HomeMy WebLinkAbout00_Addendum No. 6 to the Westgate SP FEIR for Planning Area 27ADDENDUM #6 TO THE
WESTGATE SPECIFIC PLAN FEIR
FOR
PLANNING AREA 27
Prepared for:
CITY OF FONTANA
City of Fontana Planning Department
DiTanyon Johnson, Senior Planner
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335-3528
Prepared by:
UltraSystems Environmental Inc.
16431 Scientific Way
Irvine, CA 92618-4355
Telephone: 949.788.4900
FAX: 949.788.4901
www.ultrasystems.com
May 2024
Project No. 7170G
This page left intentionally blank.
PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page i
May 2024
PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET
1.Project Title Addendum #6 to the Westgate Specific Plan EIR for PA27
2.CEQA Lead Agency and Address City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA
3.Contacts and Phone Numbers Cecily Session-Goins, Associate Planner
Telephone: 909-350-6723
Email: csgoins@fontanaca.gov
4.Project Applicant Attn: Douglas M. Ford, Vice President
Intex Properties Inland Empire Corp.
4001 Via Oro Avenue
Long Beach, CA 90810
E: dford@intexcorp.com
5.Location The project is located in the northwestern portion of the
City approximately five miles northwest of downtown
Fontana. The site is also adjacent to Interstate 15 (I-15)
and State Route 210 (SR-210) freeways.
More specifically, the project site is located in Planning
Area (PA) 27 of the Westgate East community area of the
Westgate Specific Plan. The project site is located at the
northwest corner of San Sevaine Road and South
Highland Avenue, bounded by SR-210 to the north and a
utility corridor to the west.
6.Assessor’s Parcel Number 022802147
7.Project Site General Plan Designation The project site has a General Plan land use designation
of Regional Mixed Use (RMU) (Westgate Specific Plan
[JHA Consulting, 2017, p. 1-5]).
8.Project Site Zoning Designation Specific Plan (Westgate Specific Plan #17), with
designation MU-1 (Mixed Use-1 (Westgate Specific Plan
[JHA Consulting, 2017, p. 3-21]).
PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page ii
May 2024
9.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The project site is currently used for agriculture. The
project site is surrounded by vacant land opposite San
Sevaine Road to the east and South Highland Avenue to
the south; a utility corridor to the west; and SR-210 to the
north.
10.Description of Project The proposed project would develop two medical office
buildings, each four stories and 104,000 square feet in
building area; surface parking; and landscaping. The
buildings would be in the north-central part of the site
and the parking in the east, south, and west.
11.Other Public Agencies whose
Approval is Required
San Gabriel Valley Water Company, Fontana
Division
Southern California Gas Company
Southern California Edison Company
Metropolitan Water District
TABLE OF CONTENTS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page iii
May 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Modified Project.................................................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Existing Conditions...........................................................................................................................................1-1
1.3 Project Applicant...............................................................................................................................................1-1
1.4 Lead Agencies – Environmental Review Implementation ..............................................................1-1
1.5 CEQA Overview ..................................................................................................................................................1-1
1.6 Purpose of an Addendum ..............................................................................................................................1-3
1.7 Review and Comment by Other Agencies...............................................................................................1-3
1.8 Organization of the Addendum...................................................................................................................1-4
1.9 Findings from the Addendum......................................................................................................................1-5
1.10 Certification .........................................................................................................................................................1-6
2.0 RATIONALE FOR PREPARING AN ADDENDUM ....................................................................................2-1
2.1 CEQA Standards .................................................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Modified Project Compared to Approved Project...............................................................................2-2
2.3 Summary of Environmental Findings ......................................................................................................2-3
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...............................................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Approved Project and Modified Project Locations and Settings..................................................3-1
3.2 Existing Land Use and Zoning......................................................................................................................3-1
3.3 Background and Purpose...............................................................................................................................3-7
3.4 Project Overview...............................................................................................................................................3-7
3.5 Project Features.................................................................................................................................................3-0
3.6 Landscaping.........................................................................................................................................................3-0
3.7 Access and Circulation....................................................................................................................................3-0
3.8 Utilities...................................................................................................................................................................3-0
3.9 Construction Activities ...................................................................................................................................3-1
3.10 Standard Requirements and Conditions of Approval........................................................................3-2
3.11 Discretionary Actions......................................................................................................................................3-2
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ..................................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Aesthetics..........................................................................................................................................................4.1-1
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .....................................................................................................4.2-1
4.3 Air Quality.........................................................................................................................................................4.3-1
4.4 Biological Resources....................................................................................................................................4.4-1
4.5 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................................................4.5-1
4.6 Energy.................................................................................................................................................................4.6-1
4.7 Geology and Soils...........................................................................................................................................4.7-1
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................................................................................................4.8-1
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .........................................................................................................4.9-1
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................................................................4.10-1
4.11 Land Use and Planning .............................................................................................................................4.11-1
4.12 Mineral Resources......................................................................................................................................4.12-1
4.13 Noise.................................................................................................................................................................4.13-1
4.14 Population and Housing...........................................................................................................................4.14-1
4.15 Public Services .............................................................................................................................................4.15-1
4.16 Recreation......................................................................................................................................................4.16-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page iv
May 2024
4.17 Transportation and Traffic .....................................................................................................................4.17-1
4.18 Utilities and Service Systems.................................................................................................................4.18-1
4.19 Wildfire............................................................................................................................................................4.19-1
4.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance....................................................................................................4.20-1
5.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................5-1
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS.....................................................................................................................................6-1
6.1 Lead Agency (CEQA)........................................................................................................................................6-1
6.2 Project Applicant...............................................................................................................................................6-1
6.3 UltraSystems Environmental, Inc...............................................................................................................6-1
TABLES
Table 2.2-1 – Comparison of Environmental Findings Between the Modified Project and the Previous
Approved Project ................................................................................................................................................................................2-3
Table 3.3-1 – Approved Project Compared to Modified Project...................................................................................3-7
Table 3.9-1 – Estimated Construction Schedule..................................................................................................................3-1
Table 3.6-1 – Permits and Approvals........................................................................................................................................3-2
Table 3.4-1 – Estimated Construction Schedule...............................................................................................................4.3-8
Table 4.4-1 - Burrowing Owl Survey Results..................................................................................................................4.4-14
Table 4.4-1 – Acreage of Mapped Land Cover Types...................................................................................................4.4-35
Table 4.6-1 – Approved Project Consistency with the Attorney General's (Energy Related)
Recommendations ..........................................................................................................................................................................4.6-1
Table 4.17-1 – Vehicle Miles Traveled. 2015 Approved Project DEIR.................................................................4.17-7
Table 4.16-3 – Estimated Project Vehicle Miles Traveled......................................................................................4.17-10
FIGURES
Figure 3.1-1 – Regional Location Map......................................................................................................................................3-2
Figure 3.1-2 – Westgate Specific Plan Community Areas ................................................................................................3-3
Figure 3.1-3 – Westgate Community Area..............................................................................................................................3-4
Figure 3.1-4 – Project Vicinity Map...........................................................................................................................................3-5
Figure 3.1-5 – Project Location Map .........................................................................................................................................3-6
Figure 3.4-1 – Site Plan ...................................................................................................................................................................3-8
Figure 3.4-2 – First Floor Plan.....................................................................................................................................................3-9
Figure 3.4-3 – Third/Fourth Floor Plans..............................................................................................................................3-10
Figure 3.4-4 – Elevations.............................................................................................................................................................3-11
Figure 3.4-5 – Rendering.............................................................................................................................................................3-12
Figure 4.1-1 – Views Surrounding the Project Site .........................................................................................................4.1-7
Figure 4.1-2 – Scenic Highways...............................................................................................................................................4.1-8
Figure 4.2-1 – Important Farmlands.....................................................................................................................................4.2-3
Figure 4.4-1 – Project Boundary and Biological Study Area (BSA).......................................................................4.4-10
Figure 4.4-3 – CNDDB Known Occurrences: Plant Species and Habitats...........................................................4.4-12
Figure 4.4-3 –Burrowing Owl Locations...........................................................................................................................4.4-17
Figure 4.4-4 – CNDDB Known Occurrences: Wildlife Species .................................................................................4.4-30
Figure 4.4-5 – Land Cover Types..........................................................................................................................................4.4-34
Figure 4.4-5 – USGS Surface Waters and Watersheds ................................................................................................4.4-36
TABLE OF CONTENTS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page v
May 2024
Figure 4.4-6 – CDFW Wildlife Corridors ...........................................................................................................................4.4-39
Figure 4.4-7 – USFWS Critical Habitat...............................................................................................................................4.4-42
Figure 4.6-1 – Regionally Active Faults................................................................................................................................4.7-7
Figure 4.6-2 – Alquist Priolo Fault Zones............................................................................................................................4.7-8
Figure 4.9-1 – Listed Hazardous Materials Sites ...........................................................................................................4.9-12
Figure 4.9-2 – Nearest Airport Influence Area...............................................................................................................4.9-13
Figure 4.9-3 – State Responsibility Area for Fire Hazard Severity........................................................................4.9-16
Figure 4.9-4 – Local Responsibility Area for Fire Hazard Severity .......................................................................4.9-17
Figure 4.10-1 – FEMA FIRM Map.......................................................................................................................................4.10-10
Figure 4.10-2 – Groundwater Basins, Subbasins, Recharge Basins Map .........................................................4.10-12
Figure 4.11-1 – General Plan Land Use Map ...................................................................................................................4.11-1
Figure 4.11-2 – Zoning Designation Map..........................................................................................................................4.11-2
Figure 4.12-1 – Mineral Resources .....................................................................................................................................4.12-3
Figure 4.12-2 – Oil and Gas Wells........................................................................................................................................4.12-4
Figure 4.12-3 – Geothermal Wells.......................................................................................................................................4.12-5
Figure 4.19-1 – Fire Hazard Severity Zone - State Responsibility Area (SRA).................................................4.19-5
Figure 4.19-2 – Fire Hazard Severity Zone - Local Responsibility Area (LRA)................................................4.19-6
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Biological Resources Appendix
Appendix B: Cultural Resources Survey
Appendix C: Geotechnical Investigation and Water Infiltration Test Report
Appendix D: Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Memo
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page vi
May 2024
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
AAQS ambient air quality standards
AB 32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32)
ADL aerially dispersed lead
AIA Airport Influence Area
AMSD approximate minimum search distance
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ARB Air Resources Board
ARB California Air Resources Board
ASR Aquifer Storage Recovery
ASR Aquifier Storage Recovery
BGS below the ground surface
BMPs Best Management Practices
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALFIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CALGreen California green building standards code
CAOs Cleanup and Abatement Orders
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
CBC California Building Code
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CDC California Department of Conservation
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDO(s)Cease and Desist Order(s)
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 methane
CHHSLs California Human Health Screening Levels
CHRIS California Historic Resources Inventory System
CHRIS-SBAIC California Historical Resources Information System – San Bernadino
Archaeological Information Center
City City of Fontana
CMA Congestion Management Agency
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CVC California Vehicle Code
CWA Clean Water Act
DCAP Draft Climate Action Plan
DCV Design Capture Volume
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page vii
May 2024
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
DMAs Drainage Management Areas
DOC California Department of Conservation
DOGGR California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
DPR (California) Department of Parks and Recreation
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EI emissions inventory
EMS Emergency Medical Services
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FFPD Fontana Fire Protection District
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zones
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FPD Fontana Police Department
FUSD Fontana Unified School District
FWC Fontana Water Company
GHG greenhouse gases
GP EIR General Plan EIR
GPD gallons per day
GWP global warming potential
H2S hydrogen sulfide
HALS Historic American Landscapes Survey
HCOC Hydrologic Condition of Concern
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HHW Household Hazardous Waste Element
HMMP Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
HSCs hydrologic source controls
I-15 Interstate 15 Freeway
IEUA Inland Empire Utilities Agency
I-G General Industrial General Plan Designation
I-L Light Industrial Zoning Designation
JND Jurupa North Research and Development District Zoning Designation
LE Land Evaluation
LED light-emitting diodes
LESA Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
LID Low Impact Development
LMWTP Lloyd W. Michael Water Treatment Plant
LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LSTs localized significance thresholds
LUST leaking underground storage yank
Map Act California Subdivision Map Act
MGD million gallons per day
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MMT million metric tons
MRZ-3 Mineral Resource Zone 3
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page viii
May 2024
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
MSL Mean Sea Level
MT metric tons
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
MWhr megawatt-hour
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan
NO nitric oxide
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O3 ozone
OHWM ordinary high-water mark
OS/P1 Open Space/Public Park
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Pb lead
PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report
PM particulate matter
PM10 respirable particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
PR Recreational Facility zoning designation
PRC Public Resources Code
PV Photovoltaic
RAFSS Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
RF-4 IEUA’s Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 4
ROG Reactive organic gases
RSS Riversidean sage scrub
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SA Site Assessment
SANBAG San Bernardino Associated Governments
SBAIC San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center
SBCFD San Bernardino County Fire Department
SBCM San Bernadino County Museum
SBKR San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SIP State Implementation Plan
SLF Sacred Lands File
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page ix
May 2024
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
SMP soil management plan
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SRA State Responsibility Area
SRAs source receptor areas
SRRE Source Reduction and Recycling Element
SWH Solar Water Heating
SWIP Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan
SWIS Solid Waste Information System
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant(s)
TCP Traffic Control Plan
TSS total suspended solids
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WSAs Water Supply Assessments
WSP Westgate Specific Plan
WW wastewater
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 1-1
May 2024
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Modified Project
The modified project would develop two four-story medical office buildings totaling 208,000 square feet,
surface parking, and landscaping on a 17.5-acre site within the Westgate East community area of the
Westgate Specific Plan (WSP) in the City of Fontana. The modified proposed project would implement a
portion of the approved Westgate Specific Plan Amendment #1.
1.2 Existing Conditions
Westgate East
The Westgate East community area, 168.9 acres, is located in the central portion of the WSP area (Westgate
Specific Plan, 2017, p. 3-21). More specifically, Westgate East is bounded by the I-210 freeway and San
Sevaine Channel to the north, a utility corridor to the west, San Sevaine Road to the east, and south Highland
Avenue to the south.
Modified Project Site
The modified project site is approximately 17.5 acres located within the Westgate East community area.
The project site is currently active agricultural land, specifically used as an organic vineyard (Lee, 2024a).
It is surrounded by vacant land opposite San Sevaine Road to the east and South Highland Avenue to the
south; a utility corridor to the west; and SR-210 to the north.
1.3 Project Applicant
Douglas Ford, Vice President
Intex Properties Corporation
4001 Via Oro Avenue
Long Beach, CA 90810
1.4 Lead Agencies – Environmental Review Implementation
The City of Fontana is the Lead Agency for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and its implementing regulations.1 The Lead Agency has the principal responsibility for
implementing and approving a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.
1.5 CEQA Overview
1.5.1 Purpose of CEQA
All discretionary projects in California are required to undergo environmental review under CEQA. A
Project is defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15378 as the whole of the action having the potential to
1 Public Resources Code §§ 21000 - 21177 and California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3.
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 1-2
May 2024
result in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change to the environment and is any
of the following:
An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to public works
construction and related activities, clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing public
structures, enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of
local General Plans or elements.
An activity undertaken by a person which is supported in whole or in part through public agency
contacts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies.
An activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other
entitlement for use by one or more public agencies.
CEQA Guidelines § 15002 lists the basic purposes of CEQA as follows:
Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental
effects of proposed activities.
Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.
Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through
the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to
be feasible.
Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner
the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.
1.5.2 Authority to Mitigate under CEQA
CEQA establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage where feasible.
Under CEQA Guidelines § 15041 a Lead Agency for a project has authority to require feasible changes in
any or all activities involved in the project in order to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects on the
environment, consistent with applicable constitutional requirements such as the “nexus”2 and “rough
proportionality”3 standards.
CEQA allows a Lead Agency to approve a project even though the project would cause a significant effect on
the environment if the agency makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that there is no
feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effect. In such cases, the Lead Agency must specifically identify
expected benefits and other overriding considerations from the project that outweigh the policy of reducing
or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project.
2 A nexus (i.e., connection) must be established between the mitigation measure and a legitimate governmental interest.
3 The mitigation measure must be “roughly proportional” to the impacts of the project.
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 1-3
May 2024
1.6 Purpose of an Addendum
The CEQA process begins with a public agency making a determination as to whether the project is subject
to CEQA at all. If the project is exempt, the process does not need to proceed any farther. If the project is not
exempt, the Lead Agency takes the second step and conducts an Initial Study to determine whether the
project may have a significant effect on the environment.
In cases where no potentially significant impacts are identified, the Lead Agency may issue a negative
declaration (ND), and no mitigation measures would be needed. Where potentially significant impacts are
identified, the Lead Agency may determine that mitigation measures would adequately reduce these
impacts to less than significant levels. The Lead Agency would then prepare a mitigated negative declaration
(MND) for the proposed project. If the Lead Agency determines that individual or cumulative effects of the
project would cause a significant adverse environmental effect that cannot be mitigated to less than
significant levels, then the Lead Agency would require an environmental impact report (EIR) to further
analyze these impacts.
This project proposes an addendum to the Westgate Specific Plan (WSP) in compliance with CEQA. The
project is located in the Westgate East community area within the Westgate Specific Plan area. Development
of the project would be subject to the community design guidelines contained within the WSP.
Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines states:
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some
changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for
preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or
additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a
subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR
or adopted negative declaration.
(d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration
prior to making a decision on the project.
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be
included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The
explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.
Refer to Section 2.0 of this document for a discussion of the rationale for preparing an addendum for the
proposed project.
1.7 Review and Comment by Other Agencies
Other public agencies are provided the opportunity to review and comment on the Addendum. Each of
these agencies is described briefly below.
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 1-4
May 2024
A Responsible Agency (14 CCR § 15381) is a public agency, other than the Lead Agency, that has
discretionary approval power over the project, such as permit issuance or plan approval authority.
A Trustee Agency4 (14 CCR § 15386) is a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural
resources affected by a project that are held in trust for the people of the State of California.
Agencies with Jurisdiction by Law (14 CCR § 15366) are any public agencies who have authority
(1) to grant a permit or other entitlement for use; (2) to provide funding for the project in question;
or (3) to exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the project. Furthermore, a
city or county will have jurisdiction by law with respect to a project when the city or county having
primary jurisdiction over the area involved is (1) the site of the project; (2) the area which the
major environmental effects will occur; and/or (3) the area in which reside those citizens most
directly concerned by any such environmental effects.
1.8 Organization of the Addendum
This document is organized to satisfy CEQA Guidelines § 15164, and includes the following sections:
Section 1.0 - Introduction, which identifies the purpose and scope of the Addendum.
Section 2.0 – Rationale for Preparing an Addendum, which describes why an addendum is being
prepared for the proposed project.
Section 3.0 - Project Description, which provides an overview of the project objectives, a description of
the proposed development, project phasing during construction, and other project details.
Section 4.0 - Environmental Analysis Checklist, which presents checklist responses for each resource
topic to identify and assess impacts associated with the proposed project, and proposes mitigation
measures, where needed, to render potential environmental impacts less than significant, as applicable.
Section 5.0 - References, which includes a list of documents cited in the addendum.
Section 6.0 - List of Preparers, which identifies the primary authors and technical experts that prepared
the addendum.
Technical studies and other documents, which include supporting information or analyses used to prepare
this addendum, are included in the following appendices:
Appendix A – Biological Resources Appendix
Appendix B – Cultural Resources Inventory
Appendix C – Geotechnical Investigation and Water Infiltration Test Report
Appendix D – Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
4 The four Trustee Agencies in California listed in CEQA Guidelines § 15386 are California Department of Fish and Wildlife,
State Lands Commission, State Department of Parks and Recreation, and University of California.
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 1-5
May 2024
1.9 Findings from the Addendum
1.9.1 Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring the Preparation
of an MND or EIR
Based on the findings of this addendum, the project would have either less than significant impacts, or no
changes or new information requiring the preparation of an MND or EIR for the following environmental
categories:
Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gases
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation and Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire
1.9.2 No Impacts
Based on the findings of this addendum, the project would have no impact on the following environmental
categories:
Mineral Resources
1.9.3 Section Omitted
The provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 are not applicable to the proposed Project. AB 52 applies “...only to
a project that has a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration or mitigated negative
declaration filed on or after July 1, 2015”. AB 52, which became effective on July 1, 2015, established a
consultation process with California Native American tribes, and established Tribal Cultural Resources as a
new class of resources to be considered in the determination of project impacts and mitigation under CEQA.
AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with
the geographic area of a proposed project, if they have requested such notice in writing. The project
notification is required prior to the lead agency's release of a Notice of Preparation of an EIR or notice of
intent to adopt an MND or ND, and is not required for Addendums. However, the analysis of impacts to
cultural resources, including prehistoric
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 1-6
May 2024
archaeological sites, resulting from implementation of the Westgate Specific Plan is provided in the Cultural
Resources section of the Westgate Specific Plan Final EIR, as summarized in the Cultural Resources section
of this Addendum. The Westgate Specific Plan Final EIR found that implementation of the Specific Plan
would result in less than significant impact to archaeological resources with implementation of mitigation
measures E-2 to E-5.
1.10 Certification
Prior to project approval, Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, Agencies with Jurisdiction by Law, and
the public are provided 30 days to review and comment on the Addendum. Approval of the proposed project
by the Lead Agency is contingent on adoption of the Addendum after considering agency and public
comments. By adopting the Addendum, the Lead Agency (City) certifies that the analyses provided in the
Addendum were reviewed and considered by the City Planning Commission, and the Addendum complies
with CEQA.
SECTION 2.0 – RATIONALE FOR PREPARING AN ADDENDUM
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 2-1
May 2024
2.0 RATIONALE FOR PREPARING AN ADDENDUM
2.1 CEQA Standards
Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides the authority for preparing an Addendum to a
previously certified Environmental Impact Report or adopted Negative Declaration. Specifically, § 15164
states:
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if
some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in § 15162 calling for
preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes
or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in § 15162 calling for the preparation of
a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final
EIR or adopted negative declaration.
(d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative
declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to § 15162 should be
included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record.
The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.
As required in subsection (e), above, substantial evidence supporting the lead agency’s decision not to
prepare a Subsequent Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15162 is provided in Section 4.0,
Environmental Analysis Determination, of this Addendum. The environmental analysis presented in
Section 4.0 evaluates new potential impacts relating to the Fontana Victoria residential project in relation
to the current environmental conditions.
Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that, after certification of an EIR or adoption of a MND
for a project, “no subsequent [environmental review] shall be prepared for that project” unless the lead
agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that certain criteria
are met. Those criteria include the following:
(a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous
EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken
which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement
of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects; or
(c) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known
with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the
Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
SECTION 2.0 – RATIONALE FOR PREPARING AN ADDENDUM
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 2-2
May 2024
(1) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
negative declaration;
(2) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the
previous EIR;
(3) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the
project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(4) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in
the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment,
but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
The above standards represent a shift in applicable policy considerations under CEQA. The low threshold
for requiring the preparation of an EIR in the first instance no longer applies; instead, agencies are
“prohibited” from requiring further environmental review unless the § 15162 criteria are met (Fund for
Environmental Defense v. County of Orange (1988) 204 Cal. App.3d 1538, 1544.) In addition, the “interests
of finality are favored over the policy of favoring public comment, and the rule applies even if the initial
review is discovered to have been inaccurate and misleading in the description of a significant effect or the
severity of its consequences.” (Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 1004, 1018; see
Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th at p. 1130.)
2.2 Modified Project Compared to Approved Project
The Approved Project encompasses 964 acres in the northwestern portion of the City of Fontana (City) with
a General Plan land use and zoning designations of Multi-Family Medium High Residential (R-MFMH) and
Specific Plan (Westgate Specific Plan #17), respectively. The Approved Project permitted development of
up to 3,248 residential units; 364 acres of commercial uses; 84 acres of schools; 89.4 acres of roadway
rights-of-way; and about 135 acres of open space.
The MU-1 zone permits a broad range of business, commercial retail, medical, educational, entertainment,
commercial services, and other complementary uses. The maximum permitted floor area ratio (FAR) in the
MU-1 zone is 1.0. The maximum permissible building area on the modified project site is about 762,736
square feet, that is, 17.51 acres x 43,560 square feet per acre. The WSP does not impose a quantitative
building height limit in the MU-1 zone except that buildings must conform to the maximum FAR of 1.0.
Relevant setback requirements on the modified project site are 20 feet from South Highland Avenue and
from San Sevaine Road, and 30 feet from residential property lines (the nearest residential properties to
the modified project site are opposite the intersection of San Sevaine Road and South Highland Avenue,
over 30 feet from the modified project site).
The estimate of building area within portions of the WSP designated for commercial uses is based on a floor
area ratio of 0.4 (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 2-16]). For example, on a parcel 100,000 square feet
(2.3 acres) in area building area of 40,000 square feet would yield a floor area ratio of 0.4 (40,000/100,000).
Thus, the WSP envisioned PA 27 to be developed with approximately 305,100 square feet of building area.
SECTION 2.0 – RATIONALE FOR PREPARING AN ADDENDUM
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 2-3
May 2024
The Modified Project proposes development of two medical office buildings, each four stories and 104,000
square feet in building area, for total building area of 208,000 square feet; surface parking; and landscaping.
The land use type and intensity proposed under the modified project is within that permitted under the
MU-1 zone. The intensity is also within that set forth in the Certified EIR.
2.3 Summary of Environmental Findings
As summarized in Section 3.0, Project Description, and further analyzed in greater detail in Section 4.0,
Environmental Impact Analysis, the modified project would not result in any new significant environmental
impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR. The analysis
contained herein demonstrates that the modified project is consistent with the prior Approved Project and
many of the impact issues previously examined in the certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR would remain
unchanged with the modified project.
The modified project would result in minor change with respect to each of the environmental issue area
analyzed in this Addendum (see Table 2.2-1 below). Therefore, as described in further detail in Section 4.0,
the CEQA analysis supports the determination that the modified project would not involve new significant
environmental effects, or result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects which would call for the preparation of a subsequent EIR, as provided in § 15162 of the State CEQA
Guidelines. Therefore, an Addendum to the Certified FEIR serves as the appropriate form of documentation
to meet the requirements of CEQA.
