telecommunication services, the Project Area is
within the service areas of SCE, SoCalGas, and various telecommunication providers. The Project Area is
generally developed and existing electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure exists
within the Project Area. New growth accommodated under the proposed Project would require increased
electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications services, potentially resulting in the new construction or
relocation of facilities. The environmental effects of future expansions of electrical, natural gas, and
telecommunication facilities would be evaluated with each development proposal and would require a
separate environmental review, as required, related to the construction and operation of new electrical,
natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure. Future implementing projects under the Project
would have to coordinate with each utility provider to establish service, provide any necessary extensions
of facilities, and comply with regulations in existence at that time. As future development and
infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project would be evaluated for conformance with
the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations. The implementation of existing
regulations and compliance with the Fontana General Plan and Municipal Code would reduce impacts
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.16-17 Utilities and Service Systems
associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded electrical, natural gas, and
telecommunications facilities to a level that is less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
Impact 5.16-5: 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?
Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
Impact Analysis: Future development as contemplated under the proposed Project could yield a net
change over existing conditions of an additional 8,900 dwelling units and 2,685,404 square feet of non-
residential uses. This new growth may increase the City’s population by approximately 33,731 residents.
The City of Fontana has achieved a disposal rate of 4.7 pounds per day (PPD) per resident in 2020
(CalRecycle, 2022c). Assuming these disposal rates remain constant throughout the life of the Project, the
new growth under Project buildout would result in a net increase of approximately 158,535.7 PPD of solid
waste over existing conditions, which equals 79.3 net TPD or 28,932.8 net tons of solid waste per year.
The Project Area’s projected increase in solid waste generation is within the permitted capacity of Mid-
Valley Sanitary Landfill. As noted previously, the majority (70 percent) of solid waste disposed from the
City of Fontana in 2019 went to the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill. Another 11 percent went to the El
Sobrante Landfill (19,222 tons) and nine percent went to the Badlands Sanitary Landfill (15,392 tons)
(CalRecycle, 2022a). Other landfills that received relatively small amounts of waste from the City in 2019
include:
• Antelope Valley Public Landfill (5 tons);
• Barstow Sanitary Landfill (2 tons);
• Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill (18 tons);
• Clean Harbors Buttonwillow LLC (19 tons);
• Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary LF (30 tons);
• Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill (299 tons);
• Landers Sanitary Landfill (5 tons);
• Olinda Alpha Landfill (54 tons);
• San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill (108 tons);
• Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center (35 tons); and
• Victorville Sanitary Landfill (48 tons).
Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill has a remaining capacity of 61,219,377 cubic yards as of 2019 and has enough
projected capacity to serve residents and businesses until approximately 2045. The City’s increase in solid
waste generation as a result of increased development in the Project Area is within the daily permitted
capacity of the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill. Conservatively assuming the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill
reaches full capacity, future solid waste would be distributed to the other landfills serving the City.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.16-18 Utilities and Service Systems
Additionally, all development within the City would be required to comply with waste reduction and
recycling requirements, including the Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 24, that aim to reduce the amount
of solid waste being diverted to the landfill.
As described above, the Fontana Municipal Code, Chapter 24 establishes mandatory solid waste and
recycling collection to comply with the requirements of AB 939 and AB 341. As permitted by AB 939, the
City authorizes a private solid waste franchisee (i.e., Burrtec Waste Industries) to handle the City’s solid
waste and cooperate in the preparation of solid waste disposal characterization studies and the
preparation of waste stream audits. Burrtec Waste Industries and the City work together to submit
information to meet the reporting requirements of AB 939, or any other law or regulation, to reach the
solid waste and recycling goals mandated by the AB 939.
Through the implementation of existing regulations and compliance with the General Plan and Municipal
Code, the Project would comply with regulations related to solid waste and would not exceed the
permitted capacity of the landfill serving the City; therefore, this is a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.16.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Analysis: Development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project along with
other cumulative projects would increase demand for water, wastewater, stormwater, solid waste,
electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications services within the Project Area.
WATER
Cumulative water impacts are analyzed in terms of impacts to FWC’s supplies and facilities. Development
associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project along with other cumulative projects
would increase demand for water services within the FWC service area. It is required that every urban
water supplier assess the reliability to provide water service to its customers under normal, dry, and
multiple dry water years. As indicated above, FWC can meet projected water demands for the City and
Project Area under normal, dry, and multiple dry water years through 2045. Further, this increased
demand for water infrastructure would be located within areas that are already developed and serviced
by the FWC. Additionally, the FWC confirmed that the Project is entirely within the FWC service area; that
distribution system piping and storage capacity for domestic water purposes exists for current demands
in the Project Area; and that FWC is able to provide all water utility service to meet the water supply needs
of the Project (FWC, 2022).
Future development projects associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project Update
would be evaluated by the City on a project-by-project basis to determine potential impacts to water
supplies and infrastructure. The continued assessment of individual projects for impacts to the water
supply system would assure projects would only be approved if adequate water supplies exist at the time
of their implementation. All future development would be subject to all applicable federal, State, and local
laws, ordinances, and regulations in place for water supply and infrastructure. Further, new development
would be required to pay all applicable connection fees and ongoing user fees related to the provision of
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.16-19 Utilities and Service Systems
water services. Therefore, implementation of the Downtown Core Project would not result in cumulatively
considerable water supply and infrastructure impacts.
WASTEWATER
Development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project along with other cumulative
projects would increase demand for wastewater services within the sewer service area. As discussed
above, wastewater from the Project Area is diverted to the San Bernardino Avenue Lift Station and then
to the IEUA Regional Water Reclamation Plant No. 4 (RP-4) (CDM Smith, 2013). RP-4 has a treatment
capacity of up to 14 MGD and currently treats the liquid portion of an average influent wastewater flow
of approximately 10 MGD. Therefore, sufficient capacity exists to meet additional wastewater flows
associated with Project implementation. The Project does not include specific development proposals;
individual development projects would be required to verify that existing capacity exists to convey and
treat the potential wastewater generated with the new development. At the time future wastewater
facilities are proposed, they would require a separate environmental review and compliance with
regulations in existence at that time would address potential environmental impacts related to the
construction and operation of new wastewater facilities. All future development would be subject to all
applicable federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations in place for wastewater services.
Further, new development would be required to pay all applicable sewer connection fees and ongoing
user fees related to the provision of wastewater services. Therefore, cumulative impacts to wastewater
services and facilities would be less than significant.
STORMWATER
As discussed above, the Project Area is generally developed with impervious surfaces and served by
existing stormwater drainage and conveyance facilities. Development associated with implementation of
the Downtown Core Project along with other cumulative projects has the potential to result in increased
areas of impervious surfaces, resulting in increased demand for stormwater services within the Project
Area. The Downtown Core Project does not include specific development proposals; therefore, the
environmental effects of future storm water drainage facilities are unknown at this time. At the time
future stormwater facilities are proposed, they would require a separate environmental review and
compliance with regulations in existence at that time would address potential environmental impacts
related to the construction and operation of new stormwater facilities. Further, future development
would be subject to all applicable federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations in place for
stormwater drainage and conveyance facilities. Therefore, cumulative impacts to stormwater services and
facilities would be less than significant.
SOLID WASTE
Development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project along with other cumulative
projects would increase demand for solid waste collection and disposal services. The City of Fontana,
along with cities and County lands in the surrounding area, would continue to use common landfill
resources, thereby gradually reducing the capacity of local landfills.
As noted above, the Project does not include specific development proposals; however, the increase in
solid waste generation due to future individual and cumulative development projects together could
significantly impact solid waste resources. Individual development projects and related cumulative
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.16-20 Utilities and Service Systems
projects would be required to meet current recycling goals, reducing the amount of solid waste requiring
disposal at landfills. Future developments would be reviewed on a project-by-project basis and solid waste
impacts would be evaluated based on existing and planned disposal facilities and capacities available at
that time.
In addition, all future development would be required to comply with the mandatory commercial and
multifamily recycling requirements of AB 341, thus reducing the amount of landfill waste. Therefore, the
contribution of the Downtown Core Project to cumulative impacts associated with increased solid waste
would be less than significant.
ELECTRIC POWER, NATURAL GAS, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project along with other cumulative
projects would increase demand for electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications services within the
Project Area. As noted above, the Project does not include specific development proposals; individual
development projects would be required to verify that electric power, natural gas, and
telecommunications usage generated with the new development would not create significant
environmental impacts. Therefore, the contribution of the Project to cumulative impacts associated with
increased electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact.
5.16.7 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
No significant unavoidable impacts associated with utilities and service systems would occur with the
proposed Project.
5.16.8 REFERENCES
California Department of Finance (DOF), E-5 Population & Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the
State: January 2021-2022, with 2020 Benchmark,
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2021/, accessed
November 16, 2022.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), Jurisdiction Disposal and
Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) Tons by Facility,
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByFacility,
accessed November 8, 2022a.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), SWIS Facility/Site Activity
Details: Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055),
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662, accessed
November 8, 2022b.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), Jurisdiction Per Capita Disposal
Rate Trends (Post 2006),
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.16-21 Utilities and Service Systems
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/ReviewReports, accessed
November 17, 2022c.
California Energy Commission, California Electric Infrastructure App, https://cecgis-
caenergy.opendata.arcgis.com/apps/california-electric-infrastructure-app/explore, accessed
November 9, 2022.
CDM Smith, Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan, May 2013.
City of Fontana, Fontana Forward: General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report,
June 2018.
City of Fontana, Utilities, https://www.fontana.org/3032/Utilities, accessed November 8, 2022.
Fontana Water Company (FWC), Josh Swift, Vice President and General Manager, written
correspondence, December 13, 2022.
HighSpeedInternet.com, Internet Providers in Fontana, CA,
https://www.highspeedinternet.com/ca/fontana, accessed November 9, 2022.
Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), About Us, https://www.ieua.org/about-us/, accessed November 8,
2022a.
Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 4,
https://www.ieua.org/regional-water-recycling-plant-no-4/, accessed November 8, 2022b.
Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), Sewer System Management Plan, April 2019.
Kennedy Jenks, Inland Empire Utilities Agency: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2021.
Southern California Electric (SCE), About Us, https://www.sce.com/about-us, accessed November 8,
2022.
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), Gas Transmission Pipeline Interactive Map - San
Bernardino,
https://socalgas.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=faeed481312f4e5fb056f7
39ff169e02, accessed November 9, 2022.
West Yost Associates, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Prepared for San Gabriel Valley Water
Company - Fontana Water Company Division, June 2021.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 5.16-22 Utilities and Service Systems
This page intentionally left blank.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 6-1 Other CEQA Considerations
6.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2, Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental
Effects, an EIR is required to consider: (a) The Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project;
(b) Energy Impacts; (c) Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided if the Proposed Project
is Implemented; (d) Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Caused by the
Proposed Project Should it be Implemented; and (e) Growth-Inducing Impact of the Proposed Project.
In response to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162.2 (a), Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed
Project and Section 15162 (c), Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided if the Proposed
Project is Implemented, are considered and identified in Section 5.0, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR.
Energy Impacts, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.2 (b), are analyzed in Section 5.5, Energy.
6.1 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE
CAUSED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED
According to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(d), an EIR is required to address any
significant irreversible environmental changes that could occur should the proposed Project be
implemented. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d):
“Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project
may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse
thereafter likely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway
improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit
future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from
environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of
resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.”
Determining whether the proposed Project would result in significant irreversible effects requires a
determination of whether key resources would be degraded or destroyed such that there would be little
possibility of restoring them. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that
such current consumption is justified.
CONSUMPTION OF NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES
The environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project are analyzed
in Section 5.0. Future development would consume limited, slowly renewable and non-renewable
resources. This consumption would occur during each individual project’s construction phase and would
continue throughout its operational lifetime.