Table 2.2-1
COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS BETWEEN THE MODIFIED PROJECT AND
THE PREVIOUS APPROVED PROJECT
Environmental Issue
Westgate Specific Plan EIR
Conclusions for Previously
Certified Westgate Specific
Plan1
Addendum
Conclusions for
Modified Project
Modified Project Impacts
in Comparison to
Conclusions of the
Westgate Specific Plan EIR
Aesthetics Less Than Significant
Less Than Significant
Impact/No Changes or
New Information
Equal impact
Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Significant and
Unavoidable
Significant and
Unavoidable Equal Impact
Air Quality Significant and
Unavoidable
Significant and
Unavoidable Equal Impact
Biological Resources Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less than Significant
Impacts/No Change or
New Information
Equal impact
Cultural Resources Significant and
Unavoidable
Less than Significant
Impacts/No Changes
or New Information
Less Impact
Geology and Soils Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less than Significant
Impacts/No Changes
or New Information
Equal impact
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact/No Changes or
New Information
Equal impact
SECTION 2.0 – RATIONALE FOR PREPARING AN ADDENDUM
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 2-4
May 2024
Environmental Issue
Westgate Specific Plan EIR
Conclusions for Previously
Certified Westgate Specific
Plan1
Addendum
Conclusions for
Modified Project
Modified Project Impacts
in Comparison to
Conclusions of the
Westgate Specific Plan EIR
Hazardous Materials Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact/No Changes or
New Information
Equal impact
Hydrology/Water Quality Less than Significant
Less Than Significant
Impact/No Changes or
New Information
Equal impact
Land Use & Planning Less than Significant
Less Than Significant
Impact/No Changes or
New Information
Equal impact
Mineral Resources2 No Impact No Impact Equal impact
Noise Significant and Unavoidable
Less than Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or New
Information
Equal Impact
Population and Housing Less than Significant
Less than Significant
Impacts/No Changes
or New Information
No Impact
Equal impact
Public Services Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact/No Changes or
New Information
Equal impact
Recreation Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less than Significant
Impacts/No Change or
New Information
Equal impact
Traffic/Transportation Significant and
Unavoidable
Less than Significant
Impacts/No Changes
or New Information
Less Impact
Utilities Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less than Significant
Impacts/No Change or
New Information
Less impact
Wildfire Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less than Significant
Impacts/No Change or
New Information
Equal Impact
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Significant and Unavoidable
Impact
Less than Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or New
Information
Less Impact
1Source: PCR Services Corporation (PCR). 2015. Westgate Specific Plan Draft EIR. January. Table ES-1, Summary of Project
Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
2 Source: Source: PCR. 2013. Westgate Specific Plan Initial Study. July. p. B-14
SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-1
May 2024
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Approved Project and Modified Project Locations and Settings
3.1.1 Approved Project
The Westgate Specific Plan (WSP) area encompasses 964 acres in the northwestern portion of the City of
Fontana (City). The WSP site is approximately five miles north and west of downtown Fontana, ten miles
west of Downtown San Bernardino, and is adjacent to the I-15 and Route 210 freeways (Westgate Specific
Plan [JHA Consulting, 2017, p. 1-1]). Figure 3.1-1 depicts the regional location of the WSP area. The WSP is
composed of four community areas, from north to south: Falcon Ridge, Westgate Central, Westgate East,
and Westgate West. Figure 3.1-2 shows the community planning areas of the WSP. Additionally, each
community area is divided into planning areas (PAs), which are areas that have a specific type of
development planned. The City of Fontana (City) originally approved the WSP in 1996. The City approved
an Amendment 1 (Amendment 1) to the WSP in February 2017, and certified an FEIR for Amendment 1
(SCH No. 1995052002). Amendment 1 permits a mix of residential, commercial, open space, and school
uses and roadways including 3,248 residential units, 364 acres of commercial uses, and about 135 acres of
open space uses. The WSP area also includes the full width of public roadway rights-of-way abutting each
of the four community areas.
3.1.2 Modified Project
The modified project site is located within Planning Area 27 in the north part of the Westgate East
community area (refer to Figure 3.1-3), surrounded by vacant land opposite San Sevaine Road to the east
and South Highland Avenue to the south; a utility corridor to the west; and SR-210 to the north (Google
Earth Pro, 2023) (refer to Figures 3.1-4 and 3.1-5). The modified project site is 17.5 acres in area. The
modified project proposes development of two identical medical office buildings, each four stories and
104,000 square feet in building area, for total building area of 208,000 square feet; surface parking; and
landscaping.
3.2 Existing Land Use and Zoning
The modified project site is currently active agricultural land used as an organic vineyard (Lee, 2024a).
General Plan Land Use Designation: Regional Mixed Use (RMU) (Westgate Specific Plan [JHA
Consulting, 2017, p. 1-5]). Refer to Figure 3.2-1.
Zoning Designation: Specific Plan (Westgate Specific Plan #17), with designation Mixed-Use 1
(MU-1) (Westgate Specific Plan [JHA Consulting, 2017, p. 3-21]); see Figure 3.2-2.
SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-2
May 2024
Figure 3.1-1
REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-3
May 2024
Figure 3.1-2
WESTGATE SPECIFIC PLAN COMMUNITY AREAS
SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-4
May 2024
Figure 3.1-3
WESTGATE EAST COMMUMNITY AREA
SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-5
May 2024
Figure 3.1-4
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-6
May 2024
Figure 3.1-5
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-7
May 2024
3.3 Background and Purpose
The Westgate Specific Plan was adopted in 1996 by the City of Fontana. Since that time, the region has
experienced substantial growth and the dynamics of the area have changed considerably. The Route 210 /
I-15 Freeway overpass has been completed, with the 210 Freeway extending easterly to the I-215 Freeway
then south to the I-10 Freeway. The overall quality of new development has improved in the region, as
consumers and municipalities such as Fontana have become more discerning. Greater emphasis has also
emerged statewide and nationally for developing sustainable communities striving to encourage
conservation of resources, energy efficiency, reduction of water consumption, and to promote healthy
buildings and communities.
Westgate Specific Plan Amendment 1, approved through an environmental impact report (EIR) certified in
2017, permits a range of commercial uses on PA 27 including a broad range of business, commercial retail,
medical, educational, entertainment, commercial services, and other complementary uses.
The modified project proposes development of two identical medical office buildings, each four stories and
104,000 square feet in building area, for total building area of 208,000 square feet; surface parking; and
landscaping.
The modified project is compared to the Approved Project below in Table 3.3-1.
Table 3.3-1
APPROVED PROJECT COMPARED TO MODIFIED PROJECT
Planning Area 27
Scenario Land Use and Units
Approved Project Commercial (a range of permitted uses), up to 305,100 square feet
Modified Project Medical Office, 208,000 square feet
3.4 Project Overview
The modified project would consist of: (1) utilities improvements; (2) roadway improvements; (3)
construction of two new four-story medical office buildings totaling 208,000 square feet, and surface
parking (1,060 spaces); and (4) project site amenities and landscaping.
16498.40198\42037067.1
SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-8
May 2024
Figure 3.4-1
SITE PLAN
SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-9
May 2024
Figure 3.4-2
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-10
May 2024
Figure 3.4-3
THIRD/FOURTH FLOOR PLANS
SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-11
May 2024
Figure 3.4-4
ELEVATIONS
SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-12
May 2024
Figure 3.4-5
RENDERING
SECTION 3.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-0
May 2024
3.5 Project Features
3.5.1 Medical Office Buildings
The modified project includes development of two identical 4-story medical office buildings totaling
208,000 square feet building area. The project site plan is shown on Figure 3.5-1. The first-floor plan of
one of the buildings is shown on Figure 3.5-2; a third/fourth floor plan is shown on Figure 3.5-3; an
elevation of one of the buildings is shown on Figure 3.5-4; and a rendering of the two buildings is shown
on Figure 3.5-5.
3.6 Landscaping
The modified project would install landscaping, all of which would be drought tolerant to conserve water.
3.7 Access and Circulation
Project site ingress and egress would be via three driveways – two along Highland Avenue and one along
San Sevaine Street. Circulation within the project site would be along proposed paved paths. All driveways
and paths would adhere to the city’s development standards. Surface parking (1,060 spaces) would be
provided, exceeding the City code requirement of 1,040 spaces.
3.8 Utilities
Most of the following information is from the approved WSP (Westgate Specific Plan [JHA Consulting,
2017]) as appropriate and still applies to the proposed Modified Project. The proposed project would
include utility connections to South Highland Avenue.
Sanitary Sewer – The City of Fontana would provide wastewater collection from the Westgate Specific Plan
area. Currently, sewage is collected by the City and then transported via pipelines to the Inland Empire
Utility Agency (IEUA), with whom the City contracts for treatment and disposal (Westgate Specific Plan
[JHA Consulting, 2017, p. 3-55]). Proposed sewer mains within the project site would discharge to an
existing main in South Highland Avenue.
Domestic Water – The Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) would serve water for the project site
(Westgate Specific Plan [JHA Consulting, 2017, p. 3-55]). Proposed domestic water mains within the project
site would connect to an existing main in South Highland Avenue.
Storm Drain – Approved Project storm drainage plans include a 42-inch storm drain in Highland Avenue,
and a storm drain in a segment of Cherry Avenue extending from Highland Avenue south to Walnut Avenue
that would be 42 inches along part of its length and 60 inches along the remainder. The planned storm drain
in Cherry Avenue would discharge into an existing 60-inch storm drain in Cherry Avenue extending south
to Baseline Avenue where it would discharge into an existing double 14-foot by 8-foot storm drain that
extends west till it discharges into San Sevaine Channel.
SECTION 3.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-1
May 2024
Dry Utilities:
Electricity
Southern California Edison Company (SCE) serves the modified project site (, Westgate Specific Plan [JHA
Consulting, 2017, p. 3-57]). The project applicant will be required to construct all on-site underground
substructures per the city’s policy that meets the California Public Utility Commissions (CPUC) rules and
SCE specifications (City of Fontana, 2017, p. 3-57).
Gas
The Southern California Gas Company (SCG) serves the modified project site (Westgate Specific Plan [JHA
Consulting, 2017, p. 3-58]).
Telephone Service
Westgate East, including the modified project site, would be served by AT&T (Westgate Specific Plan, 2017,
p. 3-58]).
Cable Television
Time Warner Cable provides cable television services to the modified project site (Westgate Specific Plan
[JHA Consulting, 2017, p. 3-58]).
Photovoltaic Solar
Photovoltaic solar panels would be installed on overhead (“carport”) structures over two of the proposed
parking lots, one east of the proposed buildings and one west.
3.8.1 Offsite Improvements
Offsite improvements would consist of utilities installations in South Highland Avenue.
3.9 Construction Activities
Construction would be carried out in several phases; the construction schedule is shown below in Table
3.9-1.
Table 3.9-1
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Phase Start (month)End (month) Duration
Site Preparation June 2024 July 2024 1 month
Grading July 2024 September 2024 2 months
Building Construction August 2024 October 2025 14 months
Paving and Landscaping August 2025 September 2025 1 month
Source: Lee, 2023
SECTION 3.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-2
May 2024
3.10 Standard Requirements and Conditions of Approval
The proposed project would be reviewed in detail by all City of Fontana departments and divisions
responsible for reviewing land use applications’ compliance with City codes and regulations. City staff is
also responsible for reviewing this Addendum to ensure that it is technically accurate and is in full
compliance with CEQA. The departments and divisions at the City of Fontana responsible for technical
review include:
Community Development Department Building and Safety Division
Community Development Department Planning Division
City of Fontana Public Works Department
City of Fontana Fire Protection District.
3.11 Discretionary Actions
Project Entitlements
Development Agreement; and
Other permits of approval, as necessary
Permits and Approvals
The following permits and approvals would be required prior to construction.
Table 3.6-1
PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Agency Permit or Approval
Discretionary Approvals by City of Fontana
City of Fontana Building & Safety Division Site Plan review and approval, Building plan check &
permit approvals.
City of Fontana Planning Division Development Agreement; Design Review approval.
Ministerial Approvals by City of Fontana; and third-party approvals
City of Fontana Fire Protection District
Building plan check and approval. Review for compliance
with the 2022 California Fire Code, 2022 California
Building Code, California Health & Safety Code and
Fontana Municipal Code.
Plans for fire detection and alarm systems, and automatic
sprinklers.
Cucamonga Valley Water District
Letter of authorization/consent for proposed
improvements to provide water supply connection to
new development.
Southern California Gas Company
Letter of authorization/consent for proposed
improvements to provide natural gas connection to new
development.
SECTION 3.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-3
May 2024
Agency Permit or Approval
Southern California Edison Company
Letter of authorization/consent for proposed
improvements to provide electrical supply connection to
new development.
City of Fontana Public Works (Sewer Provider)
Letter of authorization/consent for proposed
improvements to provide sewer connection to new
development.
AT&T Internet Service Providers
SECTION 4.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4-1
May 2024
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that would represent a new significant environmental effect, a substantial increase in the
severity of a significant impact previously identified, or new information of substantial importance, as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agricultural and Forest Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities / Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination (To Be Completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to
by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, nothing further is required.
I find that the amended project has previously been analyzed as part of an earlier CEQA document.
Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous documentation adequate to cover
the project which are documented in this ADDENDUM to the earlier CEQA document (CEQA § 15164).
Signature Date
Printed Name Title
SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.1-1
May 2024
4.1 Aesthetics
4.1.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR) Analysis
and Conclusions
Views/Scenic Vistas (Impact 4.A-1): Implementation of the Approved Specific Plan (Previous Approved
Project) would incrementally obstruct views of and across the site over time. With maximum structural
heights ranging between 35 and 60 feet (without rooftop architectural features) throughout the various
Planning Areas, mid-range and long-distance views generally would be partially or completely obstructed
by buildout of proposed uses.
The City of Fontana identifies a number of scenic corridors within the City, several of which are located
within the project area. The east-west corridors of Baseline Avenue and Highland Avenue, the north-south
corridor of Cherry Avenue, and the elevated freeway corridors of I-15 and SR-210 are considered significant
view corridors within the project area, as they afford long-distance views of scenic resources such as the
San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains to the north, east, and west, and the Jurupa Hills to the south.
While implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would partially or completely obstruct certain views
of and across the site, views of these identified scenic resources from designated view corridors would
generally be maintained along the roadway corridors. Specifically, views of the San Gabriel Mountains to
the north and Jurupa Hills to the south would be preserved along Cherry Avenue’s north-south alignment,
while views of the San Bernardino Mountains to the east and San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the west
would be maintained along the east-west alignment of Baseline Avenue and Highland Avenue.
Additionally, given the elevated location of the I-15 and SR-210 corridors, views of scenic resources from
these highway segments would not be substantially reduced. Future development of proposed uses within
the Specific Plan area could reduce or eliminate views of scenic resources from certain areas within
and adjacent to the project site. However, significant views of the San Gabriel Mountains, San
Bernardino Mountains, and Jurupa Hills would generally be at least partially preserved along
City-designated view corridors. As such, impacts to scenic vistas resulting from implementation of the
modified project would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp, 4.A-16 and -17]).
Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure: None Required.
Visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings (Impact 4.A-2): The Previous Approved
Project Area, with the exception of developed portions of the Specific Plan area such as Falcon Ridge Town
Center and Caltrans Southern Regional Lab, lacks notable scenic features such as natural landforms or
vegetation, urban development with consistent design elements, landscaping, or other visually pleasing
characteristics, the visual quality of the site is considered relatively low (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015,
p. 4.A-1]). No designated state or county scenic highways exist in the vicinity of the Approved Project site. In
addition, it is anticipated that future development associated with the previous Approved Project would
result in an improvement in the visual character of the area, and a less than significant impact is anticipated
and no mitigation is required (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.A-17 – 4.A-18]).
SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.1-2
May 2024
Construction
The vast majority of the WSP project site is vacant. Therefore, the existing condition generally does not
contribute to the visual quality or aesthetic value of the area. Future construction of proposed uses would
require site clearing and grading activities within each affected Planning Area, followed by trenching/utility
installation and street and building construction. Construction activities would occur intermittently
throughout implementation of the proposed Specific Plan, with market forces determining the timing and
location of each development project. Construction activities at any one location would be temporary and
would therefore only result in impacts for the duration of construction within that particular Planning Area.
Nonetheless, given the undeveloped nature of the Approved Project area, short-term adverse visual
character impacts could occur during temporary construction activities as equipment, materials, personnel,
temporary structures (contractor trailers), worker vehicles, and other features would be located on the
development site. While site clearing and grading, as well as the placement of construction equipment,
vehicles, materials, and other visually unappealing features on the project site, could detract from the visual
character of the project site, this impact is not considered significant due to the disturbed nature of the
project site and lack of notable visual features onsite. Furthermore, construction fencing with visual
screening would be installed around the perimeter of all construction areas, thereby minimizing the
potential for substantial adverse aesthetic/visual character impacts during construction activities (WSP
Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015a, pp. 4.A-17]).
Operations
The WSP FEIR stated that the vast majority of the Approved Project site is characterized by disturbed,
undeveloped land that was historically used for vineyards or other agricultural activities, and therefore very few
structures currently exist onsite. (However, for clarification the Approved Project site is actually still active
agricultural land currently used as an organic vineyard and there are no structures onsite.) The site also generally
lacks aesthetic improvements such as landscaping or other visual buffers. Implementation of the proposed Specific
Plan would result in the long‐term, incremental development of urban uses within the various Planning Areas,
which would fundamentally change the visual character of the Approved Project site. However, future
development pursuant to the Specific Plan would be consistent with applicable policies of the General Plan
Community Design Element that encourage new development that exhibits unified and visually cohesive urban
design elements. Development of future uses in accordance with the various Specific Plan development standards
and design guidelines, therefore, would represent an improvement in visual quality relative to the existing vacant,
undeveloped condition of the majority of the Approved Project site. Thus, despite the conversion of vacant land
to urban uses, development of proposed uses would serve to improve the overall visual character of the Approved
Project site since the Specific Plan includes development standards and design guidelines that ensure visually
cohesive and attractive urban design patterns within the various Planning Areas. As discussed previously, these
development standards and design guidelines regulate allowable uses, structural heights, setbacks, wall/fence
features, landscaping, signage, and lighting throughout the Specific Plan area, which precludes the potential for
incompatible or inconsistent development patterns or urban designs. The City identifies five scenic roadway
corridors within the Approved Project area, including Baseline Avenue, Highland Avenue, Cherry Avenue,
and the I-15 and SR-210 corridors. The proposed Specific Plan, consistent with the City’s General Plan,
includes extensive streetscape and landscape improvements along all roadways within the Plan area,
including Baseline Avenue, Highland Avenue, and Cherry Avenue. These improvements would serve to meet
the intent of the General Plan for these scenic thoroughfares and provide visual relief along the affected
segments of the roadways, consistent with the existing and proposed surrounding development.
Furthermore, landscape screening would be provided along the
SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.1-3
May 2024
Approved Project boundaries adjacent to the I-15 and SR-210 freeway corridors to provide visual relief for
future development in adjacent Planning Areas, which would reduce visual quality impacts along the
freeway alignments (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015a, pp. 4.A-17 – 4.A-18]).
Overall, since all development within the Specific Plan boundaries would be required to comply with the
Specific Plan development standards and design guidelines, which would represent an aesthetic
improvement relative to existing site conditions, and designated scenic roadway corridors would be
improved with landscaping and other design treatments, implementation of the Plan would result in
improved overall visual character relative to existing conditions. The WSP FEIR stated that despite the
conversion of the Approved Project site from vacant land to urban uses, the proposed Specific Plan would
result in less than significant operational visual character impacts (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015a, p.
4.A-18]).
Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure: None Required.
New Sources of Light and Glare (Impact 4.A-3):
Construction
Lighting needed during project construction could generate light spillover in the vicinity of the project
including residential uses to the south and east. However, construction activities would occur primarily
during daylight hours and any construction-related illumination would be used for safety and security
purposes only, in compliance with FMC light intensity requirements. Construction lighting also would last
only as long as needed in the finite construction process. Thus, with the implementation of existing FMC
regulations, artificial light associated with construction activities would not significantly impact residential
uses, substantially alter the character of off-site areas surrounding the construction area, or interfere with
the performance of an off-site activity. Therefore, artificial light impacts associated with construction would
be less than significant.
Construction activities are not anticipated to result in large expanses of flat, shiny surfaces that would
reflect sunlight or cause other natural glare. Therefore, less than significant construction-related impacts
with respect to reflected sunlight and natural glare are anticipated.
Operation
Artificial Light
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan over the long-term would incrementally increase the
relatively low levels of ambient light under the existing conditions. Light-sensitive land uses in the area
include residential uses along Baseline Avenue, Highland Avenue, Cherry Avenue, Lytle Creek Road, and
Summit Drive. New light sources within the Specific Plan area would include light from windows of
residential structures and retail uses (and to a lesser extent office uses given typical business hours),
outdoor architectural lighting, parking lot lighting, and sign-related lighting, as well as light from street
lights, vehicles traveling along on-site and adjacent roadways, and security lighting. Such lighting has the
potential to create a “glow” effect within and around the project area, including adjacent residential
neighborhoods, and result in an overall increase ambient light in the area. This increase in ambient lighting,
however, is not expected to interfere with activities in on-site
SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.1-4
May 2024
or adjacent residential neighborhoods, as they already would be subject to similar lighting conditions. As
noted previously, up to 20.0 acres of business park uses within Planning Area 24 could be replaced with
high density residential uses, which could result in additional light sources within the residential portions
of the planning area. However, the effect of the incremental increase in light sources associated with the
residential uses would be negligible in the context of the overall development pattern in the area, which
would include indoor and outdoor lighting and intervening structures and vegetation that would limit
light-related impacts to adjacent uses.
Exterior lighting would also include lighting provided at vehicle entry points and areas of circulation; points
of entry into buildings; along the exterior façades of buildings; and other outdoor areas (e.g., parks, paseos,
common open space areas) for both architectural highlighting and security purposes. Lighting for security
purposes would occur from dusk to dawn to ensure the safety of residents, employees, and visitors. Lighting
would primarily consist of a mix of standard incandescent light fixtures, as well as various types of
efficient/low energy fixtures. Lighting would be designed and strategically placed to minimize glare and
light spill onto adjacent properties. Specifically, any pole-mounted light fixtures located on-site or within
the adjacent public rights-of-way would be shielded and directed towards the areas to be lit and away from
adjacent sensitive uses. In addition, all project lighting would comply with the FMC and/or the Specific Plan
requirements listed above that have been established to limit light spill on light-sensitive (residential) uses.
Based on the above, with adherence to the Specific Plan lighting guidelines and any other applicable FMC
regulations, lighting associated with the project would not substantially alter the character of the off-site
areas surrounding the project site and would not interfere with the performance of an off-site activity.
Impacts attributable to project-induced artificial lighting would be less than significant.
Glare
Daytime glare can result from sunlight reflecting from a shiny surface that would interfere with the
performance of an off-site activity, such as the operation of a motor vehicle. Reflective surfaces can be
associated with window glass and polished surfaces, such as metallic or glass curtain walls and trim. Glare
generation within the project vicinity is limited, as surrounding development consists predominately of
low- rise residential and commercial buildings that generally lack large expanses of glass or other reflective
materials. Glare-sensitive uses in the project area include single-family residential uses located to the south
and east of the project site, and no glare-sensitive uses are currently located within the project area. Future
development would be subject to the Specific Plan development standards and design guidelines, which
include provisions for architectural design (including window design/placement), types of building
materials, and landscape screening, and would therefore minimize glare impacts to adjacent or other
off-site land uses. Given the nature of future uses and associated design requirements, glare impacts are
anticipated to be less than significant.
Approved Project Determination: Less than Significant Impact.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: None Required.
SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.1-5
May 2024
4.1.2 Summary of Approved Project Versus the Modified Project Impacts
The modified project’s potential impacts on aesthetics and visual resources have been evaluated in light of
the present environmental regulatory setting. The modified project would be similar to the previous
Approved Project because it would be consistent with the requirements of the City’s General Plan and
Municipal Code. The project is not located in the vicinity of a designated State or County scenic highway and
therefore would not impact scenic resources associated with a designated scenic highway. As with the
Approved Project, the modified project would introduce new structures and open space in the project area
that are attractive, well-landscaped and well maintained and therefore have a positive effect on the existing
visual character of the site and its surroundings. New lighting installed as a result of project implementation
would conform to the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 30) and the Community Design
Element of the General Plan as appropriate, to reduce the potential for light and/or glare effects to occur.
Therefore, impacts associated with implementation of the project would be similar to those of the previous
Approved Project and no additional significant impacts beyond those identified for the previous Approved
Project would occur.
4.1.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist responses compare the previous Approved Project analyzed under the certified
WSP FEIR with the project as described in this document, and analyze the potential impacts resulting from
the development of the modified project.
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing Ability
to Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?X
b)Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees,
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
X
c)Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
X
d)Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X
SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.1-6
May 2024
a)Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
Scenic vistas generally include extensive panoramic views of natural features, unusual terrain, or unique
urban or historic features, for which the field of view can be wide and extend into the distance, or can be
narrow and focus on a particular object, scene or feature of interest.
The City of Fontana considers views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains to the north, east,
and west, and the Jurupa Hills to the south to be significant scenic vistas (WSP Draft EIR, 2015a, p. 4.A-16]).
Views surrounding the project site are shown in Figure 4.1-1 below, which depict a mix of urban
development and distant mountain views. The modified project would develop two four-story medical
office buildings, 74 feet high. The modified project site is designated MU-1, Mixed Use-1, under the WSP.
The WSP does not specify a maximum building height in zone MU-1 except that building height is limited to
a floor area ratio of 1.0. The proposed medical office use FAR would be 0.273, within the limit of 1.0.
Therefore, no new significant impacts to scenic vistas would occur.
b)Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
There are no official state scenic highways within or adjacent to the project site. The nearest official state
scenic highway is a portion of the SR-2 highway, approximately 15 miles northwest of the project site
(Caltrans, 2022) (see Figure 4.1-2 below). Therefore, due to the distance between the project site and the
nearest official scenic highway, the modified project would not substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
No new impact would occur.
SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.1-7
May 2024
Figure 4.1-1
VIEWS SURROUNDING THE PROJECT SITE
SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.1-8
May 2024
Figure 4.1-2
SCENIC HIGHWAYS
SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.1-0
May 2024
c)Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
Construction
Project construction could temporarily degrade the visual character of the project area and immediate
surroundings. The modified project site is vacant and has no significant scenic resources. The nature and
scale of construction activities for the modified project would not differ substantially from construction
activities for the approved project within the modified project site. All construction activities would be
temporary and visual screening would be implemented to minimize visual impacts during construction.
Therefore, no new construction impact on the visual character of the site and its surroundings would occur.
Operation
The modified project would be built in accordance to the Specific Plan development standards and design
guidelines. Therefore, modified project development would represent an improvement in visual quality
compared to existing conditions, as would the approved project. Therefore, modified project operation
would not cause any new significant impact to the visual character of the site and surroundings.
d)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 Changes or New Information
The modified project would increase lighting in the area by creating new sources of light, including security
lighting. Exterior lighting plans for parking and other site areas would be required at the design review stage to
identify preliminary lighting fixture layout and type of fixture. Additionally, new lighting installed as a result of
modified project development would conform to the requirements of Fontana Municipal Code (Section 30-655)
and the Community Design Element of the General Plan as appropriate, to reduce the potential for light and/or
glare effects to occur. The City of Fontana requires outdoor lighting fixtures to be aimed and shielded, thereby
reducing the potential for glare effects or light spillover onto adjacent properties. Therefore, no new significant
light and glare impacts would occur.
SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.2-1
May 2024
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
4.2.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR) Analysis
and Conclusions
Agricultural and Forestry Resources (Impact 4.B.1): The WSP FEIR stated that the “area is not currently
being utilized for significant agricultural operations, although a large portion of the project site was
historically used for vineyards. Furthermore, no other agricultural production occurs in the areas
surrounding this specific plan area.” (However, for clarification the Approved Project site is actually still active
agricultural land currently used as an organic vineyard.)
As discussed in the certified WSP FEIR, under Section E, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impact,
it was concluded that the development of the Approved Project would accelerate the conversion of
agricultural lands and loss of agricultural uses in the City and the region. The loss of agricultural lands would
therefore be considered significant, even with the implementation of applicable mitigation measures. Loss
of these lands would also be considered cumulatively considerable from a regional perspective (WSP Draft
EIR [PCR Services, 2015a, p. ES-8]).
According to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), the WSP area contains
approximately 444 acres of Unique Farmland, 104 acres of Grazing Land, 105 acres of Urban and Built Up
Land, and 312 acres of Other Land.
The CDC’s Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model is composed of six different factors, which
evaluated the Approved Project lands. Two Land Evaluation (LE) factors are based upon measures of soil
resource quality. Four Site Assessment (SA) factors provide measures of a project site’s size, water resource
availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands intended to measure
social, economic, and geographic attributes that contribute to the overall value of agricultural land (WSP
Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015a, p. 4.B-9]).
Based on the evaluation in the LESA worksheets, the final score for the Approved Project was 53.54 points
out of a possible 100 points, with a LE score of 24.29, and a SA score of 29.25. The total LESA score was
between 40 and 59 points, which is considered significant only if LE and SA sub-scores are each greater
than or equal to 20 points. As both of the scores associated with the LE factors or the SA factors were above
the threshold of 20 points, the WSP DEIR indicated that the implementation of the Approved Project would
have a significant and unavoidable impact on farmland and agricultural resources (WSP Draft EIR [PCR
Services, 2015a, p. 4.B-9]).
Approved Project Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impact.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
No.Mitigation Measure
B-1
Prior to future project approval, for the on-site land that is mapped as Unique Farmland, the project
proponent shall allow agricultural activities to continue or resume on such farmland for a period of
time as long as practicable until development of such land pursuant to the project, thereby allowing
agricultural use up to and until the land is prepared for development and/or development-related
activities pursuant to the project.
SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.2-2
May 2024
No.Mitigation Measure
B-2
Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the project
proponent shall complete of one or more of the following measures to mitigate the loss of
agricultural land before conversion:
For on-site land that is mapped as Unique Farmland, the project proponent shall
make displaced topsoil available to less productive agricultural lands in the
surrounding region, including on similarly mapped agricultural land within San
Bernardino County or within the San Joaquin Valley (San Joaquin, Stanislaus,
Merced, Fresno, Madera, Kings, Tulare, or Kern County). Such dispersion of
displaced topsoil can add productivity and yield to other farmland;
For on-site land that is mapped as Unique Farmland and designated in the project as
Open Space/Utility Corridor totaling approximately 43 acres, subject to existing
utility easements and restrictions and City trails and setbacks, preserve such land
for agricultural uses; and
For on-site land that is not mapped as Unique Farmland or other farmland
designation and is designated in the project as Open Space/Utility Corridor totaling
approximately 44 acres, subject to existing utility easements and restrictions and
City trails and setbacks, dedicate such land for agricultural uses.
Source: WSP Draft EIR, PCR Services, 2015a, p. 4.B-11
4.2.2 Summary of Approved Project versus the Modified Project Impacts
The modified project’s potential impacts on agriculture and forestry resources have been evaluated in light
of the present environmental regulatory setting. As discussed in Section 4.2.1 above, the WSP FEIR
concluded that the Previous Approved Project would cause significant and unavoidable impacts on
farmland and agricultural resources. As a result of prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of
statewide importance within the Approved Project boundaries being developed, significant and
unavoidable impacts would occur. Therefore, the City of Fontana previously prepared a Statement of
Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines relating to Agriculture
and Forestry Resources pertaining to the Previous Approved Project. The Westgate Specific Plan contains
approximately 444 acres of Unique Farmland, 104 acres of Grazing Land, 105 acres of Urban and Built-
Up Land, and 312 acres of Other Land. (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015a, p. 4.B-2]). The entire 17.5-
acre modified project site is designated as Unique Farmland (DOC, 2022) as shown on Figure 4.2-1. The
impacts on agricultural resources from the modified project would still remain significant and unavoidable.
SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.2-3
May 2024
Figure 4.2-1
IMPORTANT FARMLANDS
SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.2-4
May 2024
4.2.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing Ability
to Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
X
b)Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
X
c)Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code § 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Codes § 4526), or timberland
zoned Timberland Production (as defined
by Government Code § 51104(g))?
X
d)Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
X
e)Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
X
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?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
As shown in Figure 4.2-1, the entire approximately 17.5-acre project site is designated as Unique Farmland
on the California Important Farmland Finder (CIFF) maintained by the Division of Land Resource
Protection. The Certified EIR determined that impacts of the Approved Project on
SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.2-5
May 2024
important farmland would be significant and unavoidable after the implementation of mitigation measures.
Impacts of the modified project on mapped important farmland are presumed here to be significant. No
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) analysis is required here for the modified project, as the City
of Fontana already adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable
impact of the Approved Project. Therefore, modified project development would not cause any new impact
on mapped farmland.
b)Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
No Impact
No portion of the City of Fontana is currently under a Williamson Act contract (WSP Draft EIR, 2015a, p.
4.B-3]). The zoning designation for the project site is Specific Plan (Westgate Specific Plan #17), with
designation MU-1 (Mixed Use-1) (Westgate Specific Plan [JHA Consulting, 2017, p. 3-21]). Therefore, there
would be no conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and no new
impact would occur.
c)Would the project (c) conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code § 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Codes § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code § 51104(g))?
No Impact
The zoning designation for the project site is Specific Plan (Westgate Specific Plan #17), with designation
MU-1 (Mixed Use-1) (Westgate Specific Plan [JHA Consulting, 2017, p. 3-21]). Modified project development
would not conflict with existing zoning or cause the rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland-
zoned timberland production. No new impact would occur.
d)Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
No Impact
There are no forest lands present on the project site. Therefore, modified project development would not
cause any loss of forest land, or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use, and no new impact would
occur.
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?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
The modified project would cause a significant impact to Unique Farmland. However, the City of Fontana
issued a Statement of Overriding Considerations as part of the Certified FEIR. No forest land is present on
the modified project site and development would not convert any such land to other uses. Therefore, no
new changes would occur.
SECTION 4.3 - AIR QUALITY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.3-1
May 2024
4.3 Air Quality
4.3.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Westgate Specific Plan FEIR) Analysis and
Conclusions
Air Quality Plan Conflicts. (Impact 4.C-1): Implementation of the WSP would result in a less than
significant impact related to the Congestion Management Plan but since the approved WSP contemplated
substantially higher development intensity than was included in the originally adopted 1996 WSP, the
approved WSP would exceed the growth projections for the project site contained in the City’s General Plan.
It would also not be consistent with the projections in the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).
Adherence to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules and regulations, General Plan
policies, and implementation of applicable WSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-21 would
reduce this impact, but not to a less than significant level. This impact would remain significant and
unavoidable (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015a, pp. 4.C-38 to 4.C-40]).
Approved Project Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
Violation of Air Quality Standards. (Impact 4.C-2): Implementation of the WSP would potentially violate
air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Maximum
regional construction emissions would exceed the SCAQMD daily significance thresholds, resulting in
potentially significant short-term impacts, and regional operational emissions would exceed the SCAQMD
daily significance threshold at completion of Phase I and at buildout. Adherence to SCAQMD rules and
regulations, General Plan policies, and implementation of applicable WSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures C-1
through C-21 would reduce this impact, but not to a less than significant level. This impact would remain
significant and unavoidable (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015a, pp. 4.C-40 to 4.C-49]).
Approved Project Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
Cumulative Pollutant Increases (Impact 4.C-3): Implementation of the WSP would potentially result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of nonattainment criteria pollutants. Adherence to SCAQMD rules
and regulations, General Plan policies, and implementation of applicable WSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
C-1 through C-21 would reduce this impact, but not to a less than significant level. This impact would remain
significant and unavoidable (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015a, pp. 4.C-49 to 4.C-50]).
Approved Project Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
Exposure to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations (Impact 4.C-4): Implementation of the WSP would
potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Onsite construction
emissions from future development pursuant to the proposed Specific Plan could potentially cause or
contribute to locally significant air quality impacts as they would potentially exceed the SCAQMD localized
significance thresholds (LSTs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and particulate matter less than 10 micrometers
(PM10). Thus, localized construction impacts of Phase I future projects could potentially exceed the LSTs.
Onsite operational sources of emissions would be relatively minimal and would be required to comply with
SCAQMD rules and permitting requirements as applicable. Onsite operational emissions are not expected
to exceed the SCAQMD localized thresholds for NOX, PM10, and particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers
(PM2.5). Thus, localized operational impacts
SECTION 4.3 - AIR QUALITY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.3-2
May 2024
associated with project implementation would not exceed the LSTs and impacts would be less than
significant. The WSP would not contribute to the formation of carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots and would
result in less than significant impacts with respect to CO hotspots. Construction activities would not expose
nearby sensitive receptors to substantial or long-term toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions. Therefore,
construction would result in a less than significant impact. Operation would not expose off-site sensitive
receptors to substantial sources of TAC emissions. Therefore, operation would result in a less than
significant impact on offsite receptors. Operation would potentially locate onsite sensitive receptors near
freeways (I-15 and I-210), which may expose onsite sensitive receptors to substantial sources of motor
vehicle TAC emissions. Therefore, operation would result in a potentially significant impact on onsite
receptors. Mitigation is provided to ensure that future developments pursuant to the proposed Specific Plan
do not locate within the separation distance recommended in the California Air Resources Board (ARB) Air
Quality and Land Use Handbook or that dispersion modeling is performed to assess health impacts for future
projects that do locate sensitive land uses within the recommended separation distance.
Approved Project Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
Odors (Impact 4.C-5): Implementation of the WSP would not create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people. Future development pursuant to the WSP consists of residential, commercial,
educational, and recreational uses that are not expected to be a source of offsite odor complaints. In
addition, the project is not located near any sources of odors identified by the SCAQMD handbook.
Therefore, construction of the WSP would have a less than significant impact.
Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
The following air quality mitigation measures in the Final EIR are relevant to the modified project.
No.Mitigation Measure
C-1 To minimize potential construction-period VOC impacts, the City shall require future projects to use
architectural coatings which meet the SCAQMD “super-compliant” VOC standard of <10 g/L, if readily
available from commercial suppliers.
C-2 During project construction, the City shall require internal combustion engines/construction equipment
operating on future project sites greater than five acres to meet the following:
At least 50 percent of construction equipment greater than 250 hp, which are on‐site for 6 or more consecutive
work days, shall meet Tier 3 emissions standards or better and be outfitted with BACT devices (e.g., Level 3
diesel emissions control devices) certified by CARB.
Post‐January 1, 2016, in additional [sic] to the Tier 3 standards specified above, an additional 20 percent or
more of construction equipment greater than 250 hp, which are on‐site for 6 or more consecutive work days,
shall meet Tier 4 and be outfitted with BACT devices (e.g., Level 3 diesel emissions control devices) certified
by CARB.
A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification and BACT documentation shall be available for inspection
during construction. The contractor(s) shall monitor and record compliance for each project construction phase
and document efforts undertaken to increase the use of compliant off‐road vehicles, such as but not limited to
bid solicitation documents, fleet registration of successful vendor(s), etc.
C-2a During project construction, the City shall require diesel-fueled on-road haul trucks importing or exporting
soil or other materials to and from the project site to meet the USEPA model year 2007 or newer on-road
emissions standards. A copy of each unit’s certified emissions standard documentation shall be available
during construction activities.
SECTION 4.3 - AIR QUALITY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.3-3
May 2024
No.Mitigation Measure
C-3 Construction contractors supplying heavy duty diesel equipment, greater than 50 hp, will be encouraged to
apply for AQMD SOON funds. Information including the AQMD website will be provided to each contractor
which uses heavy duty diesel for on-site construction activities.
C-4 All construction vehicles shall be prohibited from idling in excess of five minutes, both on- and off-site.
C-5 All construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s
specifications.
C-6 General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust
emissions by implementing the following construction measures:
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.
Require the use of electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel [or] gasoline powered generators.
C-7 The City shall require future projects to comply with the following SCAQMD Applicable Rule 403 (Fugitive
Dust) Measures:
Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction
areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
Water active sites at least three times daily (locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered
prior to earthmoving).
All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered, or should maintain at least two
feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114
(freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer).
Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from main road.
Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to 15 mph or less.
Stockpiled dirt may be covered with a tarp to reduce the need for watering or soil stabilizers.
C-8 The City shall require future projects greater than five acres to conduct individual localized impact analysis
using dispersion modeling. If such analysis produces significant impacts, with respect to the SCAQMD air
quality standards, future projects must mitigate impacts on the extent possible utilizing approved
mitigation measures such as those outlined in Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-7.
C-13 The City shall require future residential, commercial, and industrial projects [to] promote the expanded use
of renewable fuel and low-emission vehicles by including the following project components: provide
preferential parking for ultra-low emission, zero-emission, and alternative-fuel vehicles; and provide
electric vehicle charging stations within the development. Future multi-family residential, commercial, and
industrial projects shall be required to provide parking spaces capable of supporting future installation of
electric vehicle charging stations consistent with the CALGreen code Tier 1 standards.
C-14 The City shall require future projects to provide linkages and connections to adjacent off-site trails,
walkways, and other pedestrian commuting routes.
SECTION 4.3 - AIR QUALITY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.3-4
May 2024
No.Mitigation Measure
C-16 Prior to future project approval, plans demonstrating that residential units are to be located a minimum of
200 feet from the nearest right of way of Interstate 15 or State Route 210 and that the units would be
equipped with high-efficiency air filters shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Residential
units located within 500 feet from the closest right of way of Interstate 15 or State Route 210 shall be
equipped with high-efficiency air filters with a rating of MERV 8 or better.
C-17 Prior to future project approval, plans shall demonstrate that sensitive uses are to be located a minimum
separation distance from light industrial and commercial uses, as recommended in the CARB Air Quality
and Land Use Handbook. For future projects that result in sensitive uses within the recommended
separation distance, an analysis, such as a project-level health risk assessment, shall demonstrate
compliance with the SCAQMD health risk thresholds of significance or are mitigated to the extent feasible.
C-18 Residential, commercial, and industrial buildings, where appropriate and applicable, shall be required to be
constructed with solar-ready rooftops that provide for the future installation of on-site solar photovoltaic
(PV) or solar water heating (SWH) systems.
C-19 Future implementing projects with residential, commercial, or industrial buildings or on-site paved surface
areas, where appropriate and applicable, shall be required to be constructed with cool roofing or cool
pavement materials that would at a minimum meet the CALGreen code Tier 1 standards.
C-20 Future implementing projects with residential and commercial buildings, where appropriate and
applicable, shall be required to install Energy Star-rated or equivalent appliances.
C-21 Tenants of future implementing projects shall be encourage [d] to use water-based or low VOC cleaning
products. Information on water-based or low VOC cleaning products can be obtained from the following
sources:
South Coast Air Quality Management District:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/programs/business/business‐detail?title=low‐voc‐cleaning‐materials‐equipment
‐list,
California Air Resources Board:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/indoor/cleaning_products_fact_sheet‐10‐2008.pdf,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/greenhomes/protectingyourhealth.htm.
Source: WSP Draft EIR, PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.C-67 to 4.C-70; WSP Final EIR, PCR Services, pp. 3-4 and 3-5.
4.3.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
The modified project’s potential impacts on air quality have been evaluated considering the present
environmental regulatory setting. Unmitigated criteria pollutant emissions were calculated by the ARB-
approved CalEEMod emissions model. Emissions of all pollutants would be below significance thresholds
established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist responses compare the Approved Project with the modified project, and analyze
impacts resulting from modified project development.
SECTION 4.3 - AIR QUALITY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.3-5
May 2024
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing
New or
Increased
Effects
Compared
to the
Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation
of an MND or
EIR
No
Impact
a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?X
b)Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
X
c)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?
X
d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?X
e)Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
X
The Approved Project included development of PA 27 in accordance with zone MU-1 of the WSP. Zone MU-1
permits a wide variety of commercial uses including business, commercial retail, medical, educational,
entertainment, commercial services. The Approved Project permitted development of about 305,094
square feet of building area in PA 27. The medical office use proposed in the modified project is within the
range of uses permitted in the MU-1 zone. The modified project proposes development of PA 27 with
approximately two-thirds of the intensity permitted by the Approved Project.
The Certified EIR concluded that the following air quality impacts of the Approved Project would be
significant and unavoidable: conflict with an air quality plan; violation of air quality standards; cumulative
pollutant increases; and exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations. The Certified EIR also concluded
that impacts regarding objectionable odors would be less than significant (see further discussion above in
Section 4.3.1).
As the medical office use proposed in the modified project is within the range of land uses permitted by the
Approved Project within the modified project site, and the building area proposed in the modified project
is substantially less that permitted on the modified project site by the Approved
SECTION 4.3 - AIR QUALITY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.3-6
May 2024
Project, air quality impacts of the modified project would be within those analyzed for development of the
Approved Project within the modified project site.
This analysis applies to both construction and operational impacts. Most operational emissions are
generated by project-generated vehicle trips. Estimated vehicle trip generation within PA 27 used in the
Certified EIR was 3,474 trips per day (Kunzman, 2013, p. 36). Trip generation for the modified project is
estimated as 7,488 trips per day (Tucker, 2024).
.
Sensitive Receptors
Some people, such as individuals with respiratory illnesses or impaired lung function because of other
illnesses, persons over 65 years of age, and children under 14, are particularly sensitive to certain
pollutants. Facilities and structures where these sensitive people live or spend considerable amounts of
time are known as sensitive receptors. For the purposes of a CEQA analysis, the SCAQMD considers a
sensitive receptor to be a receptor such as a residence, hospital, or convalescent facility where it is possible
that an individual could remain for 24 hours (Chico and Koizumi, 2008, p. 3-2). Commercial and industrial
facilities are not included in the definition of sensitive receptor, because employees typically are present
for shorter periods of time, such as eight hours.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are residences about 115 feet southeast of the project
site opposite the intersection of San Sevaine Road and South Highland Avenue. Those were also the nearest
sensitive receptors in 2017 when the Approved Project EIR was certified (Google Earth Pro, 2023).
Impacts Analysis
a)Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
Determination in Westgate Specific Plan EIR
Analysis for Impact 4.C-1 found that, despite implementation of applicable WSP Final EIR Mitigation
Measures C-1 through C-21, potential impacts from the WSP would remain significant and unavoidable.
New Information
Since the 2015 WSP Final EIR, the SCAQMD adopted two new AQMPs, the latest of which is the 2022 AQMP
(SCAQMD, 2022b). The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires that these plans be updated triennially to
incorporate the most recent available technical information. A multi-level partnership of governmental
agencies at the federal, state, regional, and local levels implement the programs contained in these plans.
Agencies involved include the USEPA, the ARB, local governments, Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG), and SCAQMD. The SCAQMD and the SCAG are responsible for formulating and
implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB. The SCAQMD updates its AQMP every
three years.
SECTION 4.3 - AIR QUALITY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.3-7
May 2024
The 2022 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Board on December 2, 2022. It focuses on reducing ozone by
limiting the emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) which are key reactants in ozone formation. The NOx
reductions are through extensive use of zero emission technologies across all stationary and mobile sources
categories. The majority of NOx emissions are from heavy-duty trucks, ships and other state and federally
regulated mobile sources that are mostly beyond the SCAQMD’s control. The SCAQMD’s primary authority
is over stationary sources, which account for approximately 20 percent of the SCAB’s NOx emissions.
The AQMP incorporates updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories and
incorporates the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)
prepared by SCAG (2020). The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS was determined to conform to the federally mandated
State Implementation Plan for the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. county and city general plans.
The modified project would not change the WSP EIR determination that emissions associated with
development in the WSP have been considered in the forecasts presented.
Significance Determination
Air pollutant emissions by the modified project are expected to be less than those for the Approved Project
within PA 27 due to the reduction in building area compared to that analyzed in the Certified EIR. That
finding, in combination with the finding that emissions associated with development in the WSP have been
considered in the forecasts underlying the 2022 AQMP, leads to the conclusion that the modified project
would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and no new significant
impact would occur.
b)Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
Determination in Westgate Specific Plan EIR
Analysis for Impact 4.C-2 found that short-term construction and long-term regional air quality impacts,
despite implementation of applicable WSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-21 impacts, would
remain significant and unavoidable.
New Information
The WSP EIR analyzed the project development at a program level since it would not directly result in the
construction of any new development projects. At a program level, construction impacts must be
considered at a conceptual level due to the short term of the impacts and the unavailability of specific
temporal and spatial construction data.
Long-term operational air quality mobile and area source emissions were estimated using general
assumptions regarding the operational emissions based on types and sizes of projects expected. The
WSP EIR recognized that future site-specific development proposals would be evaluated for potential air
emissions once development details have been determined and are available and that individual projects
may not result in significant air quality emissions.
SECTION 4.3 - AIR QUALITY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.3-8
May 2024
Air Quality Methodology
Table 4.3-1 shows the project schedule used for the air quality, GHG emissions, and noise analyses.
Table 4.3-1
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Phase Start (month)End (month)Duration
(months)
Site Preparation June 2024 July 2024 1
Grading July 2024 September 2024 2
Building Construction August 2024 October 2025 14
Paving and Landscaping August 2025 September 2025 1
Source: Lee, 2023
Regional criteria pollutant emissions during construction and operations were calculated with the
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2022.1 (CAPCOA, 2022).
Regional Short-Term Air Quality Effects
Construction emissions can be distinguished as either onsite or offsite. Onsite air pollutant emissions
consist principally of exhaust emissions from offroad heavy-duty construction equipment, as well as
fugitive particulate matter from earth working and material handling operations. Offsite emissions result
from workers commuting to and from the job site, as well as from trucks hauling materials to the site and
construction debris for disposal. Table 4.3-2 shows the projected maximum unmitigated daily emissions of
regional criteria pollutants during construction. Emissions of all pollutants are below their SCAQMD significance
thresholds.
Table 4.3-2
MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (UNMITIGATED)
Maximum Emissions (lbs/day)
Construction Activity
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Emissions, 2024 5.20 47.2 51.3 9.49 5.47
Maximum Emissions, 2025 3.42 19.4 30.0 2.15 1.06
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 55
Significant? (Yes or No)No No No No No
SECTION 4.3 - AIR QUALITY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.3-9
May 2024
Maximum Emissions (lbs/day)
Construction Activity
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.20) (CAPCOA, 2022). SCAQMD, 2019.
Regional Long-Term Air Quality Effects
The primary source of operational emissions would be vehicle exhaust generated from project-induced vehicle
trips, known as “mobile source emissions.” Other emissions, identified as “energy source emissions,” would be
generated from energy consumption for water conveyance, space heating, and cooking equipment, while “area
source emissions,” would be generated from structural maintenance and landscaping activities, and the use of
consumer products.
Table 4.3-3 shows maximum daily unmitigated criteria pollutant emissions during the operational phase.
For all pollutants, emissions are below their respective SCAQMD significance thresholds. Air quality impacts
for the proposed project are less than significant, with no need for mitigation.
Table 4.3-3
MAXIMUM DAILY PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (UNMITIGATED)
Pollutant (lbs/day)Emission Source
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Source Emissions 6.53 0.08 9.05 0.02 0.01
Energy Source Emissions 0.08 1.53 1.29 0.12 0.12
Mobile Source Emissions 28.7 26.6 231 46.3 12.0
Total Operational Emissions 35.3 28.2 241 46.4 12.1
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 55 55 550 150 55
Significant? (Yes or No)No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (2020.4.0) (CAPCOA, 2022). SCAQMD, 2019.
SECTION 4.3 - AIR QUALITY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.3-10
May 2024
c)Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
Determination in Westgate Specific Plan EIR
The Air Quality Plan Conflict Impact Analysis (4.C-1) and the Violation of Air Quality Standards Impact
Analysis (4.C-2) found that, despite compliance with the requirements of the Municipal Code, SCAQMD
regulations, and implementation of applicable WSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-21,
potential impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
New Information
SCAQMD recommends separate analyses for cumulative impacts to ascertain if the project would result in
a cumulatively considerable net increase in emissions. This analysis uses a three-tiered approach to assess
cumulative air quality impacts, as presented in CEQA Guidelines §15130(b), to assess cumulative air quality
impacts.
Consistency with the SCAQMD project-specific thresholds for construction and operation.
Project consistency with existing air quality plans.
Assessment of the cumulative health effects of the pollutants.
It is assumed that the modified project would not change the WSP EIR determination that the impact of
criteria pollutant emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. This assumption is due to the
modified project being within the types and intensity of land uses permitted on the modified project site by
the Certified EIR.
Air Quality Plans
Even using the 2022 AQMP, the modified project would not change the WSP EIR determination that the
impact would remain significant and unavoidable. No new significant impact would occur.
d)Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Changes or New Information/Impact Remains Significant and Unavoidable
Determination in Westgate Specific Plan EIR
Analysis for localized exposure from onsite construction emissions could significantly cause or contribute
to locally potentially significant air quality impacts but would be mitigated by compliance with the
requirements of the Municipal Code, SCAQMD regulations, and implementation of applicable WSP Final EIR
Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-21. Analysis of localized impacts from CO hotspots and onsite emissions
of TACs would be less than significant. However, the WSP EIR found that the Project would potentially
locate onsite sensitive receptors near freeways (I-15 and I-210), which may
SECTION 4.3 - AIR QUALITY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.3-11
May 2024
expose onsite sensitive receptors to substantial sources of motor vehicle TAC emissions. Implementation
of WSP EIR Mitigation Measure C-16 would reduce the impacts but potential TAC impacts on onsite
receptors would remain significant and unavoidable.
New Information
The WSP EIR analyzed the potential project development at a program level since it would not directly
result in the construction of any new development projects. At a program level, construction impacts must
be considered at a conceptual level due to the short-term of the impacts and the unavailability of specific
temporal and spatial construction data.
Modified Project Analysis
Modified project construction impacts on localized significance thresholds would be no greater than the
significant and unavoidable impacts identified for the Approved Project, as the land use and building area
proposed by the modified project conform with that proposed in the Approved Project for that site. No new
significant impact would occur.
e)Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
Determination in Westgate Specific Plan EIR
Analysis for Impact 4.C-5 found that implementation of the WSP would not create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of people and would be less than significant.
New Information
Odors can cause a variety of responses. The impact of an odor results from interacting factors such as
frequency (how often), intensity (strength), duration (in time), offensiveness (unpleasantness), location,
and sensory perception.
The SCAQMD recommends that odor impacts be addressed in a qualitative manner. Such an analysis shall
determine whether the project would result in excessive nuisance odors, as defined under the California
Code of Regulations and § 41700 of the California Health and Safety Code, and thus would constitute a
public nuisance related to air quality.
Land uses typically considered associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste
disposal facilities, or agricultural operations. The modified project is not a land use typically associated with
emitting objectionable odors. No new significant impact would occur.
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-1
May 2024
4.4 Biological Resources
4.4.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR) Analysis
and Conclusions
Impacts to special status species: direct or through habitat modification (Impact 4.D-1):
Sensitive Plant Species
The Certified WSP FEIR identified three plant communities on the Approved Project site: former vineyard,
disturbed/ruderal, and developed. (However, for clarification the Approved Project site is actually still
active agricultural land currently used as an organic vineyard. [Lee, 2024a]) Ruderal vegetation is
dominated by species characteristic of areas that have been disturbed over a long period. Disturbed areas
include bare land, recently disturbed soil, and newer growth of ruderal species. The FEIR identified 13
sensitive plant species that could occur within the 964-acre Approved Project site. None of those species
was considered to potentially occur in any of the plant communities on the Approved Project site. Impacts
to sensitive plant species were determined to be less than significant pending project-specific focused
surveys within several vegetation types (Riversidian Sage Scrub [RSS], Disturbed RSS, Riversidian Alluvial
Fan Sage Scrub [RAFSS]/Disturbed, and Disturbed RAFSS). While none of the plant communities specified
is present within the Approved Project site, it is understood that focused surveys for sensitive plant species
would be required before development of the Approved Project site.
Sensitive Animal Species
The FEIR determined that burrowing owl has low potential to occur in the Approved Project site; and that
foraging habitat for several species of raptors is present. San Bernardino kangaroo rat and Delhi Sands
flower-loving fly are not considered to have potential to occur in the Approved Project site, and coastal
California gnatcatcher is considered to have low potential to occur in the Approved Project site. Mitigation
Measure D-1 addresses impacts on coastal California gnatcatcher and San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
Mitigation Measure D-2 addresses impacts on burrowing owl. The FEIR determined that impacts of the
Approved Project on sensitive animal species would be less than significant after implementation of
mitigation measures D-1 and D-2.
Impact 4.D-2: Impacts on Riparian Habitat and Sensitive Natural Communities
The Certified FEIR did not identify riparian habitat in the Approved Project site. The FEIR identified four
sensitive natural communities in the Approved Project site: RSS, Disturbed RSS, RAFSS, and Disturbed
RAFSS. Specific Plan implementation would cause impacts on sensitive natural communities. This impact
was found to be less than significant after implementation of Mitigation Measure D-3.
Impact 4.D-3: Impacts on Federally Protected Wetlands
No federally protected wetlands were identified in the Approved Project site in the Certified FEIR. The FEIR
identified non-wetland drainages that would likely be considered jurisdictional pursuant to the
USACE/RWQCB; no such drainages are within the Approved Project site. Impacts on jurisdictional areas
were determined to be less than significant after implementation of Mitigation Measure D-4.
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-2
May 2024
Impact 4.D-4: Impacts on Wildlife Movement and Migration
The Approved Project site was found in the Certified FEIR to support local wildlife movement, but not to
function as a regional wildlife movement corridor. The Approved Project site was determined to potentially
support nesting by bird species protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California
Fish and Game Code. Impacts on nesting migratory birds were identified as less than significant after
implementation of Mitigation Measure D-5.
Impact 4.D-5: Impacts on Policies Protecting Biological Resources
The Certified FEIR determined that part of the northern portion of the Approved Project site was within the
North Fontana Multiple-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) area. However, that portion of the
Approved Project site was identified as supporting non-native grassland vegetation, which was not subject
to mitigation actions under the MSCHP. No significant impact was identified.
Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
The following biological resources mitigation measures in the Final EIR are relevant to the Westgate PA27
Medical Center Addendum #6 project.
No.Mitigation Measure
D-1 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for the Westgate Village area or Falcon Ridge Village Area,
habitat assessments should be conducted to confirm the presence and extent of suitable habitat for
coastal California gnatcatcher and San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR). Specifically, Riversidean Sage
Scrub (RSS) and Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) was mapped in the Westgate Village
area during 2012 surveys and may be suitable for coastal California gnatcatcher, and USFWS mapped
designated critical habitat for SBKR occurs in the Falcon Ridge Village area. If suitable habitat is
present, focused protocol surveys should be conducted. The assessments and focused surveys should
be conducted by a biologist(s) possessing a valid Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(A)
Recovery Permit (herein referred to as a USFWS permitted biologist) and following the required
USFWS survey protocols. If coastal California gnatcatcher and/or SBKR are found to occupy the site,
and/or if suitable habitat within SBKR designated critical habitat is proposed for impacts, the
measures outlined below shall be incorporated. The project applicant shall also consult with USFWS
pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act, either through a Section 7 or a Section 10
consultation to ensure that proposed impacts are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
the listed species or destroy or adversely modify SBKR designated critical habitat. The proposed
measures may be refined during the consultation process.
Coastal California gnatcatcher
1.Avoid CAGN occupied habitat to the greatest extent feasible, and preserve avoided habitat
and any mitigation areas in perpetuity (see 2. And 3. Below).
2.Mitigate for any impacts to CAGN occupied habitat at a minimum 2:1 ratio of habitat
restoration or creation either on-site and/or offsite on land acquired for the purpose of
mitigation, or through the purchase of mitigation credits at an agency approved mitigation
bank. Purchase of any mitigation credits should occur prior to any habitat removal.
Mitigation on land acquired for mitigation shall include the preservation, creation,
restoration, and/or enhancement of similar habitat pursuant to a Habitat Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan (HMMP). The HMMP shall be prepared prior to any impacts to the habitat,
and shall provide details as to the implementation of the mitigation, maintenance, and future
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-3
May 2024
No.Mitigation Measure
monitoring. The goal of the mitigation shall be to preserve, create, restore, and/or enhance
similar habitat with equal or greater function and value than the impacted habitat.
3.Provide long-term management of preserved and/or mitigation habitat.
4.Avoid direct mortality of individual CAGN during construction by:
a.Removing any vegetation within CAGN occupied habitat outside the breeding
season (the breeding season is February 15 to August 31)
b.Monitoring by a qualified biologist during vegetation removal to flush out any
nonbreeding birds away from the clearing activities.
5.Avoid indirect impacts to CAGN including noise impacts during construction and edge effects
post-construction, by implementing measures to buffer and avoid human-wildlife conflicts
as appropriate. Proposed measures are as follows:
During Construction
a.Construction noise shall not exceed 60 dB(A) Leq in avoided occupied coastal California
gnatcatcher habitat between February 15 and August 31 unless noise attenuation measures
are implemented to reduce noise levels below this level, or the USFWS approves noise levels
above this threshold. Noise attenuation measures may include, but are not limited to,
establishing construction setback buffers, equipment noise mufflers, and noise walls, as
determined necessary by an acoustic specialist and in consultation with the project biologist.
Monitoring by a qualified biologist should also occur during construction to ensure noise
levels are maintained below the threshold. Alternatively, construction noise levels above 60
dB(A) Leq may be approved by USFWS if monitoring by a USFWS permitted biologist for this
species determines that the construction noise is not impacting the expected breeding
behavior of the birds.
Post-Construction
a.Installation of cat-proof fencing at the perimeter of development where it abuts preserved
areas.
b.Restricting access to preservation areas for conservation activities only.
c.Direction of all night lighting within development areas away from the preserved areas.
d.Installation of signage to direct human activity away from preserved habitat areas.
e.Prohibition of unleashed dogs within preserved habitat areas.
f.Implementation of an awareness program to educate tenants and/or residents about the
conservation values associated with preserved habitat areas.
San Bernardino kangaroo rat
1.Avoid SBKR occupied or suitable habitat within SBKR designated critical habitat to the
greatest extent feasible and preserve avoided habitat and any mitigation areas in perpetuity
(see 2 and 3 below).
2.Mitigate for any impacts to SBKR occupied or suitable habitat within SBKR designated
critical habitat at a minimum 2:1 ratio of habitat restoration or creation either on-site and/or
off-site on land acquired for the purpose of mitigation, or through the purchase of mitigation
credits at an agency approved mitigation bank. Purchase of any mitigation credits should
occur prior to any habitat removal. Mitigation on land acquired for mitigation shall include
the preservation, creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of similar habitat pursuant to a
Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP). The HMMP shall be prepared prior to any
impacts to the habitat and shall provide details as to the implementation of the mitigation,
maintenance, and future monitoring. The goal of the mitigation shall be to preserve, create,
restore, and/or enhance similar habitat with equal or greater function and value than the
impacted habitat.
3.Provide long-term management of preserved and/or mitigation habitat.
4.Avoid direct mortality of individual SBKR during construction by:
a.Installation of exclusionary fencing at the limits of construction within suitable
habitat areas; and
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-4
May 2024
No.Mitigation Measure
b.Live trapping of SBKR within suitable habitat in construction areas and the
relocation of trapped individuals to one or more biologically appropriate receiver
sites (defined as suitable habitat that is known to be unoccupied, is below
population carrying capacity levels, and/or where scrub vegetation has been
restored and colonization by the species has not occurred). Trapping shall be
conducted by a USFWS permitted or approved biologist.
5.Avoid indirect impacts to SBKR as a result of edge effects postconstruction by implementing
measures to buffer and avoid human-wildlife conflicts as appropriate, such as:
a.Installation of cat-proof fencing at the perimeter of development where it abuts
preserved areas.
b.Restricting access to preservation areas for conservation activities only.
c.Direction of all night lighting within development areas away from the preserved
areas.
d.Installation of signage to direct human activity away from preserved habitat areas.
e.Prohibition of unleashed dogs within preserved habitat areas.
f.Implementation of a homeowner’s awareness program to educate residents about
the conservation values associated with preserved habitat areas.
D-2 Focused surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted during the breeding season prior to vegetation
clearing or ground disturbing activities by a qualified biologist with experience conducting surveys
for this species. Surveys shall be conducted in suitable habitat as determined by the qualified biologist
based on a field assessment of site conditions at the time of the survey, including habitats such as the
Ruderal and Non- native Grassland plant communities observed during the 2012 survey. The survey
methodology shall follow the protocol provided as Appendix D of the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation published by Department of Fish and Wildlife (March 7, 2012). Pursuant to this protocol
four survey visits are required, including at least one site visit between February 15 and April 15, and
a minimum of three survey visits at least three weeks apart between April 15 and July 15 (with at
least one visit after June 15). The results of the focused surveys are typically considered valid for one
year after completion.
If burrowing owls are determined present following focused surveys, occupied burrows shall be
avoided to the greatest extent feasible, following the guidelines in the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing
Owl Mitigation including, but not limited to, conducting pre- construction surveys, avoiding occupied
burrows during the nesting and non-breeding seasons, implementing a worker awareness program,
biological monitoring, establishing avoidance buffers, and flagging burrows for avoidance with visible
markers. If occupied burrows cannot be avoided, acceptable methods may be used to exclude
burrowing owl either temporarily or permanently, pursuant to a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan that
shall be prepared and approved by CDFW. The Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan shall be prepared in
accordance with the guidelines in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
D-3 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit in areas determined to support sensitive plant
communities (e.g., RSS and RAFSS in the Westgate Village Area) to which impacts would occur, an
assessment shall be conducted to confirm the presence and extent of these vegetation communities
and potentially suitable habitat for sensitive plants. If suitable habitat is present for sensitive plants,
a focused survey shall be conducted. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist with
experience in conducting plant surveys and pursuant to the CDFW protocol (i.e., “Protocols for
Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural
Communities”). If any sensitive plant species are found the significance of potential impacts shall be
assessed following the guidelines in the CDFW protocol, including the significance of the populations
observed considering nearby populations and total species distribution. Impacts to sensitive plant
communities shall be minimized to the greatest extent feasible. For significant impacts, mitigation
shall be proposed and outlined in a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) that shall be
prepared during project-level approvals. The HMMP shall offset impacts to the species and/or plant
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-5
May 2024
No.Mitigation Measure
communities, focusing on the creation of equivalent habitats within disturbed habitat areas within
the study area and/or off-site. In addition, the HMMP shall provide details as to the implementation
of the mitigation, maintenance, and future monitoring. Mitigation for impacts shall be offset by on- or
off-site replacement, restoration, or enhancement of each respective sensitive plant
species/community within an area dedicated for conservation. Ratios of mitigation to impacts shall
occur at no less than 0.5:1 for disturbed, remnant plant populations/communities (e.g. Disturbed RSS
and Disturbed RAFSS), and at a minimum 1:1 ratio for less disturbed plant populations/communities
(e.g. RSS and RAFSS/Disturbed). Mitigation shall occur in one or more of the following ways, as
determined appropriate by a qualified biologist:
1. Transplantation of sensitive plant species (on-site or off- site);
2. Seeding of plant species (on-site or off- site);
3. Planting of container plants (on-site or off- site);
4. Salvage of on-site duff and seed bank and subsequent dispersal (on-site or off- site); and/or
5.Off-site preservation at an established mitigation bank or other area dedicated for
conservation.
D-4 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for permanent impacts in the areas designated as
jurisdictional features on Figure 4.D-7, Impacts to Jurisdictional Features, the project applicant shall
obtain a CWA Section 404 permit from the USACE, a CWA Section 401 permit from the RWQCB, and
Streambed Alteration Agreement permit under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code
from the CDFW. The following shall be incorporated into the permitting, subject to approval by the
regulatory agencies:
1.On- and/or off-site replacement of USACE/RWQCB jurisdictional “waters of the U.S.”/“waters of
the State” at a ratio no less than 1:1 for permanent impacts, and for temporary impacts to restore
the impact area to pre-project conditions (i.e., pre- project contours and revegetate as
appropriate). Off-site replacement may include the purchase of mitigation credits at an
agency-approved off-site mitigation bank.
2.On- and/or off-site replacement of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian
habitat at a ratio no less than 2:1 for permanent impacts, and for temporary impacts to restore
the impact area to pre-project conditions (i.e., pre-project contours and revegetate as
appropriate). Off-site replacement may include the purchase of mitigation credits at an
agency-approved off-site mitigation bank.
D-5 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit that would all removal of habitat containing raptor and
songbird nests, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Fontana that
either of the following have been or will be accomplished.
1.Vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled outside the nesting season (September 16 to
February 14 for songbirds; September 16 to January 14 for raptors) to avoid potential impacts to
nesting birds.
2.Any construction activities that occur during the nesting season (February 15 to September 15
for songbirds; January 15 to September 15 for raptors) will require that all suitable habitat be
thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist before
commencement of clearing. If any active nests are detected, a buffer of at least 300 feet (500 feet
for raptors) will be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete as
determined by the biological monitor to minimize impacts.
Source: WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015a, pp. 4.D43-4.D-49]; WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015b, pp. 4-14 – 4-29].
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-6
May 2024
4.4.2 Summary of Approved Project versus the Proposed Westgate PA27 Medical Center
Addendum #6 Project Impacts
The potential impacts of the modified project concerning biological resources have been evaluated as
applicable to the present environmental regulatory setting, the impacts identified in the WSP FEIR, and
site-specific baseline conditions. Therefore, impacts associated with implementation of the modified
project would be consistent with those associated with implementation of the previous Approved Project,
no additional significant impacts beyond those identified for the previous Approved Project were identified,
and no additional mitigation measures would be required.
4.4.3 Proposed Westgate PA27 Medical Center Addendum #6 Project Analysis and Conclusions
With regard to biological resources the following checklist compares the impacts of the previous Approved
Project analyzed in the WSP FEIR with those of project described in this document. The comparative
conclusions provided in the following table for the project are based on the discussions immediately
thereafter.
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing
New or
Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing Ability
to Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
a)Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-7
May 2024
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing
New or
Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing Ability
to Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
c)Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
§ 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?
X
d)Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native nursery sites?
X
e)Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
X
f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
X
Existing Setting. The Westgate Specific Plan (WSP) includes 302.4 acres of land designated as Mixed-Use
and Retail Uses (City of Fontana, 2017) These areas are located adjacent to State Route 210 (SR-210) and
Interstate 15 I(-15) corridors and comprise approximately 31 percent of the 964-acre total Specific Plan
(SP) area.
The area of the WSP that is discussed in this section is Planning Areas (PA) 27 (project site), located in the
Westgate East WSP Community Area in the southern segment of the WSP area. PA 27 plus a 500-foot buffer
are collectively referred to as the Biological Study Area (BSA) in this section. The project site is located
south of State Route (SR) 210, north of South Highland Avenue, west of San Sevaine Road, and west of
Cherry Avenue (see Figure 4.4-1). Land cover types within the BSA consist of developed, disturbed,
Caltrans Landscaping, Eucalyptus groves, and Vinyard/Disturbed fiddleneck-phacelia fields.
The project site is located in southwestern San Bernardino County in the City of Fontana (City), and lies
within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Topographic Map Devore
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-8
May 2024
Quadrangle Township 1 North, Range 6 West, Section 35 Northwest (USGS, 2021). The project site 17.5
acres.
This section contains an analysis of the potential project impacts to protected biological resources within
the BSA. The BSA contains elevations ranging from approximately 1,380 feet to 1,450 feet above mean sea
level (amsl; Google Earth Pro, 2023).
The BSA does not overlap with USFWS-designated critical habitat. The nearest designated critical habitat is
for San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus), which is located approximately 0.9 mile
northwest from the project site (USFWS, 2022b).
Methodology
UltraSystems biologists researched readily available information, including relevant literature, databases,
agency websites, various previously completed reports and management plans, GIS data, maps, aerial
imagery from public domain sources, and in-house records to identify the following: 1) habitats, special-
status plant and wildlife species, jurisdictional waters, critical habitats, and wildlife corridors that may
occur in and near the project site; and 2) local or regional plans, policies, and regulations that may apply to
the project. Sources accessed by UltraSystems for analysis of potential impacts within this Initial Study
include:
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), provided by the CDFW (CNDDB, 2023a).
Information, Planning and Conservation (IPaC), provided by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS; USFWS, 2023a).
California Invasive Plant Inventory, provided by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC,
2023)
Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, J.M. Evens, 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition,
provided by California Native Plant Society Press.
Additional sources used are cited in the text.
Aerial imagery was overlaid with geospatial data by utilizing Geographic Information System (GIS) software
to identify documented observations of the following biological or environmental components within the
project vicinity:
1) Previously recorded observations within the project vicinity and geographic range of special status
species and potentially suitable habitats;
2) special-status vegetation communities;
3) protected management lands;
4) proposed and final critical habitats;
5) waters of the State and waters of the U.S., including wetlands; and
6) wildlife corridors.
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-9
May 2024
In the analysis of potential biological impacts, UltraSystems biologists also relied on the following
documents:
Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report (UltraSystems, 2024; see Appendix A1);
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Habitat Assessment for Proposed Westgate Projects: City of Fontana, San
Bernardino County, California (ENVIRA, 2023a; see Appendix A2) and the
Focused Trapping Surveys for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and Los Angeles Pocket Mouse
Westgate Development Project (ENVIRA, 2023b; see Appendix A3).
The BSA is located within a historical alluvial fan, the Fontana Plain. This alluvial fan flared out from the
mouth of Lytle Creek at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains to the base of the Jurupa Mountains (Dutcher
and Garrett, 1963), approximately 6.5 miles south of the project site. Topography of the BSA slopes slightly
from the northeast to the southwest, with elevations ranging from approximately 1,380 feet to 1, 450 feet
amsl (Google Earth Pro, 2023). Soils within the project site are Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent
slopes (HaC) and Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes (TvC), which are typical of alluvial fans
(Soil Survey Staff, 2023). The construction of diversion dikes and berms, beginning around 1950 (USGS,
1954), created a barrier to the fluvial processes that created the Fontana Plain alluvial fan. As a result, the
BSA is no longer part of an active alluvial fan.
Plant and wildlife species that are federal or state listed endangered, threatened, rare, or candidate species
under the ESA and/or CESA are referred to as listed species in this report. Plant and wildlife species that
have no designated status under the ESA and/or the CESA but are designated as sensitive, rare or locally
important by federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies, and nonprofit resource organizations such as
CNPS are referred to as sensitive species in this section. Collectively, listed and sensitive species are referred
to as special-status species.
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-10
May 2024
Figure 4.4-1
PROJECT BOUNDARY AND BIOLOGICAL STUDY AREA (BSA)
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-11
May 2024
a)Would the project have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species
in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
Special-Status Plants
The literature review and database search resulted in five listed and 38 sensitive plant species recorded
within 10 miles of the BSA. Due to factors including known elevation ranges limitations and lack of suitable
habitat, none of these 43 special-status plant species are expected to occur within the BSA (see Appendix
A4, Species Occurrence Potential Determinations).
Two special-status plant species and one sensitive vegetation community have been recorded within two
miles of the BSA: Plummer’s mariposa lily (Calochortus plummerae), mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneatavar.
puberula); and Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub (see Figure 4.4-2). Due to factors including known
elevation ranges limitations and lack of suitable habitat, these species are not expected to occur within the
BSA (see Appendix A4, Species Occurrence Potential Determinations).
No listed or sensitive plant species were observed during the biological field surveys based on limitations
due to the elevation of the BSA or the lack of suitable habitat identified during the field surveys. These
species were not observed during the field surveys, and habitat within the BSA and project site is unlikely
to support these species.
Special-Status Wildlife
Twenty listed wildlife species and 32 sensitive wildlife species have been recorded within 10 miles of the
BSA. Of these 52 special-status species, four listed and six sensitive species have at least a low potential to
occur within the BSA, and an additional six sensitive species are present within the BSA (see Appendix A4,
Species Occurrence Potential Determinations).
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-12
May 2024
Figure 4.4-2
CNDDB KNOWN OCCURRENCES: PLANT SPECIES AND HABITATS
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-13
May 2024
Special-status wildlife species within at least a low potential to occur are: Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus
crotchii; SCE5); Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni; ST6); San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami
parvus; FE7, SCE, SSC8 [not observed during focused surveys, see Appendix A3, Focused Trapping Surveys
for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and Los Angeles Pocket Mouse]); Stephen’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys
stephensi; FT9, ST); southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi; SSC); Blainville’s horned lizard
(Phrynosoma blainvillii; SSC); California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis; SSC); northern harrier
(Circus hudsonius; SSC, BCC10); merlin (Falco columbarius; WL11); San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus
californicus bennettii; Special Animals List12); and pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus; SSC). These species were
not observed during focused or general surveys.
For details special-status species recorded within 10 miles of the BSA, see Appendix A4, Species Occurrence
Potential Determinations.
The following species were observed during general and focused surveys, and are considered present in
the project site:
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia [BUOW]; SSC, BCC). BUOW is a small, ground-inhabiting owl. BUOW
are generally found in open country, where tree or shrub canopies cover of less than 30 percent. Typical
habitats include annual and perennial grasslands, shortgrass prairies open agricultural areas (particularly
rangelands), and deserts floors. Other habitats include oak savannah; grass, forb, and open shrub stages of
pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine habitat; sandy beaches and coastal dunes; and river bottom lands.
BUOW inhabiting urban or suburban areas may occupy vacant fields or lots, pastures, airports, athletic
fields, golf courses, cemeteries, city parks, road shoulders, drainage sumps, railroad beds, irrigation ditches,
and road cuts.
Nest and roost burrows of the BUOW in California are most commonly dug by California ground squirrels,
but BUOW can also dig their own burrows in soft banks of irrigation canals and ditches. Where burrows are
scarce, man-made structures such as culverts, piles of concrete, rubble, or debris, pipes, asphalt, artificial
nest boxes, and openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement also are used as nests.
The project site contains suitable annual grassland, vineyard and disturbed habitat for BUOW with
abundant communities of ground squirrels, which have created numerous suitable burrows. The project
site contains ample prey for the species, including several species of small mammals, reptiles, ants, and
other insects.
As of this date, three focused non-breeding season BUOW surveys and three of the four required breeding
season BUOW surveys have been conducted between June 2023 and March 2024. One final breeding season
survey will be conducted between April 15 and May 15, 2024. During the BUOW surveys a total of three
observations of BUOW were made on the project site, two BUOWs were
5 SCE: State candidate for listing as endangered.
6 ST: State listed as threatened.
7 FE: Federally listed as endangered.
8 SSC: CDFW Species of Special Concern.
9 FT: Federally listed as threatened.
10 BCC: USFWS Birds of Special Concern.
11 WL: CDFW Watch List
12 Special Animals List: Taxa that are actively inventoried, tracked, and mapped by the CNDDB (CNDDB, 2023b) .
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-14
May 2024
observed on December 5, 2023 at different burrow complexes (complexes 19 and 20.1). A BUOW was
observed at another complex on January 17, 2024 within the project site; BUOW sign (whitewash and/or
pellets) was observed at burrows within each of the occupied complexes (see Table 4.4-1, Figure 4.4-3
and Appendix A1, Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Report).
Biologists did not observe any BUOW or BUOW sign within the section of PA 31 that lies within the BSA of
PA 27 during the breeding season surveys as of this date; however, they observed BUOW but no BUOW sign
at two different locations (sites 20.2 and 26) during the non-breeding season surveys. One BUOW was
observed on December 5, 2023, standing in the vineyard, approximately 400 feet southwest of the northeast
corner of PA 31. No burrow was observed in the vicinity of where the BUOW at site 20.2 was standing.
Another BUOW was observed peering above a burrow apron of burrow 26, at the base of a grape vine.
Burrow 26 is located approximately 100 feet south of South Highland Avenue and approximately 1,300 feet
east of Cherry Avenue. The biologists did not approach burrow 26 to avoid flushing or otherwise disturbing
the BUOW.
Table 4.4-1
BURROWING OWL SURVEY RESULTS
Burrow
/
Complex
ID
Highest
Status1
Planning
Area #
(Project
Location)2
Burrow
or
Complex
(Number
of
Burrows)
Number
and Age of
Occupants
Sign3
Discovery
Date
19 OWS 27 Complex
(2)1 Adult FL, W 2023-12-
05
20.1 OWS 27 Complex
(3)1 Adult FL, W 2023-12-
05
20.2 OWL 31 No burrow 1 Adult FL, W 2023-12-
05
25 OWS 27 Complex
(5)1 Adult FL, P,
W
2024-01-
17
26 OWL 31 Solitary 1 Adult OWL 2024-01-
18
1. Statuses of BUOW Burrows/Complexes are abbreviated as follows: OWS = owl present, sign
observed; OWL = owl present; BSO = burrow with sign of owl (pellet, feathers, whitewash, etc.).
2. The following project locations are represented: BSA = BUOW burrows/complexes that occur
within the Biological Study Area (BSA) of the project.
3. Types of BUOW sign are abbreviated as follows: B = bones, EXC = excrement, EXO = invertebrate
exoskeleton, F = feather, None =no sign. P = pellet, PE = pellet w/invertebrate exoskeleton,
W=whitewash. FL = BUOW flushed
Project Impacts
The project site and other areas within the BSA contain occupied BUOW habitat. Grading, excavation, and
other ground-disturbing activities that would occur during construction of the project would excavate and
remove occupied burrows of BUOW that occur on the project site. As a result, these actions would lead to
take of BUOWs and loss of occupied habitat. Overall, direct impacts to BUOWs
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-15
May 2024
resulting from construction of the project, include take and loss of nesting, sheltering, and foraging habitat
for this species. Since the project as designed will remove three burrows with owl (complexes 19, 20.1 and
25) within the project site, burrows at which BUOWs were observed using it for sheltering, and hunting,
the project would directly impact BUOW. Thus, the project as designed would have a significant impact on
BUOW.
Permanent loss of habitat and physical features would occur from clearing and grading and would directly
impact BUOW through the loss of nesting, sheltering, hunting, and foraging habitat (i.e. habitat). Habitat
loss from ground-disturbing activities such as excavation and grading would displace BUOW from existing
occupied habitat and reduce the home range of this species. Examples of ground disturbing and habitat
altering activities include grading, clearing, disking, grubbing, excavation, trenching, paving, mowing, heavy
equipment compacting, and driving over existing habitat to access construction sites and temporary work
areas.
Indirect impacts would occur within areas located adjacent to the limits of construction in the BSA. Indirect
impacts are more subtle than direct impacts, and may either be short-term, related to construction, or long-
term and may affect BUOW populations and habitat quality over an extended period of time, long after
construction activities have been completed.
Project construction could result in temporarily increased levels of ambient noise, dust, vibration, lighting
and/or human intrusion in and near BUOW habitat, resulting in disruption of foraging, sheltering, and/or
breeding behavior of BUOWs. BUOWs stressed by these factors may disperse from habitat in the BSA and
project vicinity. Since BUOW is a burrow-dwelling species that often exhibits site fidelity, especially during
nesting season, project activities may adversely affect the foraging and nesting behavior of BUOWs
occupying the project site and other locations within the BSA.
Displaced BUOW would then have to find and compete for new territories, also competing for food with
resident species in nearby undeveloped areas. This could also result in delayed nest building, fewer nest
attempts, reduced clutch size, and an overall reduction in reproductive output. BUOW within the BSA may
also experience significant temporary impacts from loss of nesting and foraging habitat due to construction
activities.
During construction, accidental releases of non-stormwater pollutants (e.g., petroleum products,
rodenticide) may also adversely affect BUOW through secondary or tertiary poisoning. Potential impacts
from onsite herbicides and pesticides would be low since all farming done by Intex Properties Inland
Empire Corp. on the project site is organic - no chemicals are used as herbicides and pesticides (Lee, 2024a).
An increased level of human activities within and adjacent to the project site could also lead to mortality,
injury, or harassment of wildlife species by providing food in the form of trash, pet food, or water which
attracts BUOW predators such as the common raven, coyote, and feral cats and dogs.
Significance Conclusion for Impacts to BUOW Based on Existing FEIR
Implementation of mitigation measures D-2 and D-5, as detailed in the FEIR, would reduce impacts to
BUOW, a migratory bird species, to a less than significant level.
FEIR Mitigation Measure D-2 requires focused surveys be conducted during the breeding season to
determine BUOW presence. Mitigation Measure D-2 further requires that if BUOW are present on site, then
avoidance of occupied burrows be practiced to the greatest extent feasible; and, where burrows cannot be
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-16
May 2024
avoided, a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan, which details how the temporary or permanent exclusion of these
burrows is achieved, shall be prepared (see text above in Section 4.4.1).
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-17
May 2024
Figure 4.4-3
BURROWING OWL LOCATIONS
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-18
May 2024
The following actions would be taken to implement Mitigation Measure D-2 within the modified project
BSA, as commitments by the developer.
Action D2.1: focused BUOW surveys: Mitigation Measure D-2 requires that focused surveys for BUOW
shall be conducted within suitable BUOW habitat during the breeding season prior to vegetation clearing
or ground disturbing activities by a qualified biologist. As set forth by the CDFW in the Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Staff Report; CDFG, 2012), four surveys are required, one between February 15
and April 15, and minimum of three, at least three weeks apart, between April 15 and July 15.
As of this date, three of the four required breeding season surveys have been conducted.within the project
BSA, and one final survey will be conducted during the current breeding season to maintain compliance
with the Staff Report. Three complexes with BUOW and BUOW sign have been observed during the focused
surveys that have been conducted to date. Avoidance of the onsite BUOWs during construction of the project
is not feasible because the construction of two four-story medical office buildings, surface parking, and
project site amenities would take up the majority of the project site, including those areas where burrows
with BUOW and BUOW sign have been observed. As a result of avoidance being unachievable, other actions
required by the Staff Report and Mitigation Measure D-2 need to be implemented and are detailed below.