Construction associated with future development would require a commitment of resources that would
include: (1) building materials; (2) fuel and operational materials/resources; and (3) the transportation of
goods and persons to and from individual development sites. Construction would also require the
consumption of resources that are not renewable or which may renew so slowly as to be considered non-
renewable. These resources would include the following construction supplies: lumber and other forest
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 6-2 Other CEQA Considerations
products; aggregate materials used in concrete and asphalt; metals; and water. Fossil fuels such as
gasoline and oil would also be consumed to power construction vehicles and equipment.
The operational activities of new development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core
Project would consume resources which would be similar to those currently consumed within the City
(i.e., energy resources such as electricity and natural gas, petroleum-based fuels required for vehicle-trips,
fossil fuels, and water). Fossil fuels would represent the primary energy source associated with both
construction and ongoing operation, and the existing, finite supplies of these natural resources would be
incrementally reduced. Future development operations would occur in accordance with California Code
of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 6, which sets forth conservation practices that would limit energy
consumption. Nonetheless, the proposed Project’s energy requirements would represent a long-term
commitment of essentially non-renewable resources.
Construction activities associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project could release
hazardous materials into the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions;
refer to Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. All potential demolition, grading, and excavation
activities would be subject to the established regulatory framework to ensure that hazardous materials
are not released into the environment. Compliance with the established regulatory framework and
mitigation measures would protect against a significant and irreversible environmental change resulting
from the accidental release of hazardous materials.
In addition, there is the potential that individual future development projects would use and store limited
amounts of potentially hazardous materials typical; refer to Section 5.8. All future development activities
requiring the routine use, storage, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials would be subject to all
applicable federal, State, and local regulations and standards in place for hazardous materials. Compliance
with these regulations and standards would protect against significant and irreversible environmental
changes due to the accidental release of hazardous materials.
In conclusion, future construction and operations would result in the irretrievable commitment of limited,
slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources, which would limit the availability of these resource
quantities for future generations or for other uses during the life of the individual developments. It is
noted that the continued use of such resources would be on a relatively small scale in a regional context.
IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS/IRREVERSIBLE PHYSICAL CHANGES
Implementation of the Downtown Core Project would result in a commitment of land uses designated for
the foreseeable future. Land use and development consistent with the Downtown Core Project would
result in irretrievable commitments by designating land for development that is more intense, in some
instances, than current designations allow. Development would physically change the environment in
terms of aesthetics, air emission, noise, and traffic. These physical changes are irreversible after
development occurs. Therefore, the Downtown Core Project would result in changes in land use within
the Project Area that would commit future generations to these uses.
The Downtown Core Project would support the General Plan goals and policies to guide growth and
development to the Downtown. Construction and operation of future development projects associated
with Project implementation would result in the irretrievable commitment of limited, slowly renewable,
and nonrenewable resources that would limit the availability of these resource quantities for future
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 6-3 Other CEQA Considerations
generations or for other uses during the life of the Project. However, the Project Area is an urbanized area
and already uses such resources. Additionally, the continued use of such resources would be on a
relatively small scale and consistent with regional and local growth forecasts in the area. As such, although
irreversible environmental changes would result from the Project, such changes would not be considered
significant.
6.2 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 15126.2(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate the growth-inducing impacts of
a proposed project. A growth-inducing impact is defined by the CEQA Guidelines as:
“The way in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the
construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.
Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major
expansion of a waste water treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in
service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring
construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also discuss the
characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could
significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed
that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the
environment..”
The State CEQA Guidelines do not provide specific criteria for evaluating growth inducement. Growth-
inducing impacts fall into two general categories: direct or indirect. Direct growth-inducing impacts are
generally associated with new residences or businesses that could induce population growth directly.
Indirect growth-inducing impacts provide urban services, such as the extension or roads or other
infrastructure, to an undeveloped area that could induce population growth indirectly.
In general, a project may foster spatial, economic, or population growth in a geographic area if it results
in any of the following:
• Removal of an impediment to growth (e.g., establishment of an essential public service and
provision of new access to an area);
• Fostering of economic expansion or growth (e.g., changes in revenue base and employment
expansion);
• Fostering of population growth (e.g., construction of additional housing), either directly or
indirectly;
• Establishment of a precedent-setting action (e.g., an innovation, a change in zoning and general
plan amendment approval); or
• Development of or encroachment on an isolated or adjacent area of open space (being distinct
from an infill project).
Should a project meet any one of the above-listed criteria, it may be considered growth inducing.
Generally, growth-inducing projects are either located in isolated, undeveloped, or underdeveloped
areas, necessitating the extension of major infrastructure such as sewer and water facilities or roadways,
or encourage premature or unplanned growth. Note that the CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to “discuss
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 6-4 Other CEQA Considerations
the ways” a project could be growth inducing and to “discuss the characteristics of some projects that
may encourage…activities that could significantly affect the environment.” However, the CEQA Guidelines
do not require that an EIR predict (or speculate) specifically where such growth would occur, in what form
it would occur, or when it would occur. The answers to such questions require speculation, which CEQA
discourages (refer to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145).
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and based on the above-listed criteria, the project’s potential
growth-inducing impacts are evaluated below.
Removal of an Impediment to Growth: The Project Area and surrounding area are fully developed and
urbanized. Transportation and infrastructure exists to serve the range of residential and non-residential
uses within the surrounding area. The Project does not introduce new roadways or new or significantly
expanded infrastructure that would provide for additional development within the surrounding area.
Potential infrastructure improvements associated with future site-specific development would not
remove obstacles to growth since the Project Area and surrounding area are already served by existing
utility providers and potential improvements would be to serve the specific development being proposed.
As the Project would not establish an essential public service or provide new access to an area, the
proposed Project would not be considered growth-inducing.
Economic Expansion or Growth: In addition to residential uses, the Project anticipates the development
of commercial uses within the Project Area. The construction of future development projects would result
in construction-related jobs. However, construction activities and durations would vary depending upon
the specific development and would be temporary in respect to each individual development site and
therefore, would not be considered growth-inducing.
Project operations would introduce new residents and jobs to the Project Area. Implementation of the
Downtown Core Project would consist of infill development at greater residential densities and non-
residential intensities with the intent to introduce a variety of housing options and supportive commercial
uses that bring people to the Downtown Area. Potential residents and employees would be closer to
existing transit, as well as civic and commercial uses. Residents and employees would seek shopping,
entertainment, employment, and other economic opportunities in the City and surrounding area. This
could create an increased demand for goods and services that would encourage the creation of new
businesses or the expansion of existing businesses. Although economic growth is anticipated within the
Project Area, significant economic growth resulting in the potential to significantly affect the environment
is not anticipated as the surrounding area is urbanized.
Population Growth: A project could induce population growth in an area either directly or indirectly. More
specifically, the development of new residences or businesses could induce population growth directly,
whereas the extension of roads or other infrastructure could induce population growth indirectly. The
Project Area is located within the Downtown area of the City, which is an urbanized area served by existing
roads, transit, and infrastructure. The Project does not involve the extension of roads or infrastructure
into undeveloped areas; refer to the “Removal of an Impediment to Growth” discussion above.
As analyzed in Section 5.12, Population and Housing, Project implementation could yield a net change
over existing conditions of an additional 8,900 dwelling units and 2,685,404 square feet of non-residential
uses. This new growth may increase the City’s population by approximately 33,731 residents (based on
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 6-5 Other CEQA Considerations
the 2022 California Department of Finance estimated household size of 3.79 persons per household).
Implementation of the proposed Project would also provide additional employment opportunities for
approximately 6,852 employees (Kittelson and Associates, 2022).
The proposed Project would provide for increased population growth within the Project Area when
compared to the current General Plan. However, the proposed Project is intended to implement the goals
and policies of the General Plan and accommodate the City’s fair share of statewide housing needs, which
are allocated by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), based on regional numbers
provided by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on a
regular basis (every five to eight years). The City of Fontana 2021-2029 Housing Element was adopted
February 8, 2022 and accommodates the City’s share of the regional housing need for the 2021-2029
RHNA period of 17,519 units. The City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element identifies the existing Project Area,
as accommodating a portion of City’s Low-, Very-Low-, and Above-Moderate-income RHNA allocation.
The Project is anticipated to yield an additional 8,900 dwelling units, 33,731 residents, and 6,852
employees over existing conditions. The population and employment growth anticipated as a result of
Project implementation is within the overall City’s growth projections of the Fontana Forward General
Plan and SCAG’s RHNA allocation.
Although the Project involves unplanned population growth anticipated by the General Plan for the
Project Area, the environmental impacts of the potential unplanned population growth are evaluated,
planned for, and mitigated as part of the Project throughout this EIR. The Project would not result in land
use changes, nor implement any new policies that could induce substantial unplanned population or
employment growth within other areas of the City or region. The Project is in an urban area with existing
infrastructure that can support future infill development and the potential physical environmental
impacts of such improvements are analyzed in Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems. No additional
infrastructure improvements (e.g., roadways and utilities) would be implemented that could indirectly
induce population growth elsewhere in the City.
Establishment of a Precedent-Setting Action: The proposed Project would accommodate future growth in
the Downtown Core Project Area by creating and implementing a new General Plan land use category and
six new FBC districts specific to the Project Area. The Project would involve amending the General Plan,
amending the General Plan Land Use Map, and amending the Zoning and Development Code, including
the Zoning District Map, as described in Section 3.0, Project Description. The proposed approvals would
only regulate future land development within the Project Area through the implementation of the
requirements of the FBC districts and would not induce growth within the surrounding area. Further,
implementation of the Project would not establish a procedure that would make future General Plan or
zoning amendments more likely. Discretionary projects within the City would also be subject to
environmental review on a project-by-project basis and Project implementation would not involve a
precedent-setting action that could significantly impact the environment.
Development or Encroachment of Open Space: As stated, the Project Area is located within an urbanized
area of the City. Park and open space resources include Miller Park, within the Civic Area, Santa Fe Park,
adjacent to the Metrolink Station, and a portion of the Pacific Electric Trail (PET), an east-west multi-use
regional trail, located south of Seville Avenue. The Project does not propose modifications to these
existing resources and would not result in encroachment into these areas. The Project would not be
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 6-6 Other CEQA Considerations
growth-inducing with respect to development or encroachment into an isolated or adjacent area of an
existing open space.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-1 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
7.1 INTRODUCTION
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the identification and evaluation of a range of reasonable
alternatives designed to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. In addition, CEQA requires a comparative
evaluation of the merits of the alternatives.
Pursuant to Section 15126.6(f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, factors that may be taken into account when
addressing the feasibility of alternatives include site suitability, economic viability, availability of
infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plan or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries,
and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative
site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). Although these factors do not present a strict limit
on the scope of reasonable alternatives to be considered, they help establish the context in which “the
rule of reason” is measured against when determining an appropriate range of alternatives sufficient to
establish and foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making.
7.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THIS EIR
FACTORS GUIDING SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated to the public and a public scoping meeting was held during
the public review period to solicit recommendations for a reasonable range of alternatives to the
proposed project. No specific alternatives were recommended by commenting agencies or the general
public during the NOP public review and comment period.
An EIR must only discuss in detail an alternative that is capable of feasibly attaining most of the basic
objectives associated with an action, while at the same time avoiding or substantially lessening any of the
significant effects associated with the proposed project. As described in Section 3.0, Project Description,
the following objectives have been identified for the proposed Project:
• Provide for new residential development opportunities in order to meet the goals of the SB 2
Planning Grant.
• Establish FBC districts that encourage housing and supporting commercial development.
• Create and apply a new land use category to the Project Area to provide consistency and allow
for development at the densities and intensities needed to implement the FBC districts.
• Enhance the pedestrian experience and promote walkability, by ultimately closing a quarter-mile
portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic.
• Provide objective development standards that would facilitate permitting of housing projects.
• Create a Downtown Fontana Development Guide to serve as a "how-to" guide for the
development community so that the City can realize its vision for the Downtown.