Action D2.2: Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (MMP): Mitigation Measure D-2 requires
that a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan (hereafter, Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan) be
prepared in cases in which BUOW cannot be avoided during construction of the project.
The Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (MMP; UltraSystems 2023; Burrowing Owl Exclusion
Plan) shall be prepared and approved by CDFW and outlines measures that will be implemented by the
Project Applicant and their contractors to protect BUOW prior to construction of the Cherry Avenue and
Victoria Street Complete Streets Infrastructure Project. The MMP will describe avoidance and minimization
measures; specifically, the MMP will detail passive exclusion and relocation procedures, identify potential
mitigation lands owned by the Project Applicant that:
Are within an acceptable distance from the original BUOW burrow locations;
Are in habitat similar to existing BUOW habitat;
Provide necessary structure of prey source, burrowing structure, perching structure, without high
overhead perches for predators;
The MMP will also determine, in consultation with CDFW, which ABS design is most appropriate for the
project site, including whether they should be above or below ground.
The MMP shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites, acres of burrowing owl habitat
that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other avoidance
measures if avoidance is proposed. If impacts to occupied burrowing owl habitat or burrow cannot be
avoided, the MMP shall also describe exclusion and relocation actions that will be implemented, with the
approval of CDFW. Proposed implementation of burrow exclusion and closure should only be considered
as a last resort after all other options have been evaluated, as exclusion is not in itself an avoidance,
minimization, or mitigation method and has the possibility to result in take. If impacts to occupied burrows
cannot be avoided, information shall be provided regarding adjacent
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-19
May 2024
or nearby suitable habitat available to owls along with proposed relocation actions. The project proponent
shall implement the MMP following CDFW and USFWS review and approval.
The MMP will also detail required monitoring and reporting requirements. If impacts to occupied
burrowing owl habitat or burrow cannot be avoided, mitigation lands for BUOW must be dedicated to
BUOW mitigation and protected in perpetuity.
The ultimate goal of the MMP is to relocate the owls as far away from active construction (present and
future) or other conflicting land uses as feasible, but as close to the burrows being removed as possible. The
MMP identify mitigation requirements including, but not limited to, acceptable types of artificial burrow
structures (ABS), revegetation, and signage to notify the public that the area is off limits.
Implementation of the CDFW-approved Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan would avoid or
minimize impacts to burrowing owl that would result from development of the project.
Action D2.3: Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP): Mitigation Measure D-2 requires
that a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) is implemented when BUOW are observed on
the project site and their burrows would potentially be impacted by development of the project.
Development of the project would potentially impact special-status wildlife (including BUOW) under the
jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) within the project site. Prior to project
construction activities, a qualified biologist will prepare and conduct a WEAP that will describe the
biological constraints of the project. All personnel who will work within the project site will attend the
WEAP prior to performing any work. The WEAP will include, but not be limited to the following: results of
pre-construction surveys; description of sensitive biological resources potentially present within the
project site; legal protections afforded the sensitive biological resources; BMPs for protecting sensitive
biological resources (i.e., restrictions, avoidance, protection, and minimization measures); individual
responsibilities associated with the project; and, a training on grading to reduce impacts to biological
resources. A condition shall be placed on grading permits requiring a qualified biologist to conduct a
training session for project personnel prior to grading.
The training shall include a description of the species of concern and its habitat, the general provisions of
the Endangered Species Act (Act) and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the
MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act, the general measures that are
being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to
the project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished. The program will also
include the reporting requirements if workers encounter a sensitive wildlife species, including BUOW (i.e.,
notifying the biological monitor or the construction foreman, who will then notify the biological monitor).
Training materials will be language-appropriate for all construction personnel. Upon completion of the
WEAP, workers will sign a form stating that they attended the program, understand all protection
measures, and will abide all the rules of the WEAP. A record of all trained personnel will be kept with the
construction foreman at the project field construction office and will be made available to any resource
agency personnel. If new construction personnel are added to the project later, the construction foreman
will ensure that new personnel receive training before they start working. The
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-20
May 2024
biologist will provide written hard copies of the WEAP and photos of the sensitive biological resources to
the construction foreman.
Action D2.4: Biological Monitoring: Mitigation Measure D-2 requires that biological monitoring be
included as a strategy for avoiding impacts to BUOW during development of the project.
A biological monitor would be onsite to monitor activities that result in the clearing and grading of areas
known to contain sensitive biological resources, including but not limited to, habitat suitable for burrowing
owl. The biological monitor would also ensure that ground-disturbing activities do not exceed the limits of
construction and to minimize the likelihood of inadvertent impacts to special-status species and other
wildlife species. The biological monitor will ensure that all biological mitigation measures, BMPs, avoidance
and protection measures described in the relevant project permits, project plans, and CEQA documents are
implemented and are adhered to. Monitoring will cease when vegetation has been cleared and all grading
activities has ceased.
The biological monitor will have the authority to halt all construction activities and all non-emergency
actions if special-status species are observed onsite and would be directly impacted. The monitor will notify
and consult with the appropriate resource agency, as needed. If necessary and possible, the biological
monitor would relocate the individual outside of the work area where it will not be harmed. Work can
continue at the location if the City of Fontana and the consulted resource agency determine that the activity
will not result in impacts to the species.
Action D2.5: Avoidance Measures: Mitigation Measure D-2 requires that avoidance measures be included
as a strategy for avoiding impacts to BUOW during development of the project. The avoidance measures
detailed below would facilitate the reduction of impacts to BUOW during construction activities.
The BSA contains habitat which can support many wildlife species. The project proponent will implement
the following general avoidance and protection measures to protect vegetation and wildlife and to the
maximum extent practical:
1.Avoidance buffers shall be established around occupied BUOW burrows. Buffers will be established
with appropriate materials (e.g., wooden stakes, flagging, etc.) and no work activities will be
permitted within the avoidance buffers. Buffer distance will be implemented in compliance with
the Staff Plan.
2.Cleared or trimmed vegetation and woody debris will be disposed of in a legal manner at an
approved disposal site. Cleared or trimmed non-native, invasive vegetation will be disposed of in a
legal manner at an approved disposal site as soon as possible to prevent regrowth and the spread
of weeds.
3.The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre-existing contours and revegetated with
appropriate native species.
4.Non-native wildlife species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be
permanently removed from the site to the extent feasible. Only a qualified biologist should remove
non-native species.
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-21
May 2024
5.To minimize construction-related mortalities of nocturnally active species such as mammals and
snakes, it is recommended that all work be conducted during daylight hours. Nighttime work (and
use of artificial lighting) will not be permitted unless specifically authorized. If required, night
lighting will be directed away from the preserved open space areas to protect species from direct
night lighting. All unnecessary lights will be turned off at night to avoid attracting wildlife such as
insects, migratory birds, and bats.
6.If any wildlife such as BUOW is encountered during the course of project activities, said wildlife will
be allowed to freely leave the area unharmed.
7.If any wildlife does not move off the site unassisted and within less than one hour, then a qualified
biologist will be contacted to move the species out of harm’s way wildlife if it would otherwise be
injured or killed from the project-related activities. Movement of wildlife out of harm’s way should
be limited to only those individuals that would otherwise by injured or killed, and individuals
should be moved only as far a necessary to ensure their safety. Only biologists authorized by a
Scientific Collecting Permit and/or a Memorandum of Understanding issued by CDFW shall move
FESA and CESA-listed species such as San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
8.Wildlife will not be disturbed, captured, harassed, or handled. Animal nests, burrows and dens will
not be disturbed without prior survey and authorization from a qualified biologist.
9.Active nests of special-status or otherwise protected bird species cannot be removed or disturbed.
Nests can be removed or disturbed only if determined inactive by a qualified biologist.
10.To avoid impacts to wildlife and attracting predators of protected species, the project proponent
will comply with all litter and pollution laws and will institute a litter control program throughout
project construction. All contractors, subcontractors, and employees will also obey these laws.
These covered trash receptacles will be placed at each designated work site and the contents will
be properly disposed at least once a week. Trash removal will reduce the attractiveness of the area
to opportunistic predators such as common ravens, coyotes, northern raccoons, and Virginia
opossums.
11.Contractors, subcontractors, employees, and site visitors will be prohibited from feeding wildlife
and collecting plants and wildlife.
12.Disturbance near ponded water will be limited during the rainy season.
FEIR Mitigation Measure D-5 requires that the project applicant shall schedule removal outside of the
nesting bird season to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, such as BUOW. Mitigation Measure D-5
further requires that if construction activities are scheduled to occur during nesting season that all suitable
habitat be surveyed for nesting birds prior to the commencement of clearing. Avoidance buffers shall be
established around active nests (see text above in Section 4.4.1).
As a migratory bird species and member of the order Strigiformes (birds of prey), BUOW is protected by
the MBTA, and by § 3503, § 3503.5, and § 3513 of the FGC. Moreover, nesting bird surveys for BUOW, a
ground-nesting bird species, must be modified to maintain compliance with specific standards detailed in
the Staff Report.
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-22
May 2024
In consultation with the CDFW, the following actions would be taken to implement Mitigation Measure D-5
within the modified project BSA, as commitments by the developer.
Action D5.1: Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey: Mitigation Measure D-5 requires that pre-
construction nesting bird surveys for nesting birds, such as BUOW, shall be implemented prior to initiation
of project clearance. Since BUOW have been observed on the project site implementation of a modified pre-
construction nesting bird survey that focuses on BUOW is detailed below.
After implementation of the passive exclusion and relocation measures described in the Programmatic
Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (MMP), burrowing owls may repopulate the project site
prior to construction. Therefore, pre-construction burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted no less than
14 days prior to the start of project-related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance,
including but not limited to vegetation, security fencing, and staging activities, in accordance with the Staff
Report. Preconstruction surveys should be performed by a qualified biologist following the
recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report. The survey may detect changes in BUOW
presence such as colonizing BUOWs that have recently moved onto the project site, migrating BUOWs,
resident BUOWs changing burrow use, or young of the year that are still present and have not dispersed
(CDFG, 2012).
Following the completion of the pre-construction BUOW survey, the biologist would prepare a letter report
in accordance with the instructions described in the Staff Report, summarizing the results of the survey.
The report would be submitted to the City of Fontana and CDFW prior to initiating any ground disturbance
activities.
If no BUOWs or signs of BUOWs are observed during the survey and concurrence is received from CDFW,
project activities may begin and no further mitigation would be required.
If BUOWs or signs of BUOWs are observed during the survey, the project site would be considered
reoccupied, and project activities shall be immediately halted. The biologist would contact the City of
Fontana and CDFW to assist in the development of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, prior
to commencing project activities. The measures to avoid and minimize impacts to BUOWs described in the
CDFW-approved Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (MMP) would be implemented.
Implementation of actions D2.1 through D2.5 and D5.1 would achieve the less than significant impact on
burrowing owls as determined in the Certified FEIR.
Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii; WL). Cooper’s hawks are medium-sized hawks of the woodlands. These
raptors are commonly sighted in parks, neighborhoods, over fields, and even along busy streets if there are
large trees nearby for perching and adequate prey species such as other birds and small mammals. They
prefer to breed in more densely wooded areas than occur in the BSA, such as woodland openings and edges
of riparian and oak habitat. Cooper’s hawks build nests in pines, oaks, Douglas-firs, beeches, spruces, and
other trees. They are known to forage and nest in urban and residential areas (Cornell Lab of Ornithology,
2023).
Because this species has become urbanized southern California, it may often be seen foraging in residential
areas as well as in open space; thus, the BSA provides suitable foraging habitat for Cooper’s hawk and its
presence within the BSA may have been the result of hunting and foraging activities.
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-23
May 2024
Project Impacts
The project could potentially result in impacts to Cooper’s hawk through loss of hunting and foraging
habitat, and negative effects caused by dust, noise, vibration, and other project activities. However, the
urbanization of Cooper’s hawks indicate that the Cooper’s hawks observed within the BSA would be able to
find new nesting and hunting habitat within the project area.
Significance Conclusion for Impacts to Cooper’s Hawk Based on Existing FEIR
FEIR Mitigation Measure D-5 requires that the project applicant shall implement pre-construction nesting
bird surveys if construction activities are scheduled to occur during nesting season. As a migratory bird
species, Cooper’s hawk is protected by the MBTA, and by § 3503 and § 3513 of the FGC; and therefore,
nesting bird surveys are required to avoid impacts to this species.
The following actions would be taken to implement Mitigation Measure D-5 within the modified project
BSA, as commitments by the developer.
Action D5.2: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Surveys: Mitigation Measure D-5 requires that if
construction is planned during the breeding season that pre-construction nesting bird surveys must be
conducted. The survey methods and reporting requirements are detailed below.
The survey will be conducted between three to seven days prior to the onset of scheduled activities,
including building demolition and vegetation trimming or removal and will include all potential nest sites,
such as open ground, trees, shrubs, grasses, burrows, and structures during the breeding season.
The project applicant will make every effort to conduct the pre-construction survey and subsequent
removal of all physical features that could potentially serve as avian nest sites (e.g., staging and stockpiling,
structure removal, clear and grub, grading, fill, etc.) to avoid impacts to nesting birds.
If a breeding bird territory or an active bird nest is located during the pre-construction survey and will
potentially be impacted by demolition or construction activities, the site will be mapped and location
provided to the construction foreman, City, and project applicant. The qualified biologist will establish a
buffer zone around the active nest, which will be delimited (fencing, stakes, flagging, orange snow fencing,
etc.) at a minimum of 100 feet, or as the qualified biologist determines is appropriate, for the detected
species. The biologist will determine the appropriate buffer size based on the planned activities and
tolerances of the nesting birds. This no-activity buffer zone will not be disturbed until a qualified biologist
has determined that the nest is inactive, the young have fledged, the young are no longer being fed by the
parents, the young have left the area, or the young will no longer be impacted by project activities.
Periodic monitoring by the qualified avian biologist will be performed to determine when nesting is
complete. After the nesting cycle is complete, project activities may begin within the buffer zone.
If no breeding birds or active nests are observed during the preconstruction survey or they are observed
and will not be impacted, project activities may begin and no further mitigation will be required.
Implementation of Action D5.2 would achieve the less than significant impact on Cooper’s hawk as
determined in the Certified FEIR.
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-24
May 2024
California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia; WL). California horned lark is a resident of a variety of
open habitats, usually where trees and large shrubs are absent. They are found from grasslands along the
coast and deserts near sea level to alpine dwarf-shrub habitat above the treeline (McCaskie et al. 1979)).
They prefer short, sparsely vegetated prairies, deserts, and agricultural lands. Agricultural land may be
recently plowed land, with or without emerging crops, or land used the previous year for crops and then
mowed short and left fallow, or very sparse, heavily grazed annual grassland; or it may simply be a large
expanse of mowed weeds. These birds breed primarily in open fields from March through July, with peak
activity in May, usually building a cup-shaped grass-lined nest in a depression on the ground in the open.
California horned lark forage on the ground in either bare areas or in agricultural fields with short
vegetation (Airola, 1980).
Open, undeveloped areas within the BSA provide suitable nesting or foraging habitat for this species;
additionally, California horned lark is present within the BSA.
Project Impacts
The project could result in potential impacts to California horned lark, through the loss of suitable nesting
and foraging habitat for this ground-nesting species; take of eggs and nest removal could occur during
vegetation clearance and ground-disturbing activities such as excavation and grading. The project could
also cause adverse impacts to these species through loss of foraging habitat and negative effects caused by
dust, noise, vibration, and other project activities.
Significance Conclusion for Impacts to California Horned Lark Based on Existing FEIR
FEIR Mitigation Measure D-5 requires that the project applicant shall implement pre-construction nesting
bird surveys if construction activities are scheduled to occur during nesting season. As a migratory bird
species, California horned lark is protected by the MBTA, and by § 3503 and § 3513 of the FGC; and
therefore, pre-construction nesting bird surveys are required to avoid impacts to this species.
Implementation of Action D5.2 would achieve the less than significant impact on California horned lark as
determined in the Certified FEIR.
Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus [LAPM]13, SSC). The LAPM is one of two
pocket mice found in southwestern San Bernardino County. Both LAPM and northwestern San Diego pocket
mouse occupy similar habitats, but the San Diego pocket mouse has a wider range extending south into San
Diego County. The habitat of LAPM is described as being confined to lower elevation grasslands and coast
sage scrub habitats, in areas with soils composed of fine sands. The present known distribution of this
species extends from Rancho Cucamonga east to Morongo and south to the San Diego County border. This
mouse is a California Species of Special Concern (SSC) whose historical range has been reduced by urban
development and agriculture.
13 The Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus) is referred to in this document using the 4-letter acronym for
its common name, LAPM; whereas, the 4-letter acronym based on its scientific name, PELO, is used in the focused survey report
(Envira, 2023a,b; see Appendix A3 Focused Trapping Surveys for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and Los Angeles Pocket
Mouse).
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-25
May 2024
Los Angeles pocket mouse forages in open ground and underneath shrubs. Pocket mice in general dig
burrows in loose soil, although this has not been completely documented for this subspecies.
A LAPM specimen was captured on the project site during small mammal trapping surveys conducted in
September 2023. Thus, LAPM is present within the project site. Since some of this species would have been
estivating during the survey period, the numbers captured during the surveys are not indicative of the
population on site (Envira, 2023a,b; see Appendix A3 Focused Trapping Surveys for the San Bernardino
Kangaroo Rat and Los Angeles Pocket Mouse).
Project Impacts
Grading, excavation, and other ground-disturbing activities that would occur during construction of the
project would excavate and remove occupied burrows of LAPM that occur on the project site. As a result,
these actions would lead to take of LAPM and loss of occupied habitat. Overall, direct impacts to LAPM
resulting from construction of the project, include take and loss of nesting, sheltering, and foraging habitat
for this species. Thus, the project as designed would have a significant impact on LAPM.
Significance Conclusion for Impacts to Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Based on Existing FEIR
The analysis of Approved Project impacts on LAPM in the Certified EIR was based on species occurrence
potential estimates based on known occurrences within the project region, and the presence or absence of
suitable habitat for each species in the study area. As LAPM was captured during trapping surveys in
September 2023, implementation of the Certified EIR mitigation measure for San Bernardino kangaroo rat
(mitigation measure D-1 [part]) is considered warranted for LAPM.
Action D1.1: Minimizing Impacts to Los Angeles Pocket Mouse, San Diego Pocket Mouse, and San Diego
Kangaroo Rat
1.Avoid habitat occupied by, or suitable for, LAPM, SDPM, and/or SDKR to the greatest extent feasible
and preserve avoided habitat and any mitigation areas in perpetuity (see 2 and 3 below).
2.Mitigate for any impacts to LAPM, SDPM, and/or SDKR occupied or suitable habitat at a minimum
2:1 ratio of habitat restoration or creation either on-site and/or off-site on land acquired for the
purpose of mitigation, or through the purchase of mitigation credits at an agency approved
mitigation bank. Purchase of any mitigation credits should occur prior to any habitat removal.
Mitigation on land acquired for mitigation shall include the preservation, creation, restoration,
and/or enhancement of similar habitat pursuant to a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
(HMMP). The HMMP shall be prepared prior to any impacts to the habitat and shall provide details
as to the implementation of the mitigation, maintenance, and future monitoring. The goal of the
mitigation shall be to preserve, create, restore, and/or enhance similar habitat with equal or
greater function and value than the impacted habitat.
3.Provide long-term management of preserved and/or mitigation habitat.
4.Avoid direct mortality of individual LAPM, SDPM, and/or SDKR during construction by:
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-26
May 2024
a.Installation of exclusionary fencing at the limits of construction within suitable habitat
areas; and
b.Live trapping of LAPM, SDPM, and/or SDKR within suitable habitat in construction areas
and the relocation of trapped individuals to one or more biologically appropriate receiver
sites (defined as suitable habitat that is known to be unoccupied, is below population
carrying capacity levels, and/or where scrub vegetation has been restored and
colonization by the species has not occurred). Trapping shall be conducted by a USFWS
permitted or approved biologist.
5.Avoid indirect impacts to LAPM, SDPM, and/or SDKR as a result of edge effects postconstruction by
implementing measures to buffer and avoid human-wildlife conflicts as appropriate, such as:
a.Installation of cat-proof fencing at the perimeter of development where it abuts preserved
areas.
b.Restricting access to preservation areas for conservation activities only.
c.Direction of all night lighting within development areas away from the preserved areas.
d.Installation of signage to direct human activity away from preserved habitat areas.
e.Prohibition of unleashed dogs within preserved habitat areas.
f.Implementation of a homeowner’s awareness program to educate residents about the
conservation values associated with preserved habitat areas.
Implementation of Action D1.1 would reduce modified project impacts on LAPM to less than significant.
Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax [SDPM]14; Special Animals List). The
habitat of SDPM is open, sandy areas in the valleys and foothills of southwestern California; specifically, this
species confined to primary and secondary alluvial fan scrub habitats, with sandy soils deposited by fluvial
(water) rather than aeolian (wind) processes. Burrows are dug in loose soil, usually near or beneath shrubs.
Preferred habitat is open areas of coastal sage scrub and weedy growth, often on sandy substrates.
The SDPM occasionally occurs sympatrically with LAPM. The range of this species extends from Orange
County to San Diego County, but also includes Riverside and San Bernardino counties (ENVIRA, 2023).
14 The northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax) is referred to in this document using the 4-letter acronym for
its common name, SDPM; whereas, the 4-letter acronym based on its scientific name, CHFA, is used in the focused survey report
(Envira, 2023a,b; see Appendix A3 Focused Trapping Surveys for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and Los Angeles Pocket
Mouse).
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-27
May 2024
The SDPM was captured on the project site during small mammal trapping surveys conducted in September
2023. Thus, SDPM is present within the project site (Envira, 2023a,b; see Appendix A3 Focused Trapping
Surveys for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and Los Angeles Pocket Mouse).
Project Impacts
Grading, excavation, and other ground-disturbing activities that would occur during construction of the
project would excavate and remove occupied burrows of SDPM that occur on the project site. As a result,
these actions would lead to take of SDPM and loss of occupied habitat. Overall, direct impacts to SDPM
resulting from construction of the project, include take and loss of nesting, sheltering, and foraging habitat
for this species. Thus, the project as designed would have a significant impact on SDPM.
Significance Conclusion for Impacts to Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse Based on Existing
FEIR
The analysis of Approved Project impacts on SDPM in the Certified EIR was based on species occurrence
potential estimates based on known occurrences within the project region, and the presence or absence of
suitable habitat for each species in the study area. As SDPM was captured during trapping surveys in
September 2023, implementation of the Certified EIR mitigation measure for San Bernardino kangaroo rat
(mitigation measure D-1 [part]) is considered warranted for SDPM.
Implementation of Action D1.1 would reduce impacts on SDPM to less than significant.
San Diego (=Dulzura) kangaroo rat (Dipodomys simulans [SDKR]15; Special Animals List). The SDKR is
found in open, sandy areas in southwestern California and northern Baja California. This species prefers
habitats of grassland and open sage scrub with sandy-loam to loam soils in which it may excavate burrows.
The SDKR often occupies areas also occupied by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, but has a wider habitat
range.
The SDKR was captured on the project site during small mammal trapping surveys conducted in September
2023. Thus, SDKR is present within the project site (ENVIRA, 2023a,b; see Appendix A3 Focused Trapping
Surveys for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and Los Angeles Pocket Mouse).
Project Impacts
Grading, excavation, and other ground-disturbing activities that would occur during construction of the
project would excavate and remove occupied burrows of SDKR that occur on the project site. As a result,
these actions would lead to take of SDKR and loss of occupied habitat. Overall, direct impacts to SDKR
resulting from construction of the project, include take and loss of nesting, sheltering, and foraging habitat
for this species. Thus, the project as designed would have a significant impact on SDKR.
15 The San Diego (=Dulzura) kangaroo rat (Dipodomys simulans) is referred to in this document using the 4-letter acronym for one of
its common names, San Diego kangaroo rat (SDKR); whereas, the 3-letter acronym based on its other common name, Dulzura
kangaroo rat (DKR), is used in the focused survey report (Envira, 2023a,b; see Appendix A3 Focused Trapping Surveys for the San
Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and Los Angeles Pocket Mouse).
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-28
May 2024
Significance Conclusion for Impacts to San Diego Kangaroo Rat Based on Existing FEIR
The analysis of Approved Project impacts on SDKR in the Certified EIR was based on species occurrence
potential estimates based on known occurrences within the project region, and the presence or absence of
suitable habitat for each species in the study area. As SDKR was captured during trapping surveys in
September 2023, implementation of the Certified EIR mitigation measure for San Bernardino kangaroo rat
(mitigation measure D-1 [part]) is considered warranted for SDKR.
Implementation of Action D1.1 would reduce impacts on SDKR to less than significant.
Eleven special-status wildlife species have been recorded within two miles of the BSA (see Figure 4.4-4):
Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), Delhi sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis),
Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), San Bernardino kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys merriami parvus), San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii), San Diego
desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia), southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi),
burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), northwestern San Diego
pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax), and western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus).
As discussed previously, BUOW, LAPM, SDPM, and SDKR are present within the project site. Crotch bumble
bee has not been recorded within two miles of the BSA since 1953 but has a low potential to occur due to
the presence of disturbed fiddleneck-phacelia fields; Delhi sands flower-loving fly is not expected to occur
because this species requires Delhi sands soils, which are not found within the BSA; and San Bernardino
kangaroo rat was not found during focused trapping surveys conducted for this and other small mammal
species. San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit was recorded in 2001 near the Etiwanda Creek Flood Control
Basin but has a moderate potential to occur in the BSA; San Diego desert woodrat is not expected to occur
due to lack of suitable habitat or vegetation; southern California legless lizard was recorded in 1992 and
has a low potential to occur due to marginally suitable habitat within the BSA; coast horned lizard has been
recorded in the BSA and has a moderate potential to occur; and western mastiff bat is not expected to occur
because the BSA does not contain suitable vegetation or roosting habitat. For details, see Appendix A4,
Species Occurrence Potential Determinations.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) Bird Species
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements four international conservation treaties that the U.S.
entered into with Canada (in 1916), Mexico (in 1936), Japan (in 1972), and Russia (in 1976). ensure the
sustainability of populations of all protected migratory bird species by prohibiting the take (including
killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior
authorization by the USFWS, The USFWS updates its list of migratory bird species if it meets one or more
of the following criteria:
1.It occurs in the United States or U.S. territories as the result of natural biological or ecological
processes and is currently, or was previously listed as, a species or part of a family protected by
one of the four international treaties or their amendments.
2.Revised taxonomy results in it being newly split from a species that was previously on the list, and
the new species occurs in the United States or U.S. territories as the result of natural biological or
ecological processes.
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-29
May 2024
3.New evidence exists for its natural occurrence in the United States or U.S. territories resulting from
natural distributional changes and the species occurs in a protected family.
This list was updated in 2020 and can be found at under CFR Title 50 Part 10.13 (10.13 list; 88 FR 49310).
Another list, updated 2020, identifies species belonging to biological families referred to in treaties the
MBTA implements but are not protected because their presence in the United States or U.S. territories is
solely the result of intentional or unintentional human-assisted introductions (85 FR 21262).
Native birds are protected by the California Fish and Game Code render it unlawful to take native breeding
birds, and their nests, eggs, and young.
Project Impacts
Direct impacts breeding and nesting birds would result from vegetation and tree removal, including but not
limited to grubbing, mowing, and disking. Indirect impacts to breeding and nesting birds could occur from
increased noise, vibration, and dust during construction, which could adversely affect the breeding
behavior of some birds, and lead to the loss (take) of eggs and chicks, or nest abandonment. Impacts to
breeding and besting birds protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code would potentially be
significant without implementation of a WSP FEIR mitigation measure and project design features.
Significance Conclusion for Impacts to Migratory Bird Species Based on Existing FEIR
FEIR Mitigation Measure D-5 requires that the project applicant shall implement pre-construction nesting
bird surveys if construction activities are scheduled to occur during nesting season. Migratory bird species
are protected by the MBTA, and by § 3503 and § 3513 of the FGC; and therefore, pre-construction nesting
bird surveys are required to avoid impacts to this species.