• Implement the following goals, policies, and/or actions from the General Plan:
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-2 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
o Support regulations that promote creation of compact and walkable urban village-style
design in new developments (Chapter 4: Community and Neighborhoods).
o Support revitalization of the central area of the city with an integrated approach,
including mixed-use development, infill housing, infrastructure improvements,
interconnections and placemaking programs that create great public amenities (Chapter
4: Community and Neighborhoods).
o Continue to ensure excellent management of non-single-family housing (Chapter 4:
Community and Neighborhoods).
o Make land use decisions that support walking, bicycling, and public transit use, in
alignment with the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable
Communities Strategy (Chapter 9: Community, Mobility and Circulation).
o Encourage a mix of uses in the downtown core, appealing to a wide range of customer
types, with a focus on families (Chapter 14: Downtown Area Plan).
o Encourage mixed-use development within the Downtown and along major corridors
(Chapter 14: Downtown Area Plan).
o Encourage new “in-town” housing types targeted to young people and young families to
help attract and retain the next generation of Fontanans (Chapter 14: Downtown Area
Plan).
o Ensure that future street improvements to Foothill and Arrow Boulevards and Sierra
Avenue improve the appearance and pedestrian environment while accommodating
traffic flows (Chapter 14: Downtown Area Plan).
o Locate multi-family development in mixed-use centers, preferably where there is nearby
access to retail, services, and public transportation (Chapter 15: Land Use, Zoning, and
Urban Design).
o Promote interconnected neighborhoods with appropriate transitions between lower-
intensity and higher-intensity land uses (Chapter 15: Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design).
o Promote revitalization and redevelopment of downtown and older neighborhoods in the
central area of the city (Chapter 15: Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design).
o Transform downtown into a vibrant local and regional destination (Chapter 15: Land Use,
Zoning, and Urban Design).
o Promote a land use pattern that provides connections among land uses and a mixture of
land uses (Chapter 15: Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design).
o Support high-quality development in design standards and in land use decisions (Chapter
15: Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design).
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The Downtown Core Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts, which are
described in Sections 5.1 through 5.16:
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-3 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Air Quality
• The Project could result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations
or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or
the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.
• The Project could result in ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 operational emissions that would be
significant and unavoidable.
• Implementation of the proposed Project as a whole would result in a significant and unavoidable
impact concerning Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) during operational activities.
• Project implementation would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant
cumulative air quality impacts during operational activities.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Project implementation would generate greenhouse gas emissions that would not satisfy the
Greenhouse Gas reduction targets established by federal and State law and may have a significant
effect on the environment.
• Project implementation would contribute to global climate change through a cumulatively
considerable contribution of greenhouse gases. The Project would result in a cumulatively
considerable and significant adverse GHG emissions impact.
Noise
• Project implementation would result in substantial permanent increases in existing transportation
noise levels at sensitive receptors.
• Project traffic noise on existing noise-sensitive uses along identified roadway segments within the
Project Area would result in a significant unavoidable cumulative impact.
All other impacts are less than significant or can be reduced to a less than significant level with adherence
to the regulatory requirements and implementation of identified mitigation measures. This section
considers alternatives that could otherwise avoid or minimize these significant and unavoidable impacts.
A description of each alternative and a comparative environmental evaluation of the impacts identified
for the proposed Project is provided below.
An EIR must identify an “environmentally superior” alternative and where the No Project Alternative is
identified as environmentally superior, the EIR is then required to identify as environmentally superior an
alternative from among the others evaluated. Each alternative’s environmental impacts are compared to
the proposed Project and determined to be environmentally superior, inferior, or neutral. However, as
stated above, only those impacts found to be significant and unavoidable for the proposed Project are
used in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior
to the proposed Project.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Two alternatives to the proposed Project were considered based on the analysis performed to identify
the environmental effects of the proposed Project. The alternatives analyzed in this EIR include the
following:
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Alternative 1: No Project/Existing General Plan
As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e), under Alternative 1, the City would not implement
the Downtown Core Project. The Fontana General Plan and Zoning and Development Code would
continue to be implemented. No changes to the General Plan or Zoning and Development Code, including
General Plan text and Land Use Map amendments, or amendments to the Zoning and Development Code
and Zoning District Map, would occur. This Alternative assumes that ultimate development of the Fontana
General Plan would occur and increased residential development opportunities in the Downtown Core
Project Area in order to meet the goals of the SB 2 Planning Grant and accommodate a portion of the
City’s Low-, Very-Low-, and Above-Moderate-income RHNA allocation as identified in the Fontana 2021-
2029 Housing Element would not occur.
Alternative 2: Reduced Growth
Alternative 2 would implement the Downtown Core Project, but at residential densities and
nonresidential intensities lower than those reflected in the proposed Downtown Core Project. For
comparison, it is assumed that this Alternative would result in a 59 percent decrease in the number of
multifamily units, resulting in a 56 percent decrease in the Project Area’s population by 2040, and a 56
percent decrease in the number of employees by 2040 when compared to the proposed Project; refer to
Table 7-1, Growth Potential By Alternative (2040). This Alternative was developed to reduce the severity
of potential impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and noise, as overall development of
residential and commercial uses within the Downtown Core would be less than what could under the
proposed Project.
7.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A summary of the potential growth, including population growth, housing units, and jobs for the Project
and each Alternative is shown in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1
Growth Potential By Alternative (2040)
Alternatives Population1
Housing Units Jobs
(Employment) 2 Single
Family2
Multi
Family2
Proposed Project 42,842 677 10,627 10,008
Alternative 1: No Project/Existing General Plan 36,077 706 8,813 9,515
Alternative 2: Reduced Growth 18,999 677 4,336 4,369
Source:
1. Based on 3.79 persons per household, California Department of Finance (DOF), E-5 Population & Housing Estimates
for Cities, Counties, and the State: January 2021-2022, with 2020 Benchmark, May 2022.
2. Kittelson and Associates, Fontana Downtown Core Project Transportation Study, January 16, 2023.
The alternatives analysis provides a summary of the relative impact level of significance associated with
each alternative for each of the environmental issue areas analyzed in this EIR. Following the analysis of
each alternative, Table 7-4, Comparison of Alternatives, summarizes the comparative effects of each
alternative with the proposed Project.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-5 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
The primary difference between the proposed Project and Alternative 2 is that Alternative 2 would result
in approximately 6,291 fewer housing units and 23,843 fewer residents within the Project Area when
compared to the proposed Project; refer to Table 7-3, Alternative 2: Reduced Growth Alternative
Compared to the Proposed Project.
ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO PROJECT/EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
Under Alternative 1, the City would not implement the Downtown Core Project. The Fontana General Plan
and Zoning and Development Code would continue to be implemented. No changes to the General Plan
or Zoning and Development Code, including General Plan text and Land Use Map amendments, or
amendments to the Zoning and Development Code and Zoning District Map, would occur. This Alternative
assumes that ultimate development of the Fontana General Plan would occur and increased residential
development opportunities in the Downtown Core Project Area in order to meet the goals of the SB 2
Planning Grant and accommodate a portion of the City’s Low-, Very-Low-, and Above-Moderate-income
RHNA allocation as identified in the Fontana 2021-2029 Housing Element would not occur.
Alternative 1 would result in the continuation of existing conditions and new growth would be allowed as
envisioned under the General Plan and Zoning and Development Code, with land uses required to be
consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use Map as shown on Figure 3.5 and zoning as shown on
Figure 3.6 in Section 3.0. Table 7-2, Alternative 1: No Project Alternative Compared to the Proposed
Project, compares the assumed development potential associated with the existing General Plan and the
proposed Project 2040 buildout.
Table 7-2
Alternative 1: No Project/Existing General Plan Compared to the Proposed Project
Alternative Population1
Housing Units Jobs
(Employment) 2
Jobs Per
Housing
Unit
Single
Family2
Multi
Family2
Alternative 1: No Project/Existing
General Plan 36,077 706 8,813 9,515 1.00
Downtown Core Project (Proposed
Project) 42,842 677 10,627 10,008 0.89
Difference -6,765 29 -1,814 -493 --
Source:
1. . Based on 3.79 persons per household, California Department of Finance (DOF), E-5 Population & Housing Estimates
for Cities, Counties, and the State: January 2021-2022, with 2020 Benchmark, May 2022.
2. Kittelson and Associates, Fontana Downtown Core Project Transportation Study, January 16, 2023.
As shown in Table 7-2, Alternative 1 would result in less development within the Project Area compared
to the proposed Project. Under Alternative 1, the existing General Plan policy framework would continue
to be in effect, which would constitute a status quo approach to land use regulation in the Project Area.
The goal of the Downtown Core Project is to create a vibrant, walkable, mixed-use area with high quality
housing and retail options in the Downtown Core Project Area. The Project would accomplish this goal by
creating and implementing a new Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core (WMXU-3) General Plan land use
category and six new FBC districts specific to the Project Area. The new land use category and FBC districts
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
would allow for cohesive infill development in the Downtown Core. The Project would amend the
Development Code to incorporate the six new FBC districts, including permitted land uses, increased
densities and development standards by zoning district, building types, frontage types, general
regulations, design and architectural regulations, private open space types, and public open space
standards specific to each new FBC District. Further, the City is developing the Downtown Fontana
Development Guide to provide recommended changes to the FBC, objective development standards,
expedited review guidelines, and development impact fee incentives. These standards and guidelines
would ensure new development and redevelopment projects would be designed to complement the
character of the existing community and neighborhoods and provide connectivity between existing
development and new development. The Project Area planned circulation would provide a more
“walkable” environment, designed to incorporate traffic calming measures to reduce traffic speeds,
enhance pedestrian safety, and promote walkability of the area, specifically along Sierra Avenue. To
enhance the pedestrian experience and promote walkability, the Project proposes to ultimately close a
quarter-mile portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic.
Alternative 1 would not implement the new WMXU-3 General Plan land use category and six new FBC
districts within the Project Area. This Alternative would not develop the Downtown Fontana Development
Guide, and standards and guidelines would not be implemented to ensure new development and
redevelopment projects would be designed to complement the character of the existing community and
neighborhoods and provide connectivity between existing development and new development. This
Alternative would continue with the existing circulation described in the General Plan and would not
ultimately close a quarter-mile portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic.
Aesthetics
As described in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, impacts related to Aesthetics were found be less than significant.
Both the Downtown Core Project and No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would provide for
increased development within the Project Area that would result in densification of the Project Area.
However, Alternative 1 would result in decreased densities and intensities in the Project Area when
compared to the Downtown Core Project. Future projects under both development scenarios would be
subject to applicable Municipal Code requirements. Although buildout of Alternative 1 would result in
1,785 fewer dwelling units in the Project Area and 493 fewer jobs, overall the Project Area would
experience significant development compared to existing conditions which would change the character
and image of the area under both Alternative 1 and the proposed Project.
Future development associated with Alternative 1 and the proposed Project would result in new
development and intensification of existing urban uses that may interfere with existing scenic views of
the San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills. Views of the San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills are
primarily provided from along Sierra Avenue and within the northernmost and southernmost portions of
the Project Area. Under both Alternative 1 and the proposed Project, buildings would be limited to heights
of 35 feet adjacent to Sierra Avenue. Further, under the proposed Project a 55-foot maximum height
would be maintained adjacent to street corners within the Gateway Core and Sierra Core, which primarily
comprise the areas along Sierra Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. Since these are the areas wherein views
of the San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills are primarily provided, the height limitations would assist
in maintaining these long-range views from the Project Area. Alternative 1 would allow for heights of 40
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-7 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
to 70 feet depending upon the building type along Foothill Boulevard. Similar to the proposed Project the
height limits imposed on Sierra Avenue would assist in maintaining long-range scenic views within the
Project Area.