Implementation of Action D5.2 would achieve the less than significant impact on migratory bird species as
determined in the Certified FEIR.
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-30
May 2024
Figure 4.4-4
CNDDB KNOWN OCCURRENCES: WILDLIFE SPECIES
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-31
May 2024
b)Would the project have a substantial adverse impact to any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or
by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
The BSA does not support habitats that are considered sensitive natural communities (CDFW, 2022).
Vineyard is the primary land cover occurring within the BSA and contains disturbed soils of low-quality
habitat value for sensitive plant species. on the western side of the BSA does not support riparian
communities or individual riparian plant species.
The BSA contains the following five land cover types (see Table 4.4-2 and Figure 4.4-5):
Developed
Developed land cover primarily consists of man-made structures, paving and other impermeable surfaces
that cannot support vegetation. Developed lands also include ornamental and non-native landscaping
around residences. Developed lands within the BSA consist of SR-210, paved streets, driveways, sidewalks,
residential areas, transmission line towers, and other permanent structures. These developed areas
provide virtually no habitat for wildlife species. Landscaped (ornamental trees, shrubs, turf, etc.) areas
associated with the developed lands within the BSA provide virtually no habitat for wildlife species;
however, birds could use the ornamental trees for foraging and nesting. This land cover is not considered
sensitive (CDFW, 2023).
Developed land cover occupies approximately 22.7 acres of the BSA. The project site contains no Developed
land cover.
Disturbed
The Disturbed land cover type is characterized by areas that are either barren, and thus completely lacking
vegetation (e.g., dirt/gravel roads or gravel-covered staging areas), or low-lying ruderal vegetation
including native and non-native shrubs, forbs, and/or grasses. Many areas in the Disturbed land cover type,
such as the dirt/gravel service road of the transmission line towers and other dirt access roads interspersed
throughout the vineyards and uncultivated fields within the BSA, contain highly compacted soils, which do
not support vegetative cover.
Weed abatement activities such as disking and mowing throughout vegetated areas of Disturbed land cover
adversely affect habitat value by reducing vegetative cover. Vegetation within Disturbed land cover
primarily consists of non-native annual grass and forb species. Disturbed land cover within the BSA does
not fit any classification described in A Manual of California Vegetation Second Edition (Sawyer et al., 2009)
or Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Communities of California (Holland, 1986). This land cover type
is not considered a sensitive habitat on CDFW’s California Sensitive Natural Community List (CDFW, 2023).
The Disturbed land cover occupies approximately 20.1 acres of the BSA and 4.0 acres of the project site.
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-32
May 2024
Caltrans Landscaping
The Caltrans landscaping land cover occurs in landscaped sections between the Highland Channel and the
Cherry Avenue onramp to SR-210, between the Cherry Avenue onramp and SR-210, and adjacent to the
east- and westbound lanes of the SR-210. The tree species used in this landscaping include kurrajong
(Brachychiton populenus), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii).
While coast live oak and Fremont cottonwood are both native species, kurrajong is a non-native
ornamental. The understory consists of native shrubs, such as California buckwheat (Eriogonum
fasciculatum), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), deerweed (Acmispon glaber), Pomona milkvetch
(Astragalus pomonensis), and doveweed (Croton setiger). Acacia (Acacia sp.), a non-native ornamental
species, has also been planted within the shrub layer. Various herbaceous weeds such as telegraph weed
(Heterotheca grandiflora) and stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens) occur within these sites as well. The trees
in this land cover type are sparsely distributed, covering approximately ten percent of the area. There is
dense shrub cover in most areas of this land cover. This land cover is not considered sensitive (CDFW,
2023).
The Caltrans Landscaping land cover type occupies approximately 8.2 acres of the BSA and 0.1 acre of the
project site.
Eucalyptus Grove (Eucalyptus [globulus, camaldulensis] Association)
The Eucalyptus Grove land cover type occupies is located adjacent the southbound lane of San Sevaine Road.
Eucalyptus groves are characterized by Eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus spp.) which dominate the tree canopy.
These species were originally planted as individual trees, groves, and windbreaks, later becoming
naturalized on uplands, bottomlands, and adjacent to stream courses, lakes, or levees. Stands in this alliance
occur in agricultural and urban land use areas as well as widely beyond these, typically in disturbed areas
including roadside verges and upper terraces of floodplains (CNPS, 2023). This land cover is not considered
sensitive by CDFW (CDFW, 2023).These trees are considered windrow trees as defined by the City of
Fontana municipal code (Chapter 28, §28-63), as “a series of trees (minimum of four), usually a variety of
eucalyptus, planted in a closely spaced line no more than ten feet apart to provide a windbreak for the
protection of property and/or agricultural crops.”
According to the City of Fontana municipal code (Chapter 28, §28-63), “Protected” tree means any heritage,
significant or specimen tree subject to this article or other such tree identified by a federal or state agency
as endangered or sensitive species.
Eucalyptus windrows could be considered Heritage Trees per the City of Fontana municipal code (Chapter
28, § 28-61 – 28-63). Heritage tree means any tree which:
(1)Is of historical value because of its association with a place, building, natural feature or event
of local, regional or national historical significance as identified by city council resolution; or
(2)Is representative of a significant period of the city's growth or development (windrow tree,
European Olive tree); or
(3)Is a protected or endangered species as specified by federal or state statute; or
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-33
May 2024
(4)Is deemed historically or culturally significant by the city manager or his or her designee
because of size, condition, location or aesthetic qualities.
According to the owner of the property, these are 2nd or 3rd growth Eucalyptus trees. The original trees
were cut down, according to the owner’s knowledge of managing the vineyard near the windrow (Lee,
2024b). Therefore, these Eucalyptus trees are not considered heritage trees.
These trees are also not considered “Significant” trees because Eucalyptus in not included on the list of
significant trees in the City of Fontana municipal code (Chapter 28, §28-63).
Based on the City of Fontana municipal code definitions (Chapter 28, §28-63). these Eucalyptus trees are
considered “Specimen” trees, which is defined as a mature tree (which is not a heritage or significant tree)
and is an excellent example of its species in structure and aesthetics and warrants preservation, relocation,
or replacement as provided in sections 28-66, 28-67 and 28-68. Specimen trees shall not include any tree
located on a private parcel of property of less than one acre zoned for residential use.
The Eucalyptus Grove land cover occupies approximately 0.8 acre of the BSA and is completely within the
City ROW.
Vinyard/Disturbed Fiddleneck-Phacelia Fields
The Vineyard/Disturbed fiddleneck-phacelia fields land cover contains land that is used seasonally as a
vineyard to grow grapes (agriculture), without supplemental irrigation. The vineyards have been cultivated
since at least 1938 (NetrOnline 2023). Domestic grape (Vitis vinifera) is the dominant shrub and its cover
varies from approximately 10 percent in the late fall and winter in its deciduous state to approximately 75
percent in late summer when its foliage matures. Annual forbs and grasses characteristic of the Disturbed
fiddleneck-phacelia fields land cover establish within the vineyard rows and the understory of the vines,
forming a dense vegetative cover of approximately 90 percent, while the grapes are in their dormant state
in the late winter and early spring. The dominant forb species during this period are the native common
fiddleneck, and non-native filaree species and annual grass species such as ripgut brome. Co-dominant and
common forb and annual grass species observed during this period include oat species (Avena spp.), Sahara
mustard (Brassica tournefortii), red maids (Calandrinia menziesii), (Eulobus californicus), and annual lupine
(Lupinus bicolor). Much of the non-target vegetation within the vineyard rows is disturbed by cultivation
practices during the late winter to early summer as described below.
Vineyard maintenance crews were observed conducting monthly disking and blading of the vineyard rows,
both north-to-south and west-to-east rows, between late January and June. As a result, the only vegetation
other than the grape vines that persists in the late growing season is the vegetation that grows beneath the
vine’s canopies; ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) was the dominant species growing within the grape vines’
canopies during the late growing season. This land cover is not considered sensitive (CDFW, 2023).
The Vineyard/Disturbed fiddleneck-phacelia fields land cover occupies approximately 35.9 acres of the BSA
and 14.0 acres of the project site.
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-34
May 2024
Figure 4.4-5
LAND COVER TYPES
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-35
May 2024
TABLE 4.4-2
Acreage of Mapped Land Cover Types
Land Cover Type
Area Mapped within
BSA
(acres)
Area Mapped within
the Project Site
(acres)
Developed 22.7 -
Disturbed 20.1 4.0
Caltrans landscaping 8.2 0.1
Eucalyptus grove 0.8 0.0
Vinyard/Disturbed fiddleneck/phacelia fields 35.9 14.0
Total 87.6 18.1
The project site does not support riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, as defined by
CDFW, or regional or local plans, policies, or ordinance. There are no new changes or new information
regarding impacts to natural sensitive communities. Impact determination is consistent with the WSP, and
therefore no additional mitigation is required.
c)Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by § 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 literature review and biological surveys of the project site, one waterway, Highland
Channel, is located along the northern boundary of the project site (see Figure 4.4-6). The Highland
Channel is an intermittent drainage fed by urban runoff and stormwater generated north of SR-210, and
ultimately discharges into East Etiwanda Creek near Victoria Street; East Etiwanda Creek is a known water
of the U.S. which, by definition, makes Highland Channel a water of the U.S.
Highland Channel is protected by an access road and a fence that restricts unauthorized entrance; the fence
is paralleled by a power line from San Sevaine Road to the center of the SCE ROW. The project, as designed,
would not encroach into the powerline ROW or Highland Channel ROW and would not result in direct or
indirect impacts to waters of the U.S. and State (as defined by § 404 of the Clean Water Act [CWA], by the
California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act [Porter-Cologne], and by §§ 1600-1617 of the
California Fish and Game Code) are anticipated through hydrological interruption, or other means.
The project would not result in impacts to waters of the U.S. or State (including wetlands) and no additional
mitigation is required.
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-36
May 2024
Figure 4.4-6
USGS SURFACE WATERS AND WATERSHEDS
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-37
May 2024
d)Could the project interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
A wildlife corridor is a connection of habitat, generally native vegetation, which joins two or more larger
areas of similar habitat that are otherwise separated by natural barriers, changes in vegetation composition,
or land permanently altered for human activities, such as farms; and infrastructure, such as roads, railroads,
residential development, or fencing. When native vegetation is cleared, fragmented patches of open space
or isolated islands of wildlife habitat are created. Fragmentation and habitat loss are the two main
contributors to continuing biodiversity decline. The main goal of corridors is to facilitate movement of
individuals, through dispersal, seasonal migration, and movement for foraging, breeding, cover, etc.
Corridors allow for physical and genetic exchange between isolated wildlife populations and are critical for
the maintenance of ecological processes, including allowing for the movement of animals and the
continuation of viable populations and higher species diversity.
Habitat within a corridor generally contains biological and physical features that are needed to temporarily
support wildlife and allow avian and ground-dwelling wildlife to safely move through it. Wildlife corridors
may either be contiguous strips of vegetation and habitat, such as ridgelines or riverbeds, or intermittent
patches of habitat or physical features spaced closely enough to allow safe travel. Corridors can be natural,
such as a riparian corridor, or man-made, such as culverts, tunnels, drainage pipes, underpasses, or
overpasses. Man-made corridors are often referred to as wildlife crossings and they allow wildlife to pass
over, under, or through physical barriers that otherwise hinder movement, such as roads or highways.
Wildlife corridors also vary greatly in size, shape, and composition. Generally, there are three types of
wildlife corridors:
Regional corridor: a primary landscape connection between larger important areas of habitat. They are
generally substantial in width (more than 2,000 feet) and not only provide for dispersal of individual
species, but also act as habitat in their own right for a range of species. These areas provide adequate
food, water, cover, and shelter to support wildlife within the corridor.
Sub-regional corridor: a landscape connection not as wide as a regional corridor, but wide enough
(generally more than 1,000 feet) to provide species movement and dispersal. Sub-regional corridors
typically connect larger vegetated landscape features such as ridgelines and valley floors.
Local movement corridor: smaller, shorter, less defined linkages that provide local connection of remnant
patches of vegetation and landscape features such as creek lines, gullies, and wetlands. They may in some
cases be less than 160 feet wide and thus may be influenced by edge effects. Such wildlife crossings are
considered local corridors.
In general, the wider and more safeguarded a wildlife corridor is from adjacent human activities, including
noise, traffic, and light, the better it functions for the movement of wildlife. To determine the potential for
the BSA to contain wildlife corridors, biologists reviewed the USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Maps
Cucamonga Peak, Devore, and Fontana Quadrangles (USGS; 2021a, 2021b, 2021c) and viewed aerial
imagery to search for physical features that might serve as a wildlife corridor.
Biologists also reviewed CDFW Essential Connectivity Areas and Natural Landscape Blocks within ten miles
of the project site (see Figure 4.4-6). Essential Connectivity areas are large, relatively natural habitat blocks
(Natural Landscape Blocks) that support native biodiversity and areas essential for ecological connectivity
between them. CDFW has mapped a statewide network of 850
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-38
May 2024
relatively intact Natural Landscape Blocks (ranging in size from 2,000 to about 3.7 million acres) connected
by 192 Essential Connectivity Areas. The San Gabriel Mountains Essential Connectivity Area is located
approximately 2.5 miles north of the project site (see Figure 4.4-7). The BSA does not overlap within
mapped CDFW Essential Connectivity Areas, Natural Landscape Blocks, or Small Natural Areas mapped
within the San Gabriel Mountains.
Predators such as coyotes, and smaller mammals such as raccoons (Procyon lotor) and striped skunks
(Mephitis mephitis), are known to use residential, industrial and commercial areas, utility corridor rights-
of-way, and washes for hunting and foraging; these species also use washes (natural and channelized),
culverts, underpasses, and city streets for travelling, often but not necessarily limited to overnight hours
when human activity decreases (Baker and Timm, 1998; Grubbs and Krausman, 2009; Ng et al., 2004).
Urban areas provide a unique ecosystem with ecological opportunity in the form of anthropogenic food
sources such as discarded human food, pet food, human-associated fruits, and domestic animals (Larson et.
al., 2020). Due to urbanization of the project vicinity, the BSA is not likely to function as a regional wildlife
corridor; however, examination of aerial imagery indicates that the BSA functions as a hunting, foraging,
and local movement corridor, and the project site and BSA are suitable wildlife movement corridors.
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-39
May 2024
Figure 4.4-7
CDFW WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-40
May 2024
Due to the urbanized state of the area, it is unlikely that mammals unacclimated to human activities or that
require dense vegetative cover currently utilize the BSA for passage. Species that are less restricted in
movement pathway requirements or that are adapted to urban areas (raccoon, skunk, coyote, birds) are
likely to move through the BSA. The BSA supports habitat and physical features that provide connectivity
(via storm drain channels and roadways) to the San Gabriel Mountains. Due to the presence of small
mammals and burrowing owls, it is probable that the BSA serves as a local movement corridor which could
be used by larger wildlife species (e.g., coyotes, golden eagles) for hunting and foraging. Construction of the
project is not anticipated to significantly impact wildlife movement, as the urban-adaptive species that
already utilize the BSA for passage would likely be able to adapt to the new development resulting from
construction of the project. Impacts to wildlife corridors would be less than significant in this regard.
The BSA provides potential nesting, hunting, and foraging habitat for special-status small mammal species,
bird species, and for bird species protected by the MBTA (some of which were observed during the field
survey) due to the presence of limited trees, shrubs and groundcover and active burrowing owl habitat.
Avian nesting activity typically occurs between February 15 to August 31 (January 15 to August 31 for
raptors), but could vary depending on changes in climate or weather conditions. Disturbing breeding birds,
and disturbing or destroying bird eggs and nests is a violation of MBTA (16 U.S.C 703 et seq.) and California
fish and Game Codes § 3503, § 3503.5, and § 3513.
There are no new changes or new information regarding impacts to the movement of resident, migratory
fish, or wildlife species; with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or with the use of wildlife
nursery sites. Impact determination and recommended mitigation is consistent with the WSP, and therefore
no additional mitigation is required.
e)Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
The BSA contains a eucalyptus grove adjacent to San Sevaine Road (within City right-of-way [ROW]); this
grove is a remnant of a eucalyptus windrow. As described above, this windrow of Eucalyptus trees is
protected by the City because these trees are considered “Specimen” trees as defined by the City of Fontana
municipal code (Chapter 28, §28-3). The trees are third-generation trees sprouted from stumps of second-
generation trees that were removed. This windrow is within the City of Fontana right-of-way for San
Sevaine Avenue, and is not within the project site. Widening of San Sevaine Avenue is planned within the
right-of-way.
The project would remove the windrow trees in the City ROW along San Sevaine Road for construction
access. The City of Fontana does not require a permit for removal of specimen trees which are determined
to be within the ultimate right-of-way as shown within the circulation element of the city's general plan
(Fontana Municipal Code Section 28-65([6]). The project would therefore not conflict with the City of
Fontana tree preservation ordinance (Fontana Municipal Code Sections 28-61 et seq.).
There are no new changes or new information regarding conflicts with local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources. Impact determination is consistent with the WSP FEIR, and therefore no
additional mitigation is required.
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-41
May 2024
f)Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
No Impact
The BSA is not located within USFWS-designated Critical Habitat. The designated critical habitat nearest to
the project is that of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus), which is located
approximately one mile northwest from the project site (USFWS, 2023b; see Figure 4.4-8, USFWS Critical
Habitat). The BSA is not located in a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Communities Conservation
Plan (NCCP), or other approved HCP areas.
The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local,
regional, or state HCP approved. No mitigation is required.
SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-42
May 2024
Figure 4.4-8
USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT
SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.5-1
May 2024
4.5 Cultural Resources
4.5.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR) Analysis and
Conclusions
The information below summarizes the analysis and conclusions in Section 4.E, Cultural Resources, in the
DEIR (2015). The analysis of cultural resources is derived from a technical report prepared by PCR Services
Corporation in April 2014. The Cultural Resources Assessment was provided in the Westgate Specific Plan
DEIR as Appendix D (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, Appendix D]).
Historical Resources - cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in §15064.5 (Impact 4.E-1):
The Hippard Ranch, which is located approximately one-half mile west of the Approved Project site was
determined eligible for local listing. The Hippard Ranch is on the west side of I-15 and is not visible from
the Approved Project site and therefore no direct or indirect impacts to the historic resource from any
proposed project associated with the Approved Project would occur (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015,
p. 4.E-20]).
Baseline Avenue (P-36-15,497/CPHI-SBR-12) is located outside but immediately adjacent to the southern
boundary of the project site and no remnants of the original road that was built by Hunt in the 1850s exists
today. The Approved Project would not cause a substantial adverse change to the significance of Baseline
Avenue since it is located outside the project site and; therefore, it would not be directly impacted by any
future development. In addition, the setting of Baseline Avenue has already been altered by existing
residential and commercial uses in the area; therefore, no indirect impacts associated with the Approved
Project will occur (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.E-20-4.E-21]).
The vineyards and associated water tank, water system and a former farmstead site (CA-SBR-7324H) are
physically and historically associated components and may be contributing features of a potential historic
agricultural landscape. The vineyards and associated water tank, water system and/or former farmstead
site may be historically significant, therefore mitigation measure E-1 is required for the preservation and
recordation of known resources, and/or recovery and curation of buried resources, as appropriate, in order
to address potential impacts. However, even with implementation of mitigation measure E-1 that requires
recordation of affected resources, impacts to historic resources would be considered significant and
unavoidable, as future implementation of the Approved Specific Plan could ultimately result in the
demolition and removal of the vineyards and associated water tank, water system and the former farmstead
site (CA-SBR-7324H) (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.E-21]).
Approved Project Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Impact after Mitigation.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: Refer to mitigation measure E-1.
Archaeological Resources - cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064 (Impact 4.E.2):
No recorded archaeological resources are within the Approved Project site. PCR performed a
limited-coverage pedestrian survey of the project site and did not identify any previously unrecorded
SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.5-2
May 2024
archaeological resources. Before an adequate project-level impact analysis can be performed, new
comprehensive pedestrian surveys that examine the entirety of the project site will be required to identify
any previously unknown archaeological resources and to determine whether there is enough potential to
encounter a buried historic archaeological deposit at the former location of CA-SBR-7324H that would
warrant subsurface test excavations to identify its nature and extent. These recommendations are included
as mitigation measures E-2 through E-5 (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.E-21]).
The Approved Project could potentially include significant ground-disturbing activities and could have a
significant impact on both existing and unidentified archaeological resources within the project site.
Relatively limited surface grading would be needed for parking lots, parks, and other improvements
requiring low-intensity construction. For the majority of improvements and development, however, such
as residential and commercial development, schools, and their associated utilities, deeper and more
extensive ground disturbance would be required for construction (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p.
4.E-21]). Components of the Plan that do not require excavation activities such as grading, trenching, or
boring will result in no impacts to archaeological resources and therefore no additional analyses or
mitigation is necessary. These projects would include areas where an existing grade will be utilized or
raised to a higher grade. Other Plan components that include excavations into heavily disturbed soils or fill
would also result in no impact to archaeological resources as resources have likely been displaced from
previous disturbances and there is nearly no potential to encounter resources in fill soils (WSP Draft EIR
[PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.E-22]).
However, all components of the Plan that include excavations into native soils will require additional
analyses to identify any potential impacts to archaeological resources. The results of the cultural resources
records search through the CHRIS-SBAIC revealed that there are numerous archaeological resources
located outside the project site but within the foothills and mountain areas to the north and south of the
one-half mile search radius. These findings confirm prehistoric occupation in the vicinity of the project and
suggest that prehistoric archaeological resource may exist within the project site on the surface or
subsurface (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.E-22]).
The Approved Project has a moderate potential to impact archaeological resources. Future archaeological
sensitivity assessments will be performed on a project-by-project basis and will take into account previous
land use/disturbances, project impacts (direct and indirect), and location of known resources in the
vicinity. Overall, however, with implementation of applicable mitigation measures (E-2 through E-5),
impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p.
4.E-22]).
Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: Refer to mitigation measures E-2 to E-5.
Paleontological Resources - directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature (Impact 4.E-3): This section was moved and is addressed in Section 4.6,
Geology and Soils. of this document for consistency with the current 2024 CEQA thresholds.
SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.5-3
May 2024
Human Remains - disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries (Impact 4.E.4):
A Sacred Lands File search for the project site requested by PCR from the NAHC in Sacramento did not
indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the SLF database within the project site. The
NAHC results also noted, however, that the “NAHC [SLF] inventory is not exhaustive and does not preclude
the discovery of cultural resources during any project groundbreaking activity.” The results of the SBAIC
search showed no recorded human remains have been identified within the project site or a half-mile
radius. The sensitivity of the project site regarding buried human remains is low. If such resources are
accidentally encountered during project implementation, mitigation measure E-9 will ensure that potential
impacts to the resources are reduced to a less than significant level.
Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: Refer to mitigation measure E-9.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
The following cultural resources mitigation measures in the Final EIR are relevant to the modified project.
No.Mitigation Measure
E-1
Historical
Resources
If the historic agricultural landscape and any associated contributing features including the
vineyards, water tank, water system, and farmstead site CA-SBR-7324H would be affected by
a future project component of the Plan that would cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of the historical resource, the applicant shall hire a qualified historic preservation
consultant to review the Project for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards,
and the preservation consultant shall provide preservation design consultation to assist the
applicant to avoid or reduce potential impacts to historical resources. If potentially significant
impacts cannot be avoided, the applicant shall prepare a Historic American Landscapes Survey
(HALS) to document the historic agricultural landscape in accordance with the National Parks
Service’s Requirements for Heritage Documentation Programs. The HALS shall be prepared by
a qualified historian or architectural historian and include a discussion of the history of the
vineyards and associated structures and infrastructure, historic aerial photographs and
written descriptions illustrating the appearance and extent of the vineyards during the historic
period, as well as photographs of the remaining landscape and structural features by a Historic
American Landscape Survey (HALS)-qualified photographer. Furthermore, the applicant shall
preserve a portion of the remaining vineyard within the project boundaries for interpretive
purposes, at a size determined appropriate by the City, which shall be located in a publicly
accessible area and shall include an interpretive plaque and historic aerial photo or historic
map and timeline to educate visitors regarding the past use and significance of the property. If
the former farmstead site CA-SBR-7324H would be physically impacted by future ground
disturbing activities, the site shall be mitigated through archaeological data recovery by a
qualified historical archaeologist prior to commencement of construction activities, as
discussed below in Mitigation Measure E-4.
E-2
Archaeological
Resources
The City shall conduct a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of the project to identify any
archaeological resources within the area of a proposed project component. The Phase I
assessment shall include cultural resources records searches through the San Bernardino
Archaeological Information Center (as needed), a Sacred Lands File search through the Native
American Heritage Commission and follow-up Native American consultation (as needed), and
a comprehensive pedestrian survey of the project site. As part of this assessment, the City shall
also determine whether there is enough potential to encounter a buried historic archaeological
SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.5-4
May 2024
No.Mitigation Measure
deposit at the former location of CA-SBR-7324H that would warrant subsurface test
excavations to identify its nature and extent.
If resources are identified during the Phase I assessment, then a Phase II assessment
shall be required, as described in Mitigation Measure E-2.
If no resources are identified as part of the assessment, no further analyses or
mitigation shall be warranted, unless it can be determined that the project has a high
potential to encounter buried archaeological resources. This discussion will be
included in a technical report and the Cultural Resources Initial Study or EIR Section.
If it is determined that there is a moderate or high potential to encounter buried
archaeological resources, appropriate mitigation shall be developed and
implemented. Appropriate mitigation may include, redesign of the proposed project
to avoid the sensitive area, in which case no additional mitigation would be required.
If avoidance is not possible, appropriate mitigation shall include but not be limited to the
following:
Archaeological Monitoring During Construction: A qualified archaeologist shall be retained by
the City prior to the commencement of the project. The archaeologist shall monitor all
ground-disturbing activities and excavations within the project area. The purpose of the
monitoring is to inspect sidewalls and spoils piles of exposed excavation trenches and pits for
the presence or absence of archaeological resources and to determine whether native soils are
present at depth. The frequency of monitoring shall be determined by PCR in coordination with
the City and shall be based on the results of the soil conditions and resource yields during
construction. Such factors that will determine monitoring frequency include rate of excavation
and grading activities, the materials being excavated (fill or native soils), the depth of
excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. In
addition, PCR shall recommend appropriate treatment measures (i.e., avoidance, removal, or
preservation in place) to reduce or avoid impacts to buried resources, if encountered. If
archaeological resources are encountered during implementation of the project,
ground-disturbing activities shall temporarily be redirected from the vicinity of the find. The
archaeologist shall be allowed to temporarily divert or redirect grading or excavation activities
in the vicinity in order to make an evaluation of the find and determine appropriate treatment
that may include the development and implementation of a testing/data recovery investigation
or preservation in place. Upon completion of the monitoring services, the archaeologist shall
prepare a final report about the find and the monitoring services to be filed with the City to
show satisfactory compliance with the archaeological mitigation measures for a given project.
The report shall include documentation and interpretation of resources recovered.
Interpretation will include full evaluation of the eligibility with respect to the California
Register of Historical Resources. The landowner, in consultation with the City and
archaeologist, shall designate repositories to curate any material in the event that resources
are recovered during construction.
E-3
Archaeological
Resources
If resources are identified during the Phase I assessment, a Phase II Cultural Resources
Assessment may be warranted if improvements or development is proposed in the vicinity of
such resource, or if an alternate alignment or plan is not selected. The Phase II assessment shall
evaluate the resource(s) for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and to
determine whether the resource qualifies as a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to
CEQA. If enough data is obtained from the Phase I assessment to conduct a proper evaluation,
a Phase II assessment may not be necessary. Methodologies for evaluating a resource can
include, but are not limited to: subsurface archaeological excavations, additional background
research, and coordination with interested individuals in the community. The methods and
results of a Phase II assessment shall be described in a technical report that will support the
Initial Study or EIR Section of the CEQA environmental document.
SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.5-5
May 2024
No.Mitigation Measure
E-4
Archaeological
Resources
If, as a result of the Phase II assessment, resources are determined eligible for listing in the
California Register or are considered “unique archaeological resources,” potential impacts to
the resources shall be analyzed and if impacts are significant, mitigation measures shall be
developed and implemented to reduce impacts to the resources to a level that is less than
significant. The preferred mitigation of impacts to archaeological resources shall be avoidance
and/or preservation in place such as resource “capping” (capping resource with a layer of clean
fill soils before building on resource) or incorporating the resource into a park plan or open
space. Preservation in place or avoidance would provide the least amount of impacts to the
resource and would likely meet the interests of individuals or groups who are concerned with
impacts to archaeological resources such as Native American groups (if the resource is a
prehistoric or Native American resource). If avoidance and/or preservation in place are not
feasible, relocation of the resource shall be considered. If these mitigation options are not
feasible and/or do not meet the interests of the City or other interested individuals or groups,
then a Phase III archaeological assessment shall be implemented. Phase III assessments
typically include additional subsurface archaeological excavations (i.e., data recovery) that
serve to recover significant archaeological resources before they are damaged or destroyed by
the proposed improvement. Phase III assessments shall be considered and implemented as a
last resort if no other mitigation measures are feasible. The aforementioned measures are
typically recommended as mitigation measures in the CEQA environmental document and are
typically implemented after the CEQA environmental document has been certified and prior to
issuance of grading or building permits. After the appropriate and feasible mitigation
measure(s) has been selected and implemented, the methodology and results of its
implementation shall be described in a technical report that shall be submitted to the City to
show satisfactory compliance with the archaeological mitigation measures for a given project.
E-5
Archaeological
Resources
If archaeological resources (including historic and prehistoric resources) are encountered
during implementation of the project, ground-disturbing activities should temporarily be
redirected from the vicinity of the find. The City shall immediately notify a qualified
archaeologist of the find. The archaeologist should coordinate with the City as to the immediate
treatment of the find until a proper site visit and evaluation is made by the archaeologist.
Treatment may include the implementation of an archaeological testing or salvage program.
All archaeological resources recovered will be documented on California Department of Parks
and Recreation Site Forms to be filed with the CHRIS-SBAIC. The archaeologist shall prepare a
final report about the find to be filed with the City and the CHRIS-SBAIC, as required by the
California Office of Historic Preservation. The report shall include documentation and
interpretation of resources recovered. Interpretation will include full evaluation of the
eligibility with respect to the California Register of Historical Resources. The landowner, in
consultation with the City and the archaeologist, shall designate repositories to curate any
material in the event that resources are recovered during construction. The archaeologist shall
also determine the need for archaeological monitoring for any ground-disturbing activities in
the area of the find thereafter.
SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.5-6
May 2024
No.Mitigation Measure
E-9
Human Remains
If human remains are encountered unexpectedly during implementation of the proposed
project, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall
occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition
pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American
descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).
The NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD).
The MLD may, with the permission of the land owner, or his or her authorized representative,
inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American remains and may recommend to the
owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treating or disposing, with
appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The MLD shall
complete their inspection and make their recommendation within 48 hours of being granted
access by the land owner to inspect the discovery. The recommendation may include the
scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with
Native American burials. Upon the discovery of the Native American remains, the landowner
shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or
archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located,
is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed
and conferred, as prescribed in this mitigation measure, with the MLD regarding their
recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains.
The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding
the descendants' preferences for treatment.
Whenever the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a
recommendation, or the landowner or his or her authorized representative rejects the
recommendation of the descendants and the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of
Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the
landowner or his or her authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items
associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in
a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance.
Source: WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.E-24 – 4.E-29]; WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015b, pp. 4-30 to 4-43].
4.5.2 Summary of Approved Project versus the Modified Project Impacts
The modified project’s potential impacts on cultural resources have been evaluated in light of the present
environmental regulatory setting. A Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory was completed for the Modified
Project in January 2024 and is included as Appendix B to this Addendum.
4.5.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist responses compare the previous Approved Project analyzed under the adopted
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR with the modified project as described in this document, and analyze the
potential impacts resulting from the development of the modified project. The information in this Section
is based on the Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory for the PA 27 Medical Office Building – Addendum 6,
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Project, City Of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California completed by
UltraSystems and dated January 2024. A complete copy of this report is included as Appendix B to this
Addendum.
SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.5-7
May 2024
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing Ability
to Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes
Compared to the
Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
No
Impact
a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in § 15064.5?
X
b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
X
c)Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?X
Background and Analysis
Cultural Resources Records Search. Based on the CHRIS cultural resource records search, it was
determined that there have been no prehistoric cultural resources recorded within the project site
boundary or the 0.5-mile radius of the project area. There have been historic sites recorded within the 0.5-
mile buffer but none within the project boundary. Table 4.1-1 summarizes these resources. The four
historic sites that are within the 0.5-mile radius are the following: 36-007325, 36-009363, 36-009364, and
36-014190.
Site 36-007325 (CA-SBr-7325H) is 20th century residential/commercial site. According to the site record,
the property is estimated to have been built in 1925. “The site consists of several structural foundations, a
small cobblestone reservoir (fishpond?), a driveway with cobble-concrete pillars, a rock alignment, a sparse
scatter of artifacts, a tree ladder, and landscape vegetation”. In addition, the site consists of 8 features and
several artifacts. Feature 1 is the remnants of the structure, a slab foundation. Feature 2 is a remnant of the
structure, another slab foundation. Feature 3 consists of two cobble-concrete pillars. Feature 4 is a cobble-
concrete oval reservoir, most likely a fishpond. Feature 5 consists of remnants of a cobble-concrete
structure with a foundation and a sidewalk. Feature 6 is a cobble alignment. Feature 7 is a tree ladder and
Feature 8 is the dirt driveway that leads up to the property running along the west and south ends of the
site. Artifacts that were found at the site include glass fragments such of bottles; ceramic material was also
noted consisting of a porcelain bowl and a stoneware teapot; and metal material in the form of crown bottle
caps.
Site 36-009363 is the remains of the H.E. Miller Property (ca. 1939) and consist of two concrete foundations.
The site also includes some refuse and debris which is considered modern and associated with later
development in the area in 1966. The Miller property includes numerous trees. The original structure has
been demolished. However, since the property has an ownership record dating to pre-1892, there exists
the potential for buried remains at the property site. No artifacts associated with the structure were noted.
SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.5-8
May 2024
Site 36-009364 is the Biocima residential structure that dates to 1936 and consists of two foundations.
There is also a reservoir that dates to 1932. A survey conducted in 1996 showed that the Biocima Residence
was no longer present and had been demolished. However, since the property has an ownership record
dating to pre-1892, there exists the potential for buried remains at the property site and recommendations
for monitoring were made. No artifacts associated with the structure were found.
Site 36-014190 is “a large, square reservoir with rounded corners. It is constructed partially above grade
on a corner site which slopes gently to the south. The surrounding embankment is steeper and higher to
the south. The perimeter walls are of two different types of stone: fieldstone set in concrete, and a large
section of cobblestone at the northeast corner. The interior is lined with concrete. The reservoir wall has
been breached at several points, and evidence of associated pumping equipment no longer remains. The
reservoir lot has pepper and eucalyptus trees along the fence on the south and east sides. A modern
residence, built in 1978, is located on the south half of the property”. The property was evaluated and
determined to not be of historical significance for entry into the National Register. There were no artifacts
associated with the structure were noted.
Sacred Lands File Search and Follow-Up – Native American Outreach. On September 23, 2022,
UltraSystems contacted the NAHC via email notifying them of project 7170B adjacent to the current project
7170G with a search buffer area that encompassed the current project site, requesting a search of their SLF
and asking for a list of local tribal organizations and individuals to contact for project outreach.
The results of the SLF search request were received February 22, 2023, at the office of UltraSystems from
Ms. Cameron Vela, Cultural Resources Analyst. The NAHC letter stated that “A record search of the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information
submitted for the above referenced project. The results were positive [emphasis in the original]. Please
contact the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation on the attached list for information.”
On January 9, 2024 Mr. Jacobo prepared and mailed letters with accompanying maps to all 30 tribal contacts
on the NAHC list, representing 21 tribal organizations, and also emailed identical letters and maps to each
of the 29 tribal contacts for which email addresses were known, requesting a reply if they have knowledge
of cultural resources in the area, and asked if they had any questions or concerns regarding the project.
Of the 21 tribes that were contacted only six responded to the initial email and letter. These were the: Agua
Caliente Band of Mission Indians, Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Indian Council, Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians, the Rincon Band of Luiseno
Indians, and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians.
An email response received from Claritsa Duarte, Cultural Resources Analyst for the Agua Caliente Band of
Mission Indians on January 16, 2024, indicated that the project is not located within the Tribe’s Traditional
Use Area, and they defer to the other tribes in the area. An email response was also received from Luz
Salazar, Cultural Resources Analyst for the Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians on January 10, 2024,
indicated that the project is not located within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area, and they defer to the other
tribes in the area. An email response was received from Ana Rios, Administrative Assistant for the
Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians on January 16, 2024, indicating that the tribe is unaware of
specific cultural resources that may be affected by the
SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.5-9
May 2024
proposed project; however, in the event of discoveries any cultural resources during the development of
this project the tribe would like to be informed for further evaluation. An email response was received from
Ms. Conley for the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Indian Council on January 10, 2024, indicating
that they have no comment. An email response received from Dorothy Willis on January 10, 2024, for the
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians indicating that the project is not located within the Tribe’s
Traditional Use Area, and they defer to the other tribes in the area. An email response was received from
Deneen Pelton, Cultural Resources Department Coordinator for the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians on
January 16, 2024, indicating that the project is not located within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area, and they
defer to the other tribes in the area. An email response was received from Raylene Borrego, Cultural
Resources Technician for the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians on January 19, 2024, indicating the
proposed project site is considered culturally sensitive by the Tribe due to its proximity to previously
recorded sites. As the area is of concern, the Tribe will wish to engage in government-to-government
consultation pursuant to AB 52 with the Lead Agency for the project. Ms. Borrego also noted that Jessica
Mauck is no longer working for the tribe and to direct all matters pertaining to cultural resources to
Alexandra McCleary, Senior Manager of Cultural Resources Management.
Following a three-week waiting period, January 26, 2024, telephone calls were placed to the remaining
tribes that had not yet responded. When there was no answer a voicemail message was left describing he
project and requested as reply. The following tribes were called but did not answer and so a message was
left: the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, the Kizh Nation, the Gabrielino/Tongva Nation, the Gabrielino-
Tongva Tribe, The Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Pala Band of Mission Indians, the Pechanga Band
of Indians, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla, the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Serrano Nation of
Mission Indians, and the Torres-Martinez Desert Indians. The Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation,
did not initially answer when a phone call was made on January 26, 2024, but did back that same day -- Mr.
Scott, Acting Chairman stated that the tribe has no comment and would refer to the more local tribes in the
area.
The following tribes did answer: The Cahuilla Band of Indians, the Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel Band of
Mission Indians, and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. With the Cahuilla Band of Indians, the receptionist
noted that Mr. Salgado was not in and the call was transferred to the Cultural Department where Ms.
Gregory asked that the letter be forwarded to her for review and comment; the letter was sent to her email
the same day but there has been no response to date. The Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission
Indians, Mr. Morales, Chairperson, indicated that area has religious and cultural significance found in the
tribe’s oral history; therefore, he recommends tribal monitoring and a qualified archeologist on site when
ground disturbance begins. He mentioned that he would personally like to assist with monitoring when
development begins and requests that the tribe be kept updated and notified of any potential discoveries.
For the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, Mr. Ontiveros of the tribe’s cultural resource department, indicated
that the tribe would defer to San Manuel and the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians.
Pedestrian Survey Results. A pedestrian survey of the PA 27 project site along South Highland Street in
the city of Fontana was conducted on December 13, 2023 by Mr. O’Neil and Ms. Stoddard. The survey
location consisted of a single parcel containing a vineyard along South Highland Avenue between Cherry
Avenue to the west and San Sevaine Road to the east, and bounded by the SR-210/Foothill Freeway to the
north. The survey methods consisted of walking, visually inspecting, and photographing the exposed
ground surface of the project site using standard archaeological procedures and techniques.
SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.5-10
May 2024
The project parcels consist of open flat land approximately 1,750 by 600 feet with the length east/west
paralleling South Highland Avenue. The parcel is an active vineyard with rows situated east/west. Survey
of the ground surface was conducted in transects 10 meters apart started at the southwest corner of the
parcel immediately north of South Highland Avenue, working east to the southeast corner of the rows of
vines. Transects were continued west to east, then back east to west, onward until the entire parcel had
been surveyed. The west edge of the parcel is adjacent to but excludes the Southern California Edison
transmission line that runs from the north-east to the southwest. The east edge of the parcel has a row of
trees and concrete debris at the base approximately ten feet out from San Sevaine Road.
During the survey, the project site was carefully inspected for any indication of human activities dating to
the prehistoric or historic periods (i.e., 50 years or older). The project site has been disturbed by previous
agricultural use as a vineyard and other past agricultural uses. Photographs of the project site were taken
documenting the cultural resources survey. The result of the pedestrian survey was negative for
prehistoric cultural resources.
The survey did locate a several piles of concrete debris situated along the south and east side of the parcel
that appeared to have been dumped there. There are access features to underground water lines at the
edge of South Highland and in the northwest corner of the parcel maintained by the San Gabriel Valley
Municipal Water District. There was a feature consisting of numerous large (up to five feet in length) and
small (approximately one foot in length) grey and reddish pieces of concrete, some with flat sides and many
of amorphous shape. There was also a wooden beam (railroad tie) within the pile, but no historic artifacts
(i.e., work or domestic trash) were observed. This feature encompassed an area of approximately 48 feet
by 33 feet and is located approximately 36 feet from South Highland Avenue. There was no indication that
the concrete had formed a foundation or was the remains of a structure. It seems to appear in aerial photos
from 2010 to the present but not as a recognizable feature. It was determined to not be of historical
significance.
a)Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in § 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
Results of the cultural resources records search and the pedestrian survey indicated that there are no
significant historic resources present on the modified project site. Modified project development would
involve removal of the active organic vineyard covering the whole site. The removal of the vineyards was
determined to be a significant and unavoidable impact in the Certified EIR. The vineyard is dry-land
agriculture, and the vines appear to be dead or nearly so most of the year; the vines leaf, flower, and produce
fruit all within a few months during and after the rainy season. EIR mitigation measure E-1 would still be
carried out respecting the vineyard. The modified project would not affect any historical resources, and no
new impact would occur.
b)Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
The prior Approved Project results of the cultural resources records search indicated that there are no
recorded archaeological resources within the Westgate Specific Plan area, including the modified
SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.5-11
May 2024
project site. A full-coverage pedestrian survey of the modified project site did not identify any previously
unrecorded archaeological resources. It is not anticipated that cultural resources would be encountered at
the modified project site. There would be no changes or new information and thus the proposed project
would still have a less than significant impact on archaeological resources with implementation of Certified
EIR mitigation measures E-2 through E-5.
c)Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
Due to the level of past disturbance at the modified project site through agricultural use, it is not anticipated
that human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, would be encountered during
earth removal or disturbance activities. No records of human remains onsite were found in the cultural
resources records search. As with the Approved Project, ground-disturbing activities on the modified
project site, such as grading or excavation, have the potential to disturb as yet unidentified human remains.
There are no changes or new information regarding this site.
Grading activities associated with development of the modified project would cause new subsurface
disturbance and could result in the unanticipated discovery of unknown human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries. In the event of an unexpected discovery, those remains would require
proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. State of California Public Resources Health and Safety
Code §§ 7050.5-7055, and § 5097.98 of the California PRC, describe the general provisions for human
remains. Following compliance with state regulations, which detail the appropriate actions necessary in the
event human remains are encountered, and with mitigation measure E-9 required for the Approved Project,
impacts would be less than significant.
SECTION 4.6 – ENERGY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.6-1
May 2024
4.6 Energy
4.6.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan EIR) Analysis
and Conclusions
The certified Westgate Specific Plan EIR did not include a separate section for energy because the document
predates the official mandatory inclusion of the energy impact determinations (questions 4.6 a) and 4.6 b)
under Section 4.6.3 below) into the CEQA Appendix G Checklist. Nevertheless, the approved project would
incorporate several design features, summarized below in Table 4.6-1, that are consistent with the
California Office of the Attorney General’s recommended measures to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. The project would incorporate sustainable practices which include water, energy, solid waste,
land use, and transportation efficiency measures. As shown in Table 4.6-1, the Approved Westgate Specific
Plan is consistent and compliant with the Attorney General’s Recommendations relating to energy use and
efficiency.
Table 4.6-1
APPROVED PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S
(ENERGY-RELATED) RECOMMENDATIONS
Attorney General’s Recommended Measures Compliance with Attorney General’s
Recommendations
Percent
Reductiona
Efficiency
Design buildings to be energy efficient. Site
buildings to take advantage of shade, prevailing
winds, landscaping and sun screens to reduce
energy use.
Install light colored “cool” roofs and cool
pavements, and strategically placed shade trees.
Consistent. Westgate Specific Plan
development regulations include green building
incentives, which would increase project energy
efficiency. Also, Goal 13.3.7 of the General Plan
encourages energy efficiency in buildings and
requires compliance with Title 24, providing
incentives to go beyond these guidelines. The
incorporation of energy efficiency measures
would contribute to a reduction in GHG
emissions.
3.5
Limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting.Consistent. Specific Plan design guidelines
require buildings to be oriented to take
advantage of passive solar design. Also, design
guidelines specify the use of energy efficient
lighting.
1
Renewable Energy
Install solar and wind power systems, solar and
tankless hot water heaters, and energy-efficient
heating ventilation and air conditioning.
Educate consumers about existing incentives.
Consistent. Westgate Specific Plan
development regulations prohibit the
construction of any feature that would obstruct
more than 10 percent of the absorption area of
a solar energy system on an adjacent lot.
Development regulations also include
provisions for wind energy systems.
2
SECTION 4.6 – ENERGY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.6-2
May 2024
Attorney General’s Recommended Measures Compliance with Attorney General’s
Recommendations
Percent
Reductiona
Water Conservation and Efficiency
Create water-efficient landscapes.
Install water-efficient irrigation systems and
devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation
controls.
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.
Consistent. Future projects within the project
area would be required to comply with Fontana
Municipal Code Chapter 28 Article IV,
Landscaping and Water Conservation, which
includes standards related to landscape and
maintenance water conservancy.
The City’s General Plan encourages the
development and implementation of water
conservation programs to encourage the use of
water conserving technologies, for indoor and
outdoor applications. General Plan Goal 9.3.1
encourages water use efficiency.
0.5
a Emissions reductions obtained from Appendix B of the CEQA and Climate Change white paper, prepared by CAPCOA (January
2008).
Source: State of California Department of Justice, Attorney General's Office, The California Environmental Quality Act
Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level, updated May 21, 2008. (RBF, 2011, pp. 4.2-43 to 4.2-47)
4.6.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified project Impacts
No comparison can be made, as the Westgate Specific Plan did not include an energy analysis.
4.6.3 Modified project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist analyzes the potential impacts resulting from the development of the modified
project, consisting of medical office use, in planning area 27.
SECTION 4.6 – ENERGY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.6-3
May 2024
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
SWIP PEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
SWIP PEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?X
4.6.3.1 Thresholds of Significance
The Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines includes two
questions relating to energy consumption, which have been utilized as the thresholds of significance in this
section. A project would result in potentially significant environmental effects if it would (1) result in
potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project construction or operation or (2) conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
4.6.3.2 Impact Analysis
a)Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction
or operation?
No Changes or New Information
Construction
The following forms of energy and associated units of measure are anticipated to be expended during
construction of the modified project.
Electricity
During project construction, energy would be consumed in the form of electricity associated with the
conveyance and treatment of water used for dust control and, on a limited basis, powering lights, electronic
equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power. Due to the fact that electricity
usage associated with lighting and construction equipment that utilizes electricity is not easily quantifiable
or readily available, the estimated electricity usage during project construction is speculative.
SECTION 4.6 – ENERGY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.6-4
May 2024
Lighting used during project construction would comply with Title 24 standards/requirements (e.g.,
wattage limitations). This compliance would ensure that electricity use during project construction would
not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. Lighting would be used in compliance
with applicable Fontana Municipal Code Section 30-508(f)(1) requirements to create enough light for
safety.
Transportation Energy
Project construction would consume energy in the form of petroleum-based fuels associated with the use
of offroad construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction workers’ travel to and from
the project site, and delivery and haul truck trips hauling solid waste from and delivering building materials
to the project site.
During project construction, trucks and construction equipment would be required to comply with the
ARB’s anti-idling regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Section 2485). ARB’s In-Use Off-Road
Diesel-Fueled Fleets regulation (California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449 et seq.) would also
apply. Vehicles driven to or from the project site (delivery trucks, construction employee vehicles, etc.) are
subject to fuel efficiency standards requirements established by the Federal Government (Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 49, Section 531.5). Therefore, project construction activities regarding fuel use would not
result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy.
Natural Gas
Construction activities, including the construction of new buildings and facilities, typically do not involve
the consumption of natural gas. Therefore, the modified project is not anticipated to generate demand for
natural gas during project construction.
Operation
Energy would be consumed during modified project operations related to lighting, space and water heating,
water conveyance, solid waste disposal, and vehicle trips of employees and customers. Modified project
operational energy demands are anticipated to be lower than those of Approved Project development
within the modified project site due to the reduced building area of the modified project compared to what
the Approved Project proposed within this site. No new significant impact would occur.
Lighting for the modified project would comply with the requirements of Fontana Municipal Code Chapter
30. Wall-mounted LED lighting fixtures would be installed on the exteriors of the buildings.
The Westgate Specific Plan promotes energy conservation with requirements for energy-efficient lighting
and appliances, as well as incentives for green buildings and passive solar design. Therefore, the modified
project’s implementation would result in less than significant impacts on energy resources. There would
not be any inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy usage in comparison to similar development projects
of this nature regarding construction-related fuel consumption.
Further, the roadway network in the vicinity of the project site is served by Omnitrans, the public transit
agency serving the San Bernardino Valley (Omnitrans, 2019). Omnitrans has 10 bus routes in the city (City
of Fontana General Plan Community Mobility Circulation Element, 2018, p. 9.7).
SECTION 4.6 – ENERGY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.6-5
May 2024
Employees and visitors would be able to access the project site via the public transit system, thereby
reducing transportation-related fuel demand. The availability of public transit (Omnitrans bus routes)
would help ensure that the project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption
of transportation energy.
The project would adhere to, and exceed, applicable federal, state, and local requirements for energy
efficiency, including Title 24 of the CCR regarding building energy efficiency standards. It would not result
in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy. Therefore, the project would
not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the
region. Thus, impacts of the modified project would be less than significant.
b)Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
No Changes or New Information
City of Fontana General Plan
Chapter 12, Sustainability and Resilience, of the City of Fontana General Plan, focuses on sustainability and
resilience regarding resource efficiency and planning for climate change. It includes policies for new
development promoting energy-efficient development in Fontana, meeting state energy efficiency goals for
new construction, promoting green building through guidelines, awards and nonfinancial incentives, and
continuing to promote and implement best practices to conserve water (City of Fontana, 2018b, p. 12.5).
The modified project would include photovoltaic solar panels on carport-type structures above two of the
proposed parking lots onsite. In addition, the modified project would adhere to the Westgate Specific Plan
measures identified in Table 4.6-1.
Significance Determination
The modified project would adhere to the City of Fontana General Plan and the Approved Westgate Specific
Plan; therefore, impacts regarding conflicts with energy efficiency plans would be less than significant. No
new significant impact would occur.
SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.7-1
May 2024
4.7 Geology and Soils
4.7.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Westgate Specific Plan FEIR) Analysis and
Conclusions
Ground Shaking/Seismicity (Impact 4.F-1): Implementation of the previous Approved Project would not
expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving strong seismic ground shaking (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, January 2015, p. 4.F-7]).
The previous Approved Project is located within a seismically active region, with a number of regionally
active or potentially active faults traversing or near the Approved Project site, including the Cucamonga
fault, San Jacinto fault zone, and the San Andreas fault zone. The intensity of ground shaking depends on
the magnitude of the earthquake, distance to the epicenter, and the geology of the area between the
epicenter and the Approved Project site. The possibility of moderate-to-high ground acceleration or shaking
in the city may be considered as approximately similar to that of the Southern California region as a whole. A
maximum magnitude earthquake on any major fault could result in significant structural damage or
collapse, and potentially even human casualties. Adherence to standard engineering practices and design
criteria prescribed by the California Building Code (CBC) would reduce the significance of potential impacts
of seismic and geologic hazards. The CBC also includes detailed design requirements, structural design, soils
and foundations considerations, along with grading requirements to ensure that public safety risks due to
earthquakes are minimized. With implementation of mitigation measure F-1, structures would be designed
to resist or accommodate ground movement to current design standards. Therefore, impacts associated
with seismic ground shaking would be less than significant with applicable mitigation measures.
Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Soil Erosion and Loss of Top Soil (Impact 4.F-2): Clearing and grading for Approved Project
implementation could result in short-term soil erosion by wind and water, and loss of topsoil. In addition,
site analysis indicates granular, sandy soils with gravel, cobbles and boulders. Sandy soils typically have a
higher susceptibility to erosion, slope, and degree of exposure to weather, especially wind and rain. Erosion
of soils that could result in a significant loss of topsoil would largely depend on the location of that
development, the properties of underlying soils, the extent of vegetative cover, and the prevailing weather
patterns. Given the potential for erosion to occur during development of the Approved Project, a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared incorporating Best Management Practices
(BMPs) for erosion control in accordance with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board (RWQCB).
Design elements would be incorporated to reduce soil erosion through appropriate design and reduced
runoff. Adherence to the erosion requirements set forth by the RWQCB, along with implementation of
applicable mitigation measures, would make impacts associated with soil erosion less than significant.
Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: Refer to mitigation measure F-1.
SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.7-2
May 2024
Compressible/Collapsible Soils (Impact 4.F-3): Implementation of the previous Approved Project would
not result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse (WSP Draft EIR
[PCR Services, January 2015, p. 4.F-9]). The previous Approved Project would result in no geologic risks
associated with landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Although the project area
is composed of sandy, alluvial sediments that have a risk of settlement or collapse, a soils assessment will
be performed prior to design and construction of Approved Project improvements. Therefore, ground
settlement impacts will be appropriately mitigated and reduced to less than significant levels.
a)Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: Refer to mitigation measure F-1.
Paleontological Resources - directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature (Impact 4.E-3):
Results of the paleontological resources records search through the San Bernardino County Museum
(SBCM) indicated that there are no recorded fossil localities within the project site or within the
surrounding vicinity. The nearest paleontological resource from older Pleistocene sediments is located
approximately 10 miles southwest of the project site. It is unlikely that shallow excavations associated with
the proposed project will encounter these fossiliferous paleontological deposits. However, there is a
moderate to high potential to encounter these deposits during deeper excavations. Thus, impacts to
paleontological resources are considered potentially significant. However, mitigation measures are
provided below to address impacts to paleontological resources. With implementation of applicable
mitigation measures, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR
[PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.E-22]).
b)Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
No.Mitigation Measure
F-1
To evaluate the potential for direct and secondary effects related to ground shaking (including
liquefaction, ground settlement, or collapse) to affect the approved project components,
surface reconnaissance and subsurface evaluation shall be performed for each future
development. During the detailed design phase of each project, site-specific geotechnical
evaluations shall be performed by a qualified geotechnical engineer to assess the settlement
potential of the onsite natural soils and undocumented fill. This may include detailed surface
reconnaissance to evaluate site conditions, and drilling of exploratory borings or test pits and
laboratory testing of soils, where appropriate, to evaluate site conditions. Examples of possible
design construction techniques for soils with potential for settlement include removal of the
compressible/collapsible soil layers and replacement with compacted fill; surcharging to
induce settlement prior to construction of improvements; allowing for a settlement period
after or during construction of new fills; thickened concrete for structural members; additional
metal reinforcement for structural members; strengthened structural connections; structural
shear walls; flexible connections for utility lines; and specialized foundation design including
the use of deep foundation systems to support structures. Varieties of in-situ soil improvement
techniques are also available, such as dynamic compaction (heavy tamping) or compaction
grouting.