Development under either Alternative 1 or the proposed Project would be guided by the guiding principles
established in General Plan Chapter 14, Downtown Area Plan. The Project would amend the General Plan
to introduce the WMXU-3: Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core land use category, which supports a
density of 2.1-70 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and 0.2-2.0 Commercial FAR, and to apply the new land
use category to a majority of the Project Area. The new WMXU-3 land use designation would encourage
residential development within the Project Area by providing opportunities for higher density residential
development to meet the goals of the SB 2 Planning Grant and to implement the General Plan goals,
policies, and actions. Although Alternative 1 would allow for less residential densities and development,
it would continue to implement the General Plan goals, policies, and actions related to infill development,
providing mixed and supportive land uses, revitalizing the Downtown Area, supporting increased activity,
increasing connectivity and providing improved amenities and design that encourages walking, bicycling,
transit, and other opportunities that reduce motor vehicle trips.
Alternative 1 would also continue to be guided by Zoning and Development Code Chapter 30, Article III,
Form-Based Code, which establishes development standards by the existing zoning districts. The proposed
Project would amend Zoning and Development Code Chapter 30 to incorporate the six new FBC districts,
including permitted land uses, increased densities and development standards by zoning district, building
types, frontage types, general regulations, design and architectural regulations, private open space types,
and public open space standards specific to each new FBC District.
Under both Alternative 1 and the proposed Project, the Fontana Development Code provides for project-
specific design review of future development proposals within the City, including the Project Area, which
would ensure that development is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and actions and the
specific FBC district development standards. Neither Alternative 1 nor the proposed Project would conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. As such, Alternative 1 would be
neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
As described in Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, the Downtown Core Project would result
in no impacts to agriculture and forestry resources. Like the Downtown Core Project, Alternative 1 would
accommodate development generally in the same areas, and these areas are, for the most part, already
urbanized. Given that no agriculture and forestry resources would be impacted by the proposed Project,
impacts associated with Alternative 1 would be the same and no impacts would occur. As such, Alternative
1 would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.
Air Quality
As described in Section 5.2, Air Quality, construction and operation of future developments would occur
within close proximity to sensitive receptors, and there is the potential for localized emissions to exceed
regulatory levels. The following significant impacts related to air quality have been identified:
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-8 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
• The Project could result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations
or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or
the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.
• The Project could result in ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 operational emissions that would be
significant and unavoidable.
• Implementation of the proposed Project as a whole would result in a significant and unavoidable
impact concerning Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) during operational activities.
• Project implementation would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant
cumulative air quality impacts during operational activities.
When compared to Alternative 1, the Downtown Core Project provides more opportunities for trip
internalization and increased opportunities for walking and bicycling due to the proposed mix of higher
density residential and commercial development. Future development under both Alternative 1 and the
proposed Project would be required to adhere to the same policy guidance and local, State, and regional
air quality measures. Although Alternative 1 would allow for slightly less development (1,785 fewer
housing units and 493 fewer jobs), resulting in a corresponding reduction in construction emissions,
operational emissions, and potential reductions in overall traffic volumes, impacts to air quality would
continue to be significant and unavoidable, similar with the proposed Project. Additionally, Alternative 1
would result in a slightly higher VMT per service population when compared to the proposed Project. As
such, Alternative 1 would be considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown
Core Project.
Biological Resources
The Project Area is generally urbanized and developed with residential and non-residential uses. As
described in Section 5.3, Biological Resources, the Downtown Core Project does not include any specific
development proposals and would not result in significant direct impacts to existing biological resources.
However, subsequent development and redevelopment activities associated with implementation of the
proposed Project could occur on undeveloped sites that have been revegetated or result in the removal
of ornamental vegetation, potentially resulting in direct impacts to Burrowing Owl or nesting birds. Future
development associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be required to implement
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 (General Plan EIR MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2). Mitigation Measure
BIO-1 requires that for sites containing suitable habitat, a qualified biologist conduct a pre-construction
survey prior to ground disturbing or vegetation disturbing activities to determine the presence or absence
of burrowing owl within the proposed area of impact and appropriate actions if occupied burrows are
discovered. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 provides an alternative if avoidance of clearing of vegetation and
removal of trees is not feasible between non-nesting (or non-breeding) season for nesting birds to ensure
their protection. Compliance with Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
and the California Fish and Game Code, would ensure that protected birds are not adversely affected
during construction activities accommodated as part of the Downtown Core Project and impacts would
be reduced to less than significant.
Alternative 1 would result in similar development patterns and a similar development footprint as the
Downtown Core Project. The existing General Plan Land Use Map does not designate any open space
within the Project Area. As with the proposed Project, incorporation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-9 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
BIO-2 would reduce potential impacts to Burrowing Owl or nesting birds to less than significant. The
potential impacts to biological resources under the Downtown Core Project and Alternative 1 would
remain the same. As such, Alternative 1 would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the
Downtown Core Project.
Cultural Resources
As described in Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, while the Downtown Core Project does not directly
propose site-specific development with the potential to directly impact cultural resources, future
development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project could cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of known or unknown historic or archaeological resources. Mitigation
Measure CUL-1 (General Plan EIR MM-CUL-1, updated) would ensure evaluation of a project site for
historical resources and, if necessary, implementation of mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a level
that is less than significant. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 (General Plan EIR MM-CUL-2, updated) would
ensure that if any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the
developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities and take appropriate
measures to protect or preserve them for study. Compliance with existing federal, State, and local
regulations, including the General Plan and implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2,
would reduce potential impacts to cultural resources to less than significant.
Alternative 1 would result in similar development patterns and a similar development footprint as the
Downtown Core Project. As with the proposed Project, incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and
CUL-2 would reduce potential impacts to historical resources and archaeological resources to less than
significant. The impact under Alternative 1 would remain the same compared to the proposed Project. As
such, Alternative 1 is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core
Project.
Energy
As described in Section 5.5, Energy, Project implementation would use energy resources for the operation
of buildings (electricity and natural gas), for on-road vehicle trips (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel), and from
off-road construction activities (e.g. diesel fuel) associated with the Project. Future development projects
associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be in compliance with all applicable
federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage. Energy use impacts associated with the
implementation of the Downtown Core Project would be less than significant.
Alternative 1 would result in similar development patterns and a similar development footprint as the
Downtown Core Project. While land uses and development under Alternative 1 would be required to
adhere to the same local, State, and regional measures regulating energy usage as the Downtown Core
Project, the decrease in residential units and non-residential building square footage, and the
corresponding reduction in electricity and gas for the operation of buildings, diesel fuel for off-road
construction activities, and potential reductions in gasoline due to a decrease in the overall traffic volumes
would result in reductions in energy usage under Alternative 1 when compared to the proposed Project.
As such, Alternative 1 would be considered environmentally superior to the Downtown Core Project.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-10 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Geology and Soils
As described in Section 5.6, Geology and Soils, it is possible that undiscovered paleontological resources
could be encountered during future ground-disturbing activities within the Project Area. Future
development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would be required to
implement Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 (General Plan EIR MM-CUL-4, updated and MM-CUL-
5, respectively). Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would require a qualified paleontologist conduct a pre-
construction field survey of any project site that is underlain by older alluvium. The paleontologist shall
submit a report of findings that provides specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures
(i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Should mitigation monitoring of
paleontological resources be recommended for a specific project, the project would be required to
implement Mitigation Measure GEO-2, which would require the program to assign a paleontological
monitor to the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities; cease earth-disturbing
activities should fossils be found; curate for documentation and transfer recovered fossils to an
appropriate depository; and submit a report to the City and San Bernardino County Museum. With
implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, potential impacts to paleontological resources
associated with future development anticipated by the Downtown Core Project would be reduced to less
than significant.
Alternative 1 would result in similar development patterns as the Downtown Core Project. Since the
Project Area is the same under both development scenarios, similar physical constraints related to geology
and soils exist. The potential for new development to expose people or structures to adverse effects
associated with seismic ground shaking and geologic instabilities would be similar under this Alternative
and the Downtown Core Plan. As with the proposed Project, incorporation of Mitigation Measures GEO-
1 and GEO-2 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant. Further,
new development would be required to comply with the California Building Code and applicable Municipal
Code requirements. As such, Alternative 1 is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to
the Downtown Core Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As described in Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, although the proposed Project would be required
to comply with regulations imposed by the State of California and the SCAQMD aimed at the reduction of
air pollutant emissions, the proposed Project as a whole would generate emissions beyond the identified
threshold for residential and commercial land uses, and as such, would have a cumulatively significant
and unavoidable adverse impact. The Project would be required to implement mitigation measures GHG-
1 (General Plan EIR MM-GHG-1, updated), GHG-2, and GHG-3.
When compared to Alternative 1, the Downtown Core Project provides for slightly more development and
more opportunities for trip internalization and increased opportunities for walking and bicycling due to
the proposed mix of higher density residential and commercial development. Future development under
both Alternative 1 and the proposed Project would be required to adhere to the same policy guidance
and local, State, and regional air quality measures as the Downtown Core Project. Although Alternative 1
would allow for slightly less development (1,785 fewer housing units and 493 fewer jobs), resulting in a
corresponding reduction in construction and operational GHG emissions, the amount and mix of
development would result in higher VMT per service population than the proposed Project. Impacts
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-11 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
associated with GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable with implementation of both
Alternative 1 and the proposed Project. Thus, Alternative 1 would be considered neither environmentally
superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As described in Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the Downtown Core Project does not
include any specific development proposals; however, future development has the potential to expose
people or structures to adverse effects associated with hazardous materials. Future development
associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would be required to implement
Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 (General Plan EIR MM-HAZ-1, updated and MM-HAZ-3,
respectively). Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would require that new proposed facilities involved in the
production, use, storage, transport or disposal of hazardous materials be located a safe distance from
land uses that may be adversely impacted by such activities, and that new sensitive facilities would not
be located near existing sites that use, store, or generate hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-
2 would require all businesses that handle hazardous materials above the reportable quantity to submit
an inventory of the hazardous materials that they manage to the San Bernardino County Fire Department
Hazardous Materials Division in coordination with the Fontana Fire Protection District. Implementation of
Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 and compliance with federal, State, and local regulations would
ensure a less than significant impact with regards to hazards and hazardous materials.
Similar to the Downtown Core Project, Alternative 1 would result in additional urban uses including
commercial, residential, and mixed-use and public facility development. As with the proposed Project,
incorporation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would reduce potential impacts from hazards and
hazardous materials to less than significant. The potential for new development to expose people or
structures to adverse effects associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be similar under this
Alternative and the Downtown Core Plan. As such, Alternative 1 is considered neither environmentally
superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
As described in Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, implementation of the Downtown Core Project
would result in less than significant impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality.
While this Alternative would result in less dense and intense development compared to the Downtown
Core Project, all new development would be subject to applicable stormwater and water quality
requirements per the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). This variation in intensity
and land use designation changes would not substantially alter impacts from or to flooding, water quality,
or on groundwater supplies because existing federal, State, and local regulations would apply to guard
against flood hazards, water quality contamination, or impact on groundwater supplies. Potential
hydrology and water quality impact for this Alternative, like the proposed Project, would be less than
significant.
Alternative 1 would result in slightly reduced development of housing units and non-residential square
feet when compared to the Downtown Core Project. Compared to the Downtown Core Project, the
potential water quality impacts related to construction and operation would be similar. As described in
Section 5.9, implementation of the Downtown Core Project would not result in construction, or long-term
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-12 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
impacts to surface water quality from urban stormwater runoff. Future development under all
alternatives would also be required to submit a SWPPP with BMPs to the RWQCB and comply with all
storm water sewer system (MS4) requirements. It would be expected that impacts related to water quality
would be similar under Alternative 1 as compared to the Downtown Core Project. As such, Alternative 1
would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.
Land Use and Planning
The proposed Downtown Core Project and Alternative 1 are long-range land use plans. As described in
Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, all impacts related to land use and planning were found to be less
than significant under the Downtown Core Update. As described previously, the Downtown Core Update
would amend the Fontana General Plan and Zoning and Development Code, including General Plan text
and Land Use Map amendments, and amendments to the Zoning and Development Code and Zoning
District Map. Under Alternative 1, the existing Land Use Element and land use designations would
continue to guide development of the Downtown Core Project Area. However, this Alternative would not
achieve the core objectives of the Downtown Core Project to meet the goals of the SB 2 Planning Grant
and accommodating a portion of the City’s Low-, Very-Low-, and Above-Moderate-income RHNA
allocation as identified in the Fontana 2021-2029 Housing Element. In addition, the Downtown Core
Project would allow for greater consistency with applicable State and regional plans related to the
provision of housing options at varying densities and income levels within an area served by transit, retail,
and services to provide opportunities to reduce VMT and associated GHG emissions when compared to
Alternative 1. As such, Alternative 1 would be considered environmentally inferior to the Downtown Core
Project.
Mineral Resources
As described in Section 8.0, the Downtown Core Project would result in no impacts relating to mineral
resources. Like the Downtown Core Project, Alternative 1 would accommodate development generally in
the same areas, and these areas are, for the most part, already urbanized. Given that no mineral resources
would be impacted by the proposed Project, impacts associated with Alternative 1 would be the same
and would remain less than significant. As such, Alternative 1 would be neither environmentally superior
nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.
Noise
As described in Section 5.11, Noise, while the Downtown Core Project does not directly propose site-
specific development, future development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core
Project could generate additional noise from construction and operational activities associated with
future projects. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 (General Plan EIR MM-NOI-1, updated) requires a noise study
be performed prior issuance of a grading permit and mitigation implemented if noise levels exceed 65
dBA. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 (General Plan EIR MM-NOI-2) provides procedures for construction
activities to reduce impacts related to equipment moving and operation. With the exception of traffic
noise on existing noise-sensitive uses along identified roadway segments, which would result in a
significant unavoidable impact, the Project would not result in generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project Area in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies with
the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-13 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Alternative 1 would result in similar development patterns and a similar development footprint as the
Downtown Core Project. Although Alternative 1 would allow for slightly less development (1,785 fewer
housing units and 493 fewer jobs), resulting in a corresponding reduction in construction and operational
noise, similar to the proposed Project, it would result in substantial permanent increases in existing
transportation noise levels at sensitive receptors on a project and cumulative level. As such, Alternative 1
is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.
Population and Housing
As described in Section 5.12, Population and Housing, population and employment growth anticipated as
a result of Project implementation is within the City’s growth projections of the Fontana Forward General
Plan and regional plans. The Downtown Core Project would result in less than significant impacts related
to population and housing.
As shown in Table 7-2, Alternative 1 would allow for 1,785 fewer residential units which would result in
6,765 fewer residents compared to the Downtown Core Project. As, Alternative 1 would provide for
development consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan, it would be consistent with City and
regional growth projections. As such, this Alternative would be considered neither environmentally
superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.
Public Services and Recreation
As described in Section 5.13, Public Services and Recreation, the Downtown Core Project would result in
less than significant impacts relating to public services and recreation. New development would place
increased demands on public services such as police, fire, schools, parks, libraries, and other governmental
services. Compliance with the Fontana General Plan and Municipal Code would require payment of impact
fees to the City and other public agencies to ensure that additional development allowed does not have
adverse impacts on these services and agencies.
Under Alternative 1, the development area and development types would remain similar, however, there
would be fewer jobs, dwelling units, and population when compared to the Downtown Core Project. Thus,
impacts to public services (the demand for police, fire and other public services) would be slightly reduced.
Overall, Alternative 1 would have a slightly reduced impact to public services when compared to the
proposed Project. As such, Alternative 1 would be considered environmentally superior to the Downtown
Core Project.
Transportation
As described in Section 5.14, Transportation, transportation impacts associated with implementation of
the Downtown Core Project would be less than significant. The proposed Project would not conflict with
policies, plans, or programs regarding roadways, bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities or the
performance or safety of those facilities. The Project would support the implementation of policies and
programs to provide new and improved facilities to support multi-modal transportation and access within
the Project Area. Similarly, Alternative 1 would provide for increased density and development within the
Project Area and would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs regarding roadways, bicycle,
pedestrian, or transit facilities or the performance or safety of those facilities.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-14 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
The proposed Downtown Core Project would result in a VMT per service population below the County
threshold. Alternative 1 would also result in a VMT per service population below the County threshold.
However, when compared to the Project, Alternative 1 would result in a higher VMT per service
population. Part of this reduction is attributed to the increasingly balanced mix of residential and
employment opportunities within the Downtown Core Project. As such, Alternative 1 would be considered
environmentally inferior to the Downtown Core Project.
Tribal Cultural Resources
As described in Section 5.15, Tribal Cultural Resources, while the Downtown Core Project does not directly
propose site-specific development with the potential to directly impact tribal cultural resources, future
development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project could cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of known or unknown tribal cultural resources. Future development
within the Project Area would be required to implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1 (General Plan EIR MM-
CUL-1, updated), which requires a qualified archaeologist to perform a number of tasks prior to
construction activities, including conducting a field survey for historical resources within portions of the
project site not previously surveyed if evidence suggests the potential for resources to exist. In addition,
future development would be required to implement Mitigation Measure CUL-2 and TCR-1 (General Plan
EIR MM-CUL-2 and MM-CUL-3, updated). Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would ensure that if any prehistoric
archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer shall retain a qualified
archaeologist to monitor construction activities and to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve
them for study. Additionally, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 has been updated to include implementation of
TCR-1 in the event Native American cultural resources are discovered. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 requires
that in the event Native American cultural resources are discovered during construction for future
development, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified archaeologist
meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find; that the City/project applicant
initiate consultation between the appropriate Native American tribal entity and transfer cultural
resources investigations to the appropriate Native American entity as soon as possible; and that a Native
American Monitor from the appropriate Native American entity is utilized where deemed appropriate or
required by the City, during initial ground disturbing activities, cultural resource surveys and/or cultural
resource excavations. Compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations, including the General
Plan and implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and TCR-1 would reduce potential impacts
to tribal cultural resources to less than significant.
Alternative 1 would result in similar development patterns and a similar development footprint as the
Downtown Core Project. As with the proposed Project, incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-
2, and TCR-1 would reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than significant. The
potential impact to tribal cultural resources under Alternative 1 would remain the same compared to the
proposed Project. As such, Alternative 1 is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the
Downtown Core Project.
Utilities and Service Systems
As described in Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, the Downtown Core Project would result in less
than significant impacts relating to utilities and service systems. New development under either
Alternative 1 or the proposed Project would place increased demands on utilities. Under Alternative 1,
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-15 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
the Project Area would be developed with similar development patterns and uses as the Downtown Core
Project; however, the overall residential and non-residential development would be less. Therefore,
overall demand on utilities and service systems would be slightly less when compared to the proposed
Project. However, both Alternative 1 and the proposed Project would likely require the construction or
expansion of new utilities to serve the site-specific development that is being proposed. The quantity of
infrastructure installed would not be substantially reduced, as the Project Area is urbanized and contains
existing utilities infrastructure. The potential environmental effects associated with infrastructure
projects would be similar under Alternative 1 and the proposed Project. Similarly, storm drainage runoff
under Alternative 1 would be approximately the same when compared to the proposed Project, due to
the general development footprint remaining the same for this alternative when compared to the
Downtown Core Project. Since demand for utilities would be slightly less under Alternative 1 due to the
lower densities and associated development potential, Alternative 1 would be considered
environmentally superior to the Downtown Core Project.
Wildfire
As described in Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, the Project area is not located in or near
state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones; the Downtown Core
Project would result in no impacts related to wildfire. Like the Downtown Core Project, Alternative 1
would accommodate development generally in the same areas, and these areas are, for the most part,
already urbanized. Given that the Project Area is not located in an area of high fire hazard potential,
impacts associated with Alternative 1 would be the same and no impacts would occur. As such, Alternative
1 would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.
Ability To Meet The Project Objectives
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would not attain the Project’s fundamental objectives,
which include providing for new residential development opportunities in order to meet the goals of the
SB 2 Planning Grant; establish FBC districts that encourage housing and supporting commercial
development; create and apply a new land use category for the Project Area to provide consistency and
allow for development at the densities and intensities needed to implement the FBC districts; enhance
the pedestrian experience and promote walkability, by ultimately closing a quarter-mile portion of Sierra
Avenue to vehicular traffic; providing objective development standards that would facilitate permitting of
housing projects; and creating a Downtown Fontana Development Guide to serve as a "how-to" guide for
the development community so that the City can realize its vision for the Downtown.
ALTERNATIVE 2 – REDUCED GROWTH
Under Alternative 2, the City would implement the Downtown Core Project, but at residential densities
and nonresidential intensities lower than those reflected in the proposed Downtown Core Project. For
comparison, it is assumed that this Alternative would result in a 59 percent decrease in the number of
multifamily units and a 56 percent decrease in the number of employees by 2040 when compared to the
proposed Project; refer to Table 7-1, Growth Potential By Alternative (2040). This would result in a 56
percent decrease in the Project Area’s population by 2040 when compared to the proposed Project. This
Alternative was developed to reduce the severity of potential impacts related to air quality, greenhouse
gas emissions and noise, as overall development of residential and commercial uses within the Downtown
Core would be less than what could under the proposed Project.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-16 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Table 7-3, Alternative 2: Reduced Growth Alternative Compared to the Proposed Project, compares the
assumed development potential associated with the Reduced Growth Alternative and the proposed
Project 2040 buildout.
Table 7-3
Alternative 2: Reduced Growth Alternative Compared to the Proposed Project
Alternative Population1
Housing Units Jobs
(Employment) 2
Jobs Per
Housing
Unit
Single
Family2
Multi
Family2
Alternative 2: No Project/Existing
General Plan 18,999 677 4,336 4,369 0.87
Downtown Core Project (Proposed
Project) 42,842 677 10,627 10,008 0.89
Difference -23,843 0 -6,291 -5,639 --
Source:
1. . Based on 3.79 persons per household, California Department of Finance (DOF), E-5 Population & Housing Estimates for
Cities, Counties, and the State: January 2021-2022, with 2020 Benchmark, May 2022.
2. Kittelson and Associates, Fontana Downtown Core Project Transportation Study, January 16, 2023.
Alternative 2 would implement the Downtown Core Project, including amending the General Plan and
Zoning and Development Code, in order to create and implement a new General Plan land use category
and six new FBC districts specific to the Project Area; however, the amount of development would be
reduced. As shown in Table 7-3, Alternative 2 would result in approximately 6,291 fewer housing units
and 23,843 fewer residents within the Project Area when compared to the proposed Project. Employment
opportunities would be decreased under this alternative, with approximately 5,639 fewer jobs created
within the Project Area when compared to the proposed Project.
Aesthetics
As described in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, impacts related to Aesthetics were found be less than significant.
Both the Downtown Core Project and Reduced Growth Alternative would provide for increased
development within the Project Area that would result in densification of the Project Area. However,
Alternative 2 would result in decreased densities and intensities in the Project Area when compared to
the Downtown Core Project. Future projects under both development scenarios would be subject to
applicable Municipal Code requirements. Although buildout of Alternative 2 would result in 6,291 fewer
dwelling units in the Project Area and 5,639 fewer jobs, overall the Project Area would experience
significant development compared to existing conditions which would change the character and image of
the area under both Alternative 2 and the proposed Project.
Future development associated with Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would result in new
development and intensification of existing urban uses that may interfere with existing scenic views of
the San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills. Views of the San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills are
primarily provided from along Sierra Avenue and within the northernmost and southernmost portions of
the Project Area. Under both Alternative 2 and the proposed Project, buildings would be limited to heights
of 35 feet adjacent to Sierra Avenue and a 55-foot maximum height would be maintained adjacent to
street corners within the Gateway Core and Sierra Core. Since these are the areas wherein views of the
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-17 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills are primarily provided, the height limitations would assist in
maintaining these long-range views from the Project Area.
Development under either Alternative 2 or the proposed Project would be guided by the guiding principles
established in General Plan Chapter 14, Downtown Area Plan and the proposed Downtown Fontana
Development Guide. The Project and Alternative 2 would amend the General Plan to introduce the
WMXU-3: Walkable Mixed-Use Downtown Core land use category, which supports a density of 2.1-70
dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and 0.2-2.0 Commercial FAR, and to apply the new land use category to a
majority of the Project Area. The new WMXU-3 land use designation would encourage residential
development within the Project Area by providing opportunities for higher density residential
development to meet the goals of the SB 2 Planning Grant and to implement the General Plan goals,
policies, and actions. Although Alternative 2 anticipates less development, it would continue to implement
the General Plan goals, policies, and actions related to infill development, providing mixed and supportive
land uses, revitalizing the Downtown Area, supporting increased activity, increasing connectivity and
providing improved amenities and design that encourages walking, bicycling, transit, and other
opportunities that reduce motor vehicle trips. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would amend
Zoning and Development Code Chapter 30 to incorporate the six new FBC districts, including permitted
land uses, increased densities and development standards by zoning district, building types, frontage
types, general regulations, design and architectural regulations, private open space types, and public open
space standards specific to each new FBC District.
Under both Alternative 2 and the proposed Project, the Fontana Development Code provides for project-
specific design review of future development proposals within the City, including the Project Area, which
would ensure that development is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and actions and the
specific FBC district development standards. Neither Alternative 2 nor the proposed Project would conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. As such, Alternative 2 would be
neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
As described in Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, the Downtown Core Project would result
in no impacts to agriculture and forestry resources.
Alternative 2 would result in similar development patterns in the Project Area, which is already urbanized.
Given that no agriculture and forestry resources would be impacted by the proposed Project, impacts
associated with Alternative 2 would be the same and no impacts would occur. As such, Alternative 2 would
be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.
Air Quality
As described in Section 5.2, Air Quality, construction and operation of future developments would occur
within close proximity to sensitive receptors, and there is the potential for localized emissions to exceed
regulatory levels. The following significant impacts related to air quality have been identified:
• The Project could result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations
or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or
the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-18 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
• The Project could result in ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 operational emissions that would be
significant and unavoidable.
• Implementation of the proposed Project as a whole would result in a significant and unavoidable
impact concerning Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) during operational activities.
• Project implementation would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant
cumulative air quality impacts during operational activities.
Both Alternative 2 and the Downtown Core Project would provide opportunities for trip internalization
and increased opportunities for walking and bicycling due to the proposed mix of higher density
residential and commercial development. Future development under both Alternative 2 and the proposed
Project would be required to adhere to the same policy guidance and local, State, and regional air quality
measures. Alternative 2 would result in less development when compared to the proposed Project,
resulting in fewer construction-related emissions. Overall, construction-related emissions would be less
than significant under Alternative 2, including for NOx, which would be significant under the proposed
Project without mitigation. Similar to the proposed Project, implementation of Alternative 2 would be
required to implement all Air Quality mitigation measures (refer to Section 5.2).
Under the proposed Project, operations would exceed the numerical thresholds of significance
established by the SCAQMD for emissions of all ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. In comparison, Alternative
2 would exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for emissions of all
ROG during the summer, and ROG and NOx, during the winter. Both the Project and Alternative 2 would
be required to implement all Air Quality mitigation measures (refer to Section 5.2). Compared to the
proposed Project, Alternative 2 would result in fewer operational emissions and with the exception of
ROG and NOx, all emissions would be below significance thresholds.
Although construction emissions at nearby sensitive receptors would be less under Alternative 2, both the
proposed Project and Alternative 2 would result in a less than significant impact concerning localized
significance thresholds during construction activities. Under the proposed Project the maximum daily
emissions of pollutants during operations of future developments could exceed the localized significance
thresholds for operation emissions for PM10 and PM2.5. The maximum daily emissions of pollutants during
operations of future developments associated with implementation of Alternative 2 would not exceed the
localized significance thresholds.
Conclusion
Both Alternative 2 and the Downtown Core Project provide opportunities for trip internalization and
increased opportunities for walking and bicycling due to the proposed mix of higher density residential
and commercial development. While land uses and development under Alternative 2 would be required
to adhere to the same policy guidance and local, State, and regional air quality measures as the Downtown
Core Project, the decrease in residential units and non-residential building square footage, and the
corresponding reduction in construction emissions, operational emissions, and potential reductions in
overall traffic volumes would result in reductions in air emissions under Alternative 2 when compared to
the proposed Project. As such, Alternative 2 would be considered environmentally superior to the
Downtown Core Project.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-19 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Biological Resources
The Project Area is generally urbanized and developed with residential and non-residential uses. As
described in Section 5.3, Biological Resources, the Downtown Core Project does not include any specific
development proposals and would not result in significant direct impacts to existing biological resources.
However, subsequent development and redevelopment activities associated with implementation of the
proposed Project could occur on undeveloped sites that have been revegetated or result in the removal
of ornamental vegetation, potentially resulting in direct impacts to Burrowing Owl or nesting birds. Future
development associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be required to implement
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 (General Plan EIR MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2). Mitigation Measure
BIO-1 requires that for sites containing suitable habitat, a qualified biologist conduct a pre-construction
survey prior to ground disturbing or vegetation disturbing activities to determine the presence or absence
of burrowing owl within the proposed area of impact and appropriate actions if occupied burrows are
discovered. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 provides an alternative if avoidance of clearing of vegetation and
removal of trees is not feasible between non-nesting (or non-breeding) season for nesting birds to ensure
their protection. Compliance with Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
and the California Fish and Game Code, would ensure that protected birds are not adversely affected
during construction activities accommodated as part of the Downtown Core Project and impacts would
be reduced to less than significant.
Alternative 2 would result in similar development patterns and a similar development footprint as the
Downtown Core Project. The existing General Plan Land Use Map does not designate any open space
within the Project Area. As with the proposed Project, incorporation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and
BIO-2 would reduce potential impacts to Burrowing Owl or nesting birds to less than significant. The
impact to biological resources under the Downtown Core Project and Alternative 2 would remain the
same. As such, Alternative 2 would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown
Core Project.
Cultural Resources
As described in Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, while the Downtown Core Project does not directly
propose site-specific development with the potential to directly impact cultural resources, future
development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project could cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of known or unknown historic or archaeological resources. Mitigation
Measure CUL-1 (General Plan EIR MM-CUL-1, updated) would ensure evaluation of a project site for
historical resources and, if necessary, implementation of mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a level
that is less than significant. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 (General Plan EIR MM-CUL-2, updated) would
ensure that if any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the
developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities and take appropriate
measures to protect or preserve them for study. Compliance with existing federal, State, and local
regulations, including the General Plan and implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2,
would reduce potential impacts to cultural resources to less than significant.
Alternative 2 would result in similar development patterns and a similar development footprint as the
Downtown Core Project. As with the proposed Project, incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and
CUL-2 would reduce potential impacts to historical resources and archaeological resources to less than
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-20 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
significant. The impact under Alternative 2 would remain the same compared to the proposed Project. As
such, Alternative 2 is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core
Project.
Energy
As described in Section 5.5, Energy, Project implementation would use energy resources for the operation
of buildings (electricity and natural gas), for on-road vehicle trips (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel), and from
off-road construction activities (e.g. diesel fuel) associated with the Project. Future development projects
associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be in compliance with all applicable
federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage. Energy use impacts associated with the
implementation of the Downtown Core Project would be less than significant.
Alternative 2 would result in similar development patterns and a similar development footprint as the
Downtown Core Project. While land uses and development under Alternative 2 would be required to
adhere to the same local, State, and regional measures regulating energy usage as the Downtown Core
Project, the decrease in residential units and non-residential building square footage, and the
corresponding reduction in electricity and gas for the operation of buildings, diesel fuel for off-road
construction activities, and potential reductions in gasoline due to a decrease in the overall traffic volumes
would result in reductions in energy usage under Alternative 2 when compared to the proposed Project.
As such, Alternative 2 would be considered environmentally superior to the Downtown Core Project.
Geology and Soils
As described in Section 5.6, Geology and Soils, it is possible that undiscovered paleontological resources
could be encountered during future ground-disturbing activities within the Project Area. Future
development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would be required to
implement Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 (General Plan EIR MM-CUL-4, updated and MM-CUL-
5, respectively). Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would require a qualified paleontologist conduct a pre-
construction field survey of any project site that is underlain by older alluvium. The paleontologist shall
submit a report of findings that provides specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures
(i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Should mitigation monitoring of
paleontological resources be recommended for a specific project, the project would be required to
implement Mitigation Measure GEO-2, which would require the program to assign a paleontological
monitor to the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities; cease earth-disturbing
activities should fossils be found; curate for documentation and transfer recovered fossils to an
appropriate depository; and submit a report to the City and San Bernardino County Museum. With
implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, potential impacts to paleontological resources
associated with future development anticipated by the Downtown Core Project would be reduced to less
than significant.
Alternative 2 would result in similar development patterns as the Downtown Core Project. Since the
Project Area is the same under both development scenarios, similar physical constraints related to geology
and soils exist. The potential for new development to expose people or structures to adverse effects
associated with seismic ground shaking and geologic instabilities would be similar under this Alternative
and the Downtown Core Plan. As with the proposed Project, incorporation of Mitigation Measures GEO-
1 and GEO-2 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant. Further,
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-21 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
new development would be required to comply with the California Building Code and applicable Municipal
Code requirements. As such, Alternative 2 is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to
the Downtown Core Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As described in Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, although the proposed Project would be required
to comply with regulations imposed by the State of California and the SCAQMD aimed at the reduction of
air pollutant emissions, the proposed Project as a whole would generate emissions beyond the identified
threshold for residential and commercial land uses, and as such, would have a cumulatively significant
and unavoidable adverse impact. The Project would be required to implement mitigation measures GHG-
1 (General Plan EIR MM-GHG-1, updated), GHG-2, and GHG-3, as well as all Air Quality mitigation
measures (refer to Section 5.2). It is noted that when compared to existing conditions, the proposed
Downtown Core Project would provide for more residential and commercial development in proximity to
each other, as well as in proximity to transit. Further, Project implementation would provide for a denser
urban environment with improved amenities that support active (non-motorized) transportation
opportunities within the Project Area. When compared to the existing General Plan land use plan for the
Project Area, the proposed Downtown Core Project would result in a four percent reduction in VMT per
service population. The Project would also be consistent with plans and policies designed to achieve the
State’s GHG reduction goals and the RTP/SCS.
Potential future development associated with implementation of the Alternative 2 would generate GHGs
during the construction and operational phases. Similar to the proposed Project, the primary source of
construction-related GHGs with implementation of Alternative 2 would result from emissions of CO2
associated with individual development projects’ construction and worker vehicle trips. Additionally, site-
specific development would likely require demolition and grading, and would also include site
preparation, paving building construction, and architectural coating phases. The operational phase of
future development associated with Alternative 2 would generate GHGs primarily from the individual
development’s operational vehicle trips and building energy (electricity and natural gas) usage.
Operational GHG emissions combined with construction-related GHG emissions associated with
implementation of Alternative 2 would be less than the proposed Project; however, they would exceed
the SCAQMD’s proposed GHG threshold. Thus, similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 has the
potential to result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to GHG emissions. Similar to the
proposed Project, Alternative 2 would be required to implement mitigation measures GHG-1 (General
Plan EIR MM-GHG-1, updated), GHG-2, and GHG-3, as well as all Air Quality mitigation measures (refer to
Section 5.2).
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would provide for more residential and commercial
development in proximity to each other, as well as in proximity to transit when compared to existing
conditions. Alternative 2 would provide for a denser urban environment with improved amenities that
support active (non-motorized) transportation opportunities within the Project Area. However, when
compared to the proposed Project, although Alternative 2 would not exceed the VMT per service
population threshold, the VMT per service population would be greater under Alternative 2. Like the
proposed Project, Alternative 2 would be consistent with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS. Similarly,
Alternative 2 would also be consistent with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-22 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Conclusion
When compared to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would provide fewer opportunities for trip
internalization and opportunities for walking and bicycling due to the reduced development potential.
While land uses and development under Alternative 2 would be required to adhere to the same policy
guidance and local, State, and regional air quality measures as the Downtown Core Project, the decrease
in residential units and non-residential building square footage, and the corresponding reduction in
construction emissions, operational emissions, and potential reductions in overall traffic volumes would
result in reductions in greenhouse gas emissions under Alternative 2 when compared to the proposed
Project. As such, Alternative 2 would be considered environmentally superior to the Downtown Core
Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As described in Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the Downtown Core Project does not
include any specific development proposals; however, future development has the potential to expose
people or structures to adverse effects associated with hazardous materials. Future development
associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project would be required to implement
Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 (General Plan EIR MM-HAZ-1, updated and MM-HAZ-3,
respectively). Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would require that new proposed facilities involved in the
production, use, storage, transport or disposal of hazardous materials be located a safe distance from
land uses that may be adversely impacted by such activities, and that new sensitive facilities would not
be located near existing sites that use, store, or generate hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-
2 would require all businesses that handle hazardous materials above the reportable quantity to submit
an inventory of the hazardous materials that they manage to the San Bernardino County Fire Department
Hazardous Materials Division in coordination with the Fontana Fire Protection District. Implementation of
Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 and compliance with federal, State, and local regulations would
ensure a less than significant impact with regards to hazards and hazardous materials.
Similar to the Downtown Core Project, Alternative 2 would result in additional urban uses including
commercial, residential, and mixed-use and public facility development. As with the proposed Project,
incorporation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would reduce potential impacts from hazards and
hazardous materials to less than significant. The potential for new development to expose people or
structures to adverse effects associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be similar under this
Alternative and the Downtown Core Plan. As such, Alternative 2 is considered neither environmentally
superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
As described in Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, implementation of the Downtown Core Project
would result in less than significant impacts related to Hydrology and Water Quality.
While this Alternative would result in less dense and intense development compared to the Downtown
Core Project, all new development would be subject to applicable stormwater and water quality
requirements per the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. This variation in development
density and intensity would not substantially alter impacts from or to flooding, water quality, or on
groundwater supplies because existing federal, State, and local regulations would apply to guard against
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-23 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
flood hazards, water quality contamination, or impact on groundwater supplies. Potential hydrology and
water quality impacts associated with Alternative 2, like the proposed Project, would be less than
significant.
Alternative 2 would result in slightly reduced development of housing units and non-residential square
feet when compared to the Downtown Core Project; however, potential water quality impacts related to
construction and operation would be similar. As described in Section 5.9, implementation of the
Downtown Core Project would not result in construction, or long-term impacts to surface water quality
from urban stormwater runoff. Future development under all alternatives would also be required to
submit a SWPPP with BMPs to the RWQCB and comply with all storm water sewer system (MS4)
requirements. It would be expected that impacts related to water quality would be similar under
Alternative 2 as compared to the proposed Project. As such, Alternative 2 would be neither
environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.
Land Use and Planning
The proposed Downtown Core Project is a long-range land use plan. As described in Section 5.10, Land
Use and Planning, all impacts related to land use and planning were found to be less than significant under
the Downtown Core Update. The proposed Project and Alternative 2 would amend the Fontana General
Plan and Zoning and Development Code, including General Plan text and Land Use Map amendments, and
amendments to the Zoning and Development Code and Zoning District Map. Alternative 2 would allow
for development at similar densities as the proposed Project, but development within each FBC District
would not occur to the maximum development potential. Similar to the Project, Alternative 2 would
provide for consistency with applicable State and regional plans. As such, Alternative 2 would be
considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.
Mineral Resources
As described in Section 8.0, the Downtown Core Project would result in no impacts relating to mineral
resources. Like the Downtown Core Project, Alternative 2 would accommodate development generally in
the same areas, and these areas are, for the most part, already urbanized. Given that no mineral resources
would be impacted by the proposed Project, impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be the same
and would remain less than significant. As such, Alternative 2 would be neither environmentally superior
nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.
Noise
As described in Section 5.11, Noise, while the Downtown Core Project does not directly propose site-
specific development, future development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core
Project could generate additional noise from construction and operational activities associated with
future projects. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 (General Plan EIR MM-NOI-1, updated) requires a noise study
be performed prior issuance of a grading permit and mitigation implemented if noise levels exceed 65
dBA. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 (General Plan EIR MM-NOI-2) provides procedures for construction
activities to reduce impacts related to equipment moving and operation. With the exception of traffic
noise on existing noise-sensitive uses along identified roadway segments, which would result in a
significant unavoidable impact, the Project would not result in generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project Area in excess of standards
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-24 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies with
the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2.
Alternative 2 would have less development when compared to the proposed Project, resulting in a
corresponding reduction in construction and operational noise. However, similar to the proposed Project,
Alternative 2 would result in substantial permanent increases in existing transportation noise levels at
sensitive receptors on a project and cumulative level. As such, Alternative 2 is considered neither
environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.
Population and Housing
As described in Section 5.12, Population and Housing, population and employment growth anticipated as
a result of Project implementation is within the City’s growth projections of the Fontana Forward General
Plan and regional plans. The Downtown Core Project would result in less than significant impacts related
to population and housing.
As shown in Table 7-2, Alternative 2 anticipates 6,291 fewer residential units which would result in 23,843
fewer residents compared to the Downtown Core Project. Thus, Alternative 2 would be within City and
regional growth projections. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would result in less than
significant impacts related to population and housing. As such, this Alternative would be considered
neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.
Public Services and Recreation
As described in Section 5.13, Public Services and Recreation, the Downtown Core Project would result in
less than significant impacts relating to public services and recreation. New development would place
increased demands on public services such as police, fire, schools, parks, libraries, and other governmental
services. Compliance with the Fontana General Plan and Municipal Code would require payment of impact
fees to the City and other public agencies to ensure that additional development allowed does not have
adverse impacts on these services and agencies.
Under Alternative 2, the development area and development types would remain similar, however, there
would be fewer jobs, dwelling units, and population when compared to the Downtown Core Project. Thus,
impacts to public services (the demand for police, fire and other public services) would be reduced.
Overall, Alternative 2 would have reduced impacts to public services when compared to the proposed
Project. As such, Alternative 2 would be considered environmentally superior to the Downtown Core
Project.
Transportation
As described in Section 5.14, Transportation, transportation impacts associated with implementation of
the Downtown Core Project would be less than significant. The proposed Project would not conflict with
policies, plans, or programs regarding roadways, bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities or the
performance or safety of those facilities. The Project would support the implementation of policies and
programs to provide new and improved facilities to support multi-modal transportation and access within
the Project Area. Similarly, Alternative 2 would provide for increased density and development within the
Project Area and would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs regarding roadways, bicycle,
pedestrian, or transit facilities or the performance or safety of those facilities.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-25 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
The proposed Downtown Core Project would result in a VMT per service population below the County
threshold. Alternative 2 would also result in a VMT per service population below the County threshold.
However, when compared to the Project, Alternative 2 would result in a higher VMT per service
population. Part of this reduction is attributed to the increasingly balanced mix of residential and
employment opportunities within the Downtown Core Project. As such, Alternative 2 would be considered
environmentally inferior to the Downtown Core Project.
Tribal Cultural Resources
As described in Section 5.15, Tribal Cultural Resources, while the Downtown Core Project does not directly
propose site-specific development with the potential to directly impact tribal cultural resources, future
development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project could cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of known or unknown tribal cultural resources. Future development
within the Project Area would be required to implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1 (General Plan EIR MM-
CUL-1, updated), which requires a qualified archaeologist to perform a number of tasks prior to
construction activities, including conducting a field survey for historical resources within portions of the
project site not previously surveyed if evidence suggests the potential for resources to exist. In addition,
future development would be required to implement Mitigation Measure CUL-2 and TCR-1 (General Plan
EIR MM-CUL-2 and MM-CUL-3, updated). Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would ensure that if any prehistoric
archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer shall retain a qualified
archaeologist to monitor construction activities and to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve
them for study. Additionally, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 has been updated to include implementation of
TCR-1 in the event Native American cultural resources are discovered. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 requires
that in the event Native American cultural resources are discovered during construction for future
development, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified archaeologist
meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find; that the City/project applicant
initiate consultation between the appropriate Native American tribal entity and transfer cultural
resources investigations to the appropriate Native American entity as soon as possible; and that a Native
American Monitor from the appropriate Native American entity is utilized where deemed appropriate or
required by the City, during initial ground disturbing activities, cultural resource surveys and/or cultural
resource excavations. Compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations, including the General
Plan and implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and TCR-1 would reduce potential impacts
to tribal cultural resources to less than significant.
Alternative 2 would result in similar development patterns and a similar development footprint as the
Downtown Core Project. As with the proposed Project, incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-
2, and TCR-1 would reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than significant. The
potential impact to tribal cultural resources under Alternative 2 would remain relatively similar compared
to the proposed Project. As such, Alternative 2 is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior
to the Downtown Core Project.
Utilities and Service Systems
As described in Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, the Downtown Core Project would result in less
than significant impacts relating to utilities and service systems. New development under either
Alternative 2 or the proposed Project would place increased demands on utilities. Under Alternative 2,
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-26 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
the Project Area would be developed with similar development patterns and uses as the Downtown Core
Project; however, the overall residential and non-residential development would be less. Therefore,
overall demand on utilities and service systems would be less when compared to the proposed Project.
However, both Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would likely require the construction or expansion
of new utilities to serve the site-specific development that is being proposed. The quantity of
infrastructure installed would not be substantially reduced, as the Project Area is urbanized and contains
existing utilities infrastructure. The potential environmental effects associated with infrastructure
projects would be similar under Alternative 2 and the proposed Project. Similarly, storm drainage runoff
under Alternative 2 would be approximately the same when compared to the proposed Project, due to
the general development footprint remaining the same for this alternative when compared to the
Downtown Core Project. Since demand for utilities would be less under Alternative 2 due to the lower
associated development, Alternative 2 would be considered environmentally superior to the Downtown
Core Project.
Wildfire
As described in Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, the Project area is not located in or near
state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones; the Downtown Core
Project would result in no impacts related to wildfire. Like the Downtown Core Project, Alternative 2
would accommodate development generally in the same areas, and these areas are, for the most part,
already urbanized. Given that the Project Area is not located in an area of high fire hazard potential,
impacts associated with Alternative 1 would be the same and no impacts would occur. As such, Alternative
2 would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the Downtown Core Project.
Ability To Meet The Project Objectives
The Reduced Growth Alternative would attain the Project’s fundamental objectives, allow potentially to
a lesser extent, including providing for new residential development opportunities in order to meet the
goals of the SB 2 Planning Grant; establish FBC districts that encourage housing and supporting
commercial development; create and apply a new land use category for the Project Area to provide
consistency and allow for development at the densities and intensities needed to implement the FBC
districts; enhance the pedestrian experience and promote walkability, by ultimately closing a quarter-mile
portion of Sierra Avenue to vehicular traffic; providing objective development standards that would
facilitate permitting of housing projects; and creating a Downtown Fontana Development Guide to serve
as a "how-to" guide for the development community so that the City can realize its vision for the
Downtown.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative be identified among the alternatives that are
analyzed in the EIR. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, an EIR must
also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6(e)(2)). The environmentally superior alternative is that alternative with the least adverse
environmental impacts when compared to the proposed Project.
A comparative analysis of the Downtown Core Project and each of the Project alternatives is provided in
Table 7-4, Comparison of Alternatives, below. As shown in Table 7-4, Alternative 2 (Reduced Growth
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-27 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Alternative) is the environmentally superior alternative when looked at in terms of all potential
environmental impacts. While it would not completely eliminate the Project’s significant and unavoidable
impacts, Alternative 2 would lessen the majority of the environmental impacts associated with the
proposed Project. Both alternatives fail to reduce any significant and unavoidable impacts to a less than
significant level.
Table 7-4
Comparison of Alternatives
Environmental Issue Alternative 1
(No Project)
Alternative 2
(Reduced Growth)
Aesthetics = =
Agricultural 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 and Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources = =
Utilities and Services Systems
Wildfire = =
Notes:
Indicates an impact that is greater than the Project (environmentally inferior).
Indicates an impact that is less than the Project (environmentally superior).
= Indicates an impact that is equal to the Project (neither environmentally superior nor inferior).
* Indicates a significant and unavoidable impact.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 7-28 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
This page intentionally left blank.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 8-1 Effects Found Not to be Significant
8.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
An analysis of the proposed Project’s effect on specific environmental topic areas, included as part of the
Environmental Checklist form presented in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
Appendix G, was conducted as part of the preparation of this EIR. During this evaluation, certain impacts
of the Project were found to have no impact or have a less than significant impact due to the inability of
a project of this scope to create such impacts or the absence of Project characteristics producing effects
of this type. The effects determined not to be significant are not required to be included in primary
analysis sections of the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, the following section
provides a brief description of potential impacts found to have no impact or a less than significant impact.
AESTHETICS
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact: There are no scenic highways officially designated by Caltrans within or adjacent to the Project
Area, and no roadways within the Project Area are currently eligible for scenic highway designation
(Caltrans, 2022). No impact would occur in this regard.
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. The Project Area is located within an urbanized area and is currently developed with a mix of
residential and non-residential uses. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program classifies the Project
Area as Urban and Built-Up Land (California Department of Conservation, 2022). The Project Area does
not contain any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (California Department of Conservation, 2022). Further, the
Project Area and surrounding areas are located in an urbanized area that is already disturbed. Therefore,
the Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
to a non-agricultural use. No impact would occur in this regard.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
No Impact. The Project Area is located within an urbanized area and is currently developed with a mix of
residential and non-residential uses. The Project area is not being used for any agricultural purposes, nor
is the site under a Williamson Act contract. Further, there are no properties within the surrounding area
under agricultural production. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contact. No impact would occur in this regard.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 8-2 Effects Found Not to be Significant
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined
in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
No Impact. The Project Area is located within the Form-Based Code (FBC) area, and specifically within the
Retail, Civic, Station Area, Downtown Gateway, Transitional, Multi-Family, Neighborhood, and Sierra
Gateway districts. The Project Area is not zoned for forest land, timberland, or for timberland production.
According to the General Plan, no forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production
occurs within the City. The Project Area is urbanized and no forest land, timberland, or timberland
production areas are located within or adjacent to the Project Area. Thus, the proposed Project would not
conflict with existing zoning for or cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned
Timberland Production. No impact would occur in this regard.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. As described above, no forest land is located within the Project Area or surrounding area. The
Project Area is developed with residential and non-residential uses within an urbanized area. Thus, the
proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land into non-forest
use. No impact would occur in this regard.
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
No Impact. As described above, no farmland or forest land is located within the Project Area or
surrounding area. The Project Area is developed with residential and non-residential uses within an
urbanized area. Thus, the proposed Project would not result conversion of farmland to non-agricultural
use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur in this regard.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The Project Area is located within an urbanized area and currently developed with residential
and non-residential uses. The Project Area consists primarily of developed and/or disturbed land that has
been developed, paved, or landscaped, and existing vegetation consists of primarily ornamental and/or
nonnative plant species. There are a limited number of non-contiguous undeveloped parcels within the
Project Area consisting of disturbed and/or graded areas, some of which may have revegetated with
opportunistic weedy species including non-native annual grasses and weedy forbs (City of Fontana, 2018).
No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities are located on or adjacent to the Project Area
(USFWS, 2022). The City’s General Plan EIR further substantiates that there are no riparian or sensitive
habitats known to occur in the Project Area (City of Fontana, 2018). Therefore, Project implementation
would not result in a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 8-3 Effects Found Not to be Significant
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory,
the Project Area does not contain any blue-line streams or wetland habitats (USFWS, 2022). Therefore,
Project implementation would not result in a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected
wetlands.
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?
No Impact. The Project Area is currently developed and located within an urbanized area. The General
Plan EIR identifies wildlife movement as being limited to an east-west orientation along the foothills of
the San Gabriel Mountains north of I-15, outside of the Project Area. There are no wetlands or waters
within or surrounding the Project Area. Thus, the Project would not interfere with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish. Further, due to the urbanized nature and the lack of quality biological
habitat within and immediately surrounding the Project Area, the Project Area does not function as a
migratory wildlife corridor and development of the proposed Project would not interfere with the
movement of wildlife or impact wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
No Impact. The Project Area is urbanized and is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State
habitat conservation plan (City of Fontana, 2018; California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2019). Thus,
the Project would not conflict with any of these plans and no impact would occur.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a) Would the project 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? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42?
The Project Area is not located within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no
known active or potentially active faults on or trending toward the Project Area (California Geological
Survey, 2022). Because there are no known faults located on or trending towards the Project Area, the
potential for surface rupture within the Project Area is considered very low. The Project would not directly
or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects related to ground rupture. No
impact would occur.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 8-4 Effects Found Not to be Significant
4) Landslides?
The Project Area is relatively flat, as is the immediately surrounding area. Due to the predominant
underlying geologic formations and generally flat topography within the City, the Project Area has a low
susceptibility to landslides. There are no earthquake-induced landslide seismic hazard zones mapped
within the Project Area (California Geological Survey, 2022). Therefore, the probability of seismically-
induced landslides occurring within the Project Area is very low. No impact would occur.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
waste water?
As described in Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, wastewater treatment services in the Project
Area are provided by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). Existing wastewater infrastructure exists
throughout the Project Area, which is underlain by sanitary sewer pipes owned by the City. The Fontana
Municipal Code would require future development projects within the Project Area to connect to the
public sewer system. Future development associated with implementation of the Downtown Core Project
would not utilize septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems. No impact would occur.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. As described in Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the Project Area in not located
within an airport land use plan, nor is the Project Area located within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport. The closest public airports are the Ontario International Airport, located approximately eight
miles southwest of the Project Area, and the Flabob Airport, located approximately seven miles south of
the Project Area. The Project Area is not located within an airport influence area within the Ontario
International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan or any other airport land use plan. Thus, the Project
would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project Area.
g) Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. According to the CALFIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps, the Project Area is not located
within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CALFIRE, 2022). The City’s General Plan and Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan do not identify the Project Area as being within an area with high fire hazard potential,
and the Project Area is not located within the City’s Fire Hazard Overlay District. Due to the urbanized
nature of the area and the provision of nearby firefighting protection services, implementation of the
proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires. No impact would occur in this regard.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 8-5 Effects Found Not to be Significant
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
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:
4) Impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. The Project Area is not located within close proximity to any streams or rivers and would not
result in the alteration of the course of a river or stream. The Project Area is located in an urban area and
is developed with residential and non-residential uses. Additionally, according to the National Flood
Insurance Program Flood Insurance Rate Map, the Project Area is not located within a flood hazard zone
(FEMA, 2022). As such, the Project would not impede or redirect flood flows. No impacts associated with
impeding or redirecting flood flows would occur.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
No Impact. As described in Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project area is not located within
a flood hazard zone. As such, flood-related hazards are not anticipated at the Project Area. Tsunamis are
sea waves that are generated in response to large-magnitude earthquakes, which can result in coastal
flooding. Seiches are the oscillation of large bodies of standing water, such as lakes, that can occur in
response to ground shaking. The Project Area is approximately 43 miles inland of the Pacific Ocean.
Regional dams do not have the potential to inundate the Project Area according to DWR Division of Safety
of Dams Dam Breach Inundation Maps. As a result, tsunamis and seiches do not pose hazards due to the
Project Area’s inland location and lack of nearby bodies of standing water. Therefore, the proposed
Project would result in no impacts associated with the release of pollutants due to project inundation.
MINERAL RESOURCES
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. The State Mining and Geology Board establishes Mineral Resources Zones (MRZs) to designate
lands that contain mineral deposits. The Project Area is designated as MRZ-2 by the California Geological
Survey (formally known as the California Division of Mines and Geology), indicating that available geologic
information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present (California Division of Mines and
Geology, 1984). However, there are no active mines located within the Project Area (Division of Mine
Reclamation, 2022). The Fontana General Plan does not designate mineral resources zones within the City
or Project Area. The Project Area is currently developed with residential and non-residential uses and does
not contain mineral resource recovery operations. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of
availability of a known mineral resource considered of value to the region. No impact would occur in this
regard.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 8-6 Effects Found Not to be Significant
NOISE
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip 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?
No Impact. As described in Section 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the Project Area in not located
within an airport land use plan, nor is the Project Area located within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport. The closest public airports are the Ontario International Airport, located approximately eight
miles southwest of the Project Area, and the Flabob Airport, located approximately seven miles south of
the Project Area. The Project Area is not located within an airport influence area within the Ontario
International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan or any other airport land use plan. Thus, the Project
would not result in excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project Area.
WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,
would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact. According to the CALFIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps, the Project Area is not located
within a state responsibility area or classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CALFIRE, 2022).
The City’s General Plan and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan do not identify the Project Area as being within
an area with high fire hazard potential, and the Project Area is not located within the City’s Fire Hazard
Overlay District. As the Project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very
high fire hazard severity zones, no impact would occur.
8.1 REFERENCES
California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland: Most Recent,
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/agriculture/, accessed December 4, 2022.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Natural Community Conservation Plans, April 2019,
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP, accessed December 5, 2022.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE), FHSZ Viewer,
http://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, accessed November 9, 2022.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 8-7 Effects Found Not to be Significant
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 143, Plate 7.6,
1984.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mine Reclamation, Mines Online,
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html, accessed December 4, 2022.
California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation,
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/, accessed November 15, 2022.
City of Fontana, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, June 2017.
City of Fontana, Fontana Forward: General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report,
June 2018.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), FEMA's National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer,
https://hazards-
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa
9cd&extent=-117.47735819154686,34.070268522757175,-
117.39427408510163,34.105810037824384, accessed November 10, 2022.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Wetlands Inventory,
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html, accessed December 5, 2022.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 8-8 Effects Found Not to be Significant
This page intentionally left blank.
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 9-1 Report Preparers
9.0 REPORT PREPARERS
LEAD AGENCY
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana CA, 92335
Patty Nevins, Director of Planning
Rina Leung, Senior Planner
Salvador Quintanilla, Senior Planner
Alejandro Rico, Associate Planner
Gia Kim, Public Works Director/City Engineer
David Hammer, Engineering Manager
Delia Votsch, Contractor
PREPARERS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
De Novo Planning Group
180 East Main Street, Suite 108
Tustin, CA 92780
Amanda Tropiano, Principal/Project Manager
Starla Barker, AICP, Principal Planner
Ashley Brodkin, Senior Planner
Josh Smith, AICP, Senior Planner
Erik Anderson, Associate Planner
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
750 The City Drive, Suite 410
Orange, CA 92868
Tim Erney, Senior Principal Engineer
Mike Aronson, Principal Engineer
Fernando Sotelo, Associate Engineer
MD Acoustics, LLC
1197 Los Angeles Ave, Ste C-256
Simi Valley, CA 93065
Claire Pincock, INCE-USA
Mike Dickerson, INCE-USA
Downtown Core Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Public Review Draft | May 2023 9-2 Report Preparers
This page intentionally left blank.