E-6
Paleontological
Resources
If construction excavations will reach depths of five feet or greater, a qualified paleontologist
shall attend a pre-grading/excavation meeting and develop a paleontological monitoring
program for excavations into older Pleistocene-aged Quaternary Alluvium deposits. A qualified
SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.7-3
May 2024
No.Mitigation Measure
paleontologist is defined as a paleontologist meeting the criteria established by the Society for
Vertebrate Paleontology. The qualified paleontologist shall supervise a paleontological
monitor who shall be present at such times as required by the paleontologist during
construction excavations below five feet or greater into older Pleistocene-aged Quaternary
Alluvium deposits. Monitoring shall consist of visually inspecting fresh exposures of rock for
larger fossil remains and, where appropriate, collecting wet or dry screened sediment samples
of promising horizons for smaller fossil remains. The frequency of monitoring inspections shall
be determined by the paleontologist and shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading
activities, the materials being excavated, and the depth of excavation, and if found, the
abundance and type of fossils encountered.
E-7
Paleontological
Resources
If a potential fossil is found, the paleontological monitor shall be allowed to temporarily divert
or redirect grading and excavation activities in the area of the exposed fossil to facilitate
evaluation and, if necessary, salvage. At the Paleontologist’s discretion and to reduce any
construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor shall assist in removing rock
samples for initial processing. Any fossils encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the
point of identification and catalogued before they are donated to their final repository. Any
fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in
the materials, such as the San Bernardino County Museum or the Natural History Museum of
Los Angeles County. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the
repository.
E-8
Paleontological
Resources
The paleontologist shall prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring and
salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, as well as a description of the fossils
collected and their significance. The report shall be submitted by the Applicant to the lead
agency, the San Bernardino County Museum, the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles
County, and other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of
the project and required mitigation measures.
Source: WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.E-27 – 4.E-28].
4.7.2 Summary of Approved Project Versus the Modified Project Impacts
Impacts of modified project development concerning geology and soils have been evaluated in light of the
present environmental regulatory setting, the impacts identified in the Westgate Specific Plan FEIR, and
site-specific baseline conditions. The modified project would be similar to the previous Approved Project
in that the proposed land use would be consistent with land use plan provisions of the Westgate Specific
Plan. Therefore, modified project impacts would be similar to those of implementation of the previous
Approved Project, no additional significant impacts beyond those identified for the previous Approved
Project were identified, and no additional mitigation measures would be required.
4.7.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist compares the geology and soils impacts of the previous Approved Project analyzed
in the Certified FEIR with those of the modified project in Planning Area 27. The information in this Section
is based on the Geotechnical Investigation and Water Infiltration Test Report
SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.7-4
May 2024
completed by Converse Consultants dated November 3, 2023; a complete copy of this Report is included as
Appendix C to this Addendum.
The comparative conclusions provided in the following table are based on the discussions immediately
thereafter.
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
Prior Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
Prior
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
a)Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
X
ii)Strong seismic ground shaking?X
iii)Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?X
iv)Landslides?X
b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?X
c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or offsite landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
X
d)Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1 B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
X
e)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?
X
SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.7-5
May 2024
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
Prior Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
Prior
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
f)Would the project directly or indirectly
destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
X
a)Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
Less than Significant Impacts/No Change or New Information
The Alquist-Priolo Zones Special Studies Act defines active faults as those that have experienced surface
displacement or movement during the last 11,000 years. Although several Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zones are present in and near the City, none pass beneath or near the modified project site. As shown in
Figure 4.6-1, the nearest Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone to the site is the Cucamonga Fault approximately 1.8
miles to the north (CGS, 2023; refer to Figure 4.6-2). Since no known earthquake faults are beneath the
project site, the potential for loss, injury, or death due to fault rupture on the modified project site is
considered to be low (Appendix C, p. 10) and no new impact would occur.
ii)Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Change or New Information
The modified project site is in an area subject to strong earthquakes due to the presence of several
significant faults nearby including the Red Hill-Etiwanda, Cucamonga, San Jacinto, and San Andreas. Strong
ground shaking can collapse structures, buckle walls, and damage foundations. Seismic design parameters
for use in project design are included in the geotechnical investigation report prepared in accordance with
FEIR mitigation measure F-1 (see Appendix C, p. 10). The proposed buildings would be designed and built
in accordance with CBC seismic safety requirements. If the proposed medical office buildings contain
outpatient surgery facilities, then the buildings would be classified as essential facilities under the California
Building Code (CBC). Essential facilities shall be "designed and constructed to minimize fire hazards and to
resist the forces of earthquakes, gravity and winds" (California Health and Safety Code Section 16001).
Compliance with seismic design parameters and
SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.7-6
May 2024
CBC regulations would reduce risks from strong ground shaking to a less than significant impact. Therefore,
no new impact would occur.
iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Change or New Information
Liquefaction refers to loose, saturated sand or silt deposits that behave as a liquid and lose their load-
supporting capability when strongly shaken. Loose granular soils and silts that are saturated by relatively
shallow groundwater are susceptible to liquefaction. The geotechnical investigation for the modified
project included an assessment of liquefaction hazard onsite. The risk of liquefaction is considered remote
due to the dense soil conditions and depth of groundwater (greater than 372 feet below surface [bgs])
(Appendix C, p. 11). Modified project development would not exacerbate existing liquefaction risks onsite.
No new significant impacts would occur compared to impacts identified in the Certified FEIR.
SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.7-7
May 2024
Figure 4.6-1
REGIONALLY ACTIVE FAULTS
SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.7-8
May 2024
Figure 4.6-2
ALQUIST PRIOLO FAULT ZONES
SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.7-9
May 2024
iv)Landslides?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Change or New Information
The modified project site is relatively flat, and no slopes—and thus, no landslide hazards—are present on
or next to the site. The potential for earthquake-induced landslides onsite is considered to be very low
(Appendix C, p. 11). The Certified EIR did not identify landslide hazards within the WSP site, and modified
project development would not cause any impacts beyond those identified in the EIR.
b)Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Change or New Information
Ground surface disturbance, such as excavation, grading, and trenching, would occur during project
construction. These activities would disturb substantial amounts of soil and could cause soil erosion.
However, this potential will be reduced through erosion control measures. Modified project construction
would comply with the requirements of the City of Fontana and the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) as specified in the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The
project proponent would also have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared, specifying
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for minimizing construction impacts (including erosion) to
stormwater. The project construction contractor would implement the SWPPP. The SWPPP is required by
the Statewide Construction General Permit issued by the State Water Resources Control Board. With
adherence to the modified project WQMP and SWPPP, no new significant impact would occur compared to
impacts identified in the Certified EIR.
c)Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or offsite landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Change or New Information
Refer to the discussions under Sections a)iii and a)iv above. They respectively conclude that impacts
related to seismically-induced landslides or liquefaction as a consequence of project development would
be less than significant. Lateral spreading is the rapid downslope movement of surface sediment, in a fluid-
like flow, due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. The potential for lateral spreading onsite is expected to
be low, as the potential for liquefaction onsite is considered remote (Appendix C, p. 11)
Subsidence
The major cause of ground subsidence is the excessive withdrawal of groundwater. Soils with high silt or
clay content are particularly susceptible to subsidence. The modified project site is not in an area of
subsidence mapped by the US Geological Survey (USGS, 2023). The project site is over the Chino
Groundwater Basin (“Basin”); groundwater levels in the Basin are managed by the Chino Basin
Watermaster. The Watermaster has determined that management efforts are effective at controlling
subsidence (CVWD, 2021, p. 6-18). Impacts arising from ground subsidence would be less than significant.
No new significant impact would occur compared to those disclosed in the Certified EIR.
SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.7-10
May 2024
Collapsible Soils
Collapsible soils shrink upon being wetted and/or being subject to a load. The geotechnical investigation
report for the modified project determined that shallow site soils are unsuitable for supporting the
proposed buildings and other improvements such as parking lots and driveways. The geotechnical
investigation report recommends removal of existing soils under footings of proposed buildings to a depth
of five feet below ground surface or two feet below footings, whichever is greater. Existing on-site soils are
unsuitable for use as engineered fill due to a high content of large particles and low content of fine particles.
On-site soils may be suitable for engineering and replacement onsite as engineered fill (Appendix C, p. 14).
The modified project would implement recommendations set forth in the geotechnical investigation report.
After regulatory compliance, no new significant impact would occur.
d)Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Change or New Information
Expansive soils shrink and swell with changes in soil moisture. Soil moisture may change from landscape
irrigation, rainfall, and utility leakage. Expansive soils are commonly very fine-grained with high to very
high percentages of clay. Site soils are young alluvial fan deposits consisting primarily of a mixture of gravel,
sand, and silt (Appendix C, p. 5). The geotechnical investigation for the modified project included expansion
index tests of three samples of subsurface site soils, all of which yielded expansion indices of 0, indicating a
very low expansion potential (Appendix C, p. B-1).
The modified project would adhere to such recommendations, and no new significant 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?
No Impact
The project site is in an urbanized area served by wastewater infrastructure. Therefore, the project would
not include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impacts from septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems would occur. No new significant impacts would occur
compared to those disclosed in the Certified EIR.
f)Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Change or New Information
The Approved Project FEIR identified a moderate to high potential to encounter older Pleistocene
deposits—in which fossils have been found in the project region—during deeper excavations. The FEIR
concluded that Approved Project impacts to fossils would be potentially significant; required several
mitigation measures to reduce such impacts, and determined that impacts after mitigation would be less
than significant. The modified project; two 4-story medical office buildings with surface parking, conforms
with the development regulations for the MU-1 zone. Therefore, modified project
SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.7-11
May 2024
development would not involve deeper excavations than Approved Project development would have. Thus,
modified project development would not cause greater impacts to fossil resources than Approved Project
development would have. Impacts of modified project development on fossils would be less than significant
after implementation of FEIR mitigation measures E-6 through E-8, as was the case for the Approved
Project. No new or more severe significant impact would occur.
SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.8-1
May 2024
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.8.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Westgate SP FEIR) Analysis and Conclusions
Increase Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Impact 4.G-1): Implementation of the Approved
Project would result in the increased generation of greenhouse gases (GHGs); however, implementation of
applicable mitigation measures and design features, as well as implementation of appropriate GHG
Reduction Plan16 required design features and mitigation measures and feasible GHG reduction strategies
would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Conflicts with Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans (Impact 4.G-2): Implementation of the Approved
Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. With implementation of applicable mitigation measures and
design features, as well as implementation of appropriate Westgate SP GHG Reduction Plan (City of Fontana,
2014)-required design features and mitigation measures and feasible GHG reduction strategies, this impact
would be less than significant.
Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Westgate SP EIR Required Design Features:
No.Design Features
SF-1 By providing jobs near housing, with retail, parks and schools within walking distance of compact
residential villages, the Westgate Specific Plan residents will have less reliance on the automobile. This
in turn will result in reduced vehicular emissions and an overall healthier community.
SF-2 The Westgate Specific Plan will become one of the first large scale planned communities in the Inland
Empire to meet one of the nation’s first mandatory green building standards code (CALGreen, 2022).
These comprehensive regulations were adopted by the State of California and went into effect as of
January 1, 2023. By adhering to these regulations, the Westgate Specific Plan will achieve significant
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and water use. CALGreen, for example,
requires that every new building constructed in California reduce water consumption by 20 percent,
divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills and install low pollutant-emitting materials. It
also requires separate water meters for non-residential buildings’ indoor and outdoor water use, with
a requirement for moisture-sensing irrigation systems for large scale landscape projects and
mandatory inspections of energy systems (e.g., heat furnace, air conditioner and mechanical
equipment) for nonresidential buildings over 10,000 square feet designed to ensure that all are
working at their maximum capacity and according to their design efficiencies.
16 A Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan was included in Appendix F to the Westgate Specific Plan Environmental Impact
Report. It includes a description of GHG; an inventory of existing and projected future GHG emissions; a discussion of current
GHG regulations; an emissions target to reduce “business as usual” emissions by 15.8 percent; and goals, objectives and
strategies to reduce existing emissions to meet the reduction target.
SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.8-2
May 2024
Westgate SP EIR Mitigation Measures:
No.Mitigation Measures
G-1 For future projects, the City shall establish a Westgate SP Area-wide performance standard of
50 percent of all employees within the Specific Plan Area be eligible for participation in an employee
commute trip reduction program. To achieve this standard, future projects with employers of 250 or
more employees at a single location are required to implement an employee commute trip reduction
program as required by the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Future projects with employers of
less than 250 employees at a single location are required to implement an employee commute trip
reduction program that meets the 50 percent eligibility performance standard. The City may waive
this requirement for businesses that are extremely small, such as local shops with fewer than 10
employees, etc. to the extent that such a waiver would not conflict with achievement of the
performance standard (i.e., eligibility rate of 50 percent of all employees within the Specific Plan Area
for participation in an employee commute trip reduction program). Employee commute trip reduction
programs shall encompass a combination of individual measures which may include, but are not
limited to, the following:
Provide ride-sharing programs and designate a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride
sharing vehicles with adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for
ride-sharing vehicles that minimize on-site circulation impacts and traffic impacts on
adjacent roadways;
Allow telecommuting and alternative work schedules such as staggered start times, flexible
schedules, or compressed work weeks;
Provide employer-sponsored vanpools or shuttles for employee commutes, including
purchasing or leasing vans for employee use and subsidizing the cost of vanpool program
administration;
Provide convenient access to bicycle parking facilities;
Provide information on public or alternative transportation options;
Provide access to employee break rooms with refrigerators and microwaves; and
Require regular performance monitoring and reporting by employers to demonstrate
achievement, or absence of conflict with achievement, of the Specific Plan Area-wide
performance standard.
G-2 For future projects, the City shall recommend that schools (K-12) located within the Westgate Specific
Plan Area implement a multi-strategy school commute trip reduction program that encompasses a
combination of individual measures including, but not limited to, the following:
Provide a school bus program within each school’s service area boundary;
Implement ride-sharing programs for students, faculty, and staff;
Provide priority parking for carpools/vanpools; and
Provide a designated passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas that minimize
on-site circulation impacts and traffic impacts on adjacent roadways.
Westgate SP GHG Reduction Plan: Required Design Features
No.CAPCOA Measures (CAPCOA, 2010)
LUT-1 Increase Location Efficiency – Urban landscapes such as urban areas, infill, or suburban centers
are eligible for set percentage reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) due to the efficiency and
synergistic benefits of these landscapes.
SDT-1 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements – Providing a pedestrian access network to link areas
of a project site encourages people to walk instead of drive. This mode shift results in people driving
less and thus a reduction in VMT.
SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.8-3
May 2024
No.CAPCOA Measures (CAPCOA, 2010)
SDT-2 Provide Traffic Calming Measures – Providing traffic calming measures that reduces vehicle
speeds and encourages people to walk or bike instead of using a vehicle. Traffic calming features
may include: marked crosswalks, count-down signal timers, curb extensions, speed tables, raised
crosswalks, raised intersections, median islands, tight corner radii, roundabouts or mini- circles,
on-street parking, planter strips with street trees, chicanes/chokers, and others. This mode shift will
result in a decrease in VMT.
TST-3 Expand Transit Network – Expanding the local transit network to enhance service near the
project site will encourage the use of transit and therefore reduce VMT.
WSW-1 Use Reclaimed Water – Transporting and treating water requires significant amounts of
electricity. Using reclaimed water, which is water reused after wastewater treatment for
non-potable uses, significantly reduces this energy demand and therefore the associated indirect
GHG emissions.
WUW-2 Adopt a Water Conservation Strategy – Water use contributes to GHG emissions indirectly, via the
production of electricity that is used to pump, treat, and distribute the water. Reducing water use
reduces energy demand and associated indirect GHG emissions.
Westgate SP GHG Reduction Plan: Required Mitigation Measures
No.CAPCOA Reduction Measures (CAPCOA, 2010)17
BE-1 Exceed Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards by 15% – Title 24 Part 6
regulates energy uses including space heating and cooling, hot water heating, and ventilation. By
committing to a percent improvement over Title 24, a development reduces its energy use and
resulting GHG emissions.
TRT-2 Commute Trip Reduction - Monitoring & Reporting Required – The intent of this measure is to
reduce drive-alone travel mode share and encourage alternative modes of travel. The critical
components of this strategy are: established performance standards, required implementation, and
regular monitoring and reporting.
TRT-3 Provide Ride-Sharing Programs – Increasing the vehicle occupancy by ride sharing will result in
fewer cars driving the same trip and thus a decrease in VMT.
TRT-6 Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules – Encouraging telecommuting and
alternative work schedules reduces the number of commute trips and therefore VMT traveled by
employees.
TRT-11 Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle – This project implements an
employer-sponsored vanpool or shuttle program that entails the purchase/leasing of vans and
subsidizing the cost of program administration.
Westgate SP GHG Reduction Plan: Optional Reduction Strategies
No.CAPCOA Reduction Measures (CAPCOA, 2010)18
AE-2 Establish On-Site Renewable Energy Systems – Solar Power – Using electricity generated from
renewable or carbon-neutral power systems displaces electricity demand which would normally by
17 Includes only measures applicable to the Proposed Project.
18 Ibid.
SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.8-4
May 2024
No.CAPCOA Reduction Measures (CAPCOA, 2010)18
supplied by the local utility. Carbon-neutral power systems, such as photovoltaic panels, do not emit
GHGs and will be less carbon intense than the local utility.
BE-2 Install Programmable Thermostat Timers – Residential programmable thermostat timers allow
users to easily control when the HVAC system will heat or cool a certain space, thereby saving energy.
BE-3 Obtain Third-Party HVAC Commissioning and Verification of Energy Savings – Ensuring the
proper installation and construction of energy reduction features is essential to achieving high
thermal efficiency in a house. However, HVAC systems often do not operate at the designed efficiency
due to errors in installation or adjustments. By obtaining third-party HVAC commissioning and
verification of energy savings, a project will ensure that the energy and GHG emissions reductions in
intended design features are realized.
BE-4 Install Energy Efficient Appliances – Using energy-efficient appliances reduces a building's energy
consumption as well as the associated GHG emissions from natural gas combustion and electricity
production. Typical appliances include refrigerators, clothes washers and dishwashers for
residential dwellings and refrigerators for commercial land uses such as grocery stores.
LE-1 Install High Efficacy Public Street Area Lighting – Public lighting sources, including streetlights,
pedestrian pathway lights, area lighting for parks and parking lots, and outdoor lighting around
public buildings, contribute to GHG emissions indirectly, via the production of the electricity that
powers these lights. Different light fixtures have different efficacies, or the number of lumens
produced per watt of power supplied. Installing more efficacious lamps will use less electricity while
producing the same amount of light and therefore reduces the associated indirect GHG emissions.
LE-3 Replace Traffic Lights with LED Traffic Lights – As mentioned above, lighting sources contribute
to GHG emissions indirectly, via the production of the electricity that powers these lights. Installing
high efficiency traffic lights reduces energy demand and associated GHG emissions. Light-emitting
diodes (LEDs) consume about 90% less energy than traditional incandescent traffic lights while still
providing adequate light or lumens when viewed. The energy savings and subsequent GHG
emissions reductions are greatest when retrofitting existing incandescent traffic lights with LEDs.
WUW-1 Install Low-Flow Water Fixtures – Water use contributes to GHG emissions indirectly, via the
production of electricity that is used to pump, treat, and distribute the water. Installing low-flow or
high-efficiency water fixtures in buildings reduces water demand, energy demand, and associated
indirect GHG emissions. This strategy accounts for GHG emissions reductions from the use of
low-flow water toilets, urinals, showerheads and faucets as well as high-efficiency clothes washers
and dishwashers in residential and commercial buildings.
WUW-3 Design Water Efficient Landscapes – As mentioned above, water use contributes indirectly to GHG
emissions. Designing water-efficient landscapes for a development reduces water consumption and
the associated indirect GHG emissions. Examples of measures to be considered when designing
landscapes are: reducing lawn sizes, planting vegetation with minimal water needs such as native
Californian species, choosing vegetation appropriate for the climate of the development site, and
choosing complimentary plants with similar water needs.
WUW-4 Use Water-Efficient Landscape Irrigation Systems – As mentioned above, water use contributes
indirectly to GHG emissions. Using water-efficient landscape irrigation techniques such as "smart"
irrigation technology reduces outdoor water demand, energy demand, and the associated GHG
emissions. "Smart" irrigation control systems use weather, climate, and/or soil moisture data to
automatically adjust watering schedules. Thus, excessive watering is avoided.
WUW-5 Reduce Turf in Landscapes and Lawns – As mentioned above, water use contributes indirectly to
GHG emissions. Turf grass (i.e., lawn grass) has relatively high-water needs compared to most other
types of vegetation. For example, trees planted in turf generally do not need additional watering
SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.8-5
May 2024
No.CAPCOA Reduction Measures (CAPCOA, 2010)18
besides what is required for the turf. Reducing the turf size of landscapes and lawns reduces water
consumption and the associated indirect GHG emissions.
WUW-6 Plant Native or Drought-Resistant Trees and Vegetation – California native plants within their
natural climate zone and ecotype need minimal watering beyond normal rainfall, so less water is
needed for irrigating native plants than non-native species. Drought-resistant vegetation needs even
less watering. Thus, planting native and drought-resistant vegetation reduces water use and the
associated GHG emissions. However, since few scientific studies have quantified the actual water
savings, this strategy should be adopted as a Best Management Practice.
A-1 Prohibit Gas Powered Landscape Equipment – Electric lawn mowers, leaf blowers, and vacuums,
shredders, trimmers, and chain saws are available. When they are used in place of conventional
gas-powered equipment, direct GHG emissions from natural gas combustion are replaced with
indirect GHG emissions associated with the electricity used to power the equipment, which are
typically less significant.
SW-1 Institute or Extend Recycling and Composting Services – The transport and decomposition of
landfill waste and the flaring of landfill gas all produce GHG emissions. Decomposition of waste
produces methane, and the transport waste from the site of generation to the landfill produces GHG
emissions from the combustion of the fuel used to power the vehicle. Increasing recycling, reuse, and
composting can all reduce landfill waste. Choosing waste management practices which reduce the
amount of waste sent to landfills will thus reduce GHG emissions.
V-1 Urban Tree Planting – Planting trees sequesters carbon dioxide (CO2) while the trees are actively
growing. The amount of CO2 sequestered depends on the type of tree. In most cases, the active
growing period of a tree is 20 years and after this time the amount of carbon sequestered in biomass
slows and will be completely offset by losses from clipping, pruning, and occasional death.
GP-4 Plant Urban Shade Trees – Planting shade trees around buildings has been shown to effectively
lower the electricity cooling demand of buildings by blocking sunlight and reducing heat gain
through windows, walls, and roofs. By reducing cooling demand, shade trees help reduce electricity
demand from the local utility and therefore the indirect GHG emissions associated with the
production of that electricity.
GP-5 Implement Strategies to Reduce Urban Heat-Island Effect – Urban areas tend to be warmer than
its surrounding rural areas due to increased land surfaces which retain heat. Strategies such as
planting urban shade trees, installing reflective roofs, and using light-colored or high-albedo
pavements and surfaces have been shown to have a positive impact on reducing localized
temperatures and the electricity demand.
4.8.2 Summary of Project Impacts and Previous Project Impacts
The modified project’s potential climate change impacts from GHG emissions have been evaluated
considering the present environmental regulatory setting.
SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.8-6
May 2024
The modified project proposes medical office uses that are within the types and intensities of land uses
permitted on the modified project site by the Westgate SP. However, because trip generation rates are
higher for the modified project land uses than for the land uses for the Approved Project, GHG emissions
will be higher. Nevertheless, impacts associated with implementation of the modified project would be
similar to those of the previous Approved Project and no additional significant impacts beyond those
identified for the previous Approved Project would occur.
4.8.3 Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate SP
EIR
New
Information
Showing Ability
to Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate SP
EIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
a)Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
X
b)Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
X
a)Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
And
b)Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
The modified project land use type (medical office building) and intensity (208,000 square feet) are within
the uses and intensities permitted under the WSP MU-1 zone for the modified project site. The main
difference affecting GHG emissions is that the onroad trip generation would be higher for the modified
project. The traffic study for the Approved Project estimated that 3,474 trips would be generated by the
land uses in PA27 (Crawford et al., 2013, p. 26). According to the latest edition of the ITE Trip
Generation Manual (11th Edition), the weekday daily rate for Land Use 720:Medical-Dental Office
Building (Stand-Alone) is 36.00 per 1,000 square feet. Using this trip generation rate and the 208,000-
square-foot building area results in an estimate of 7,488 trips per day (Tucker, 2024).
SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.8-7
May 2024
GHG emissions for construction and operation were calculated with CalEEMod 2020 (CAPCOA, 2022),
Version 2022.1. Using standard industry practice, construction emissions were “amortized” over 30 years
and added to the operational emissions. Table 4.8-1 shows unmitigated annual and total construction
GHG emissions and Table 4.8-2 shows mitigated annual operational emissions. All applicable project
design features, mitigation measures and CAPCOA-recommended measures were taken into account in
estimating the operational emissions.
GHG emissions for construction and operation were calculated with CalEEMod 2020 (CAPCOA, 2022),
Version 2022.1. Using standard industry practice, construction emissions were “amortized” over 30 years
and added to the operational emissions. Table 4.8-1 shows unmitigated annual and total construction
GHG emissions and Table 4.8-2 shows mitigated annual operational emissions. All applicable project
design features, mitigation measures and CAPCOA-recommended measures were taken into account in
estimating the operational emissions.
Table 4.8-1
ANNUAL UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS
Annual Emissions (metric tons)
Year CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerant
Carbon
Dioxide
Equivalent
2024 394 0.02 0.01 0.15 398
2025 421 0.02 0.02 0.26 428
Total 815 0.04 0.03 0.41 826
Three-year amortized value 27.5
Table 4.8-2
ANNUAL MITIGATED OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
Category
Metric Tons
CO2e
Per Year
Mobile 6,551
Area 4.2
Energy 275
Water 56.5
Waste 701
Refrigerant 0.88
Amortized Construction 27.5
Total 7,616
The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Approved Project estimated that Specific Plan operations at
full buildout would emit 126,895 metric tons of CO2e annually. According to the calculations shown here,
the proposed Project would be responsible for 6.0 percent of those emissions. Given the sparse
development of the Specific Plan area to date, it is uncertain that the full 126,895 metric tons of GHG
emissions will be realized. Therefore, the finding for GHG emissions remains less than significant with
mitigation.
SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-1
May 2024
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.9.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR) Analysis
and Conclusions
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment
(Impact 4.H-1): The Approved Project site is largely vacant, with the majority of the property historically
used for agricultural purposes, and the few urbanized portions of the site having been developed with
commercial retail and office uses. These existing urban uses do not present a substantial risk relative to the
release of hazardous materials into the environment, given the nature of retail and office use operations,
which typically don’t involve notable quantities of hazardous materials. However, the construction of future
uses throughout the undeveloped portions of the Specific Plan area could result in releases of hazardous
materials related to various onsite conditions that were noted in the Hazardous Materials Assessment
(HMA; Ninyo and Moore, 2012) prepared for the Approved Project (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015,
p 4.H-14]).
The results of the HMA indicate that several environmental risks exist on the site of the Approved Project
or in the surrounding area that could pose a potential health risk to people living or working within the
project area if not properly addressed. Other observed conditions or database records are not considered
indicative of potential health hazards. The HMA provides recommendations, which are included as
mitigation measures below, regarding how to address those conditions representing a health hazard in
order to reduce these potential risks to acceptable levels. Additionally, various mitigation measures
addressing hazardous materials contained in the City’s 2003 General Plan EIR (GP EIR), are also applicable
to the proposed Specific Plan. With implementation of applicable GP EIR and project-specific mitigation
measures, impacts related to accidental releases of hazardous materials into the environment would be less
than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p 4.H-15]).
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school (Impact 4.H-2): Four schools are
within 0.25 mile of the Specific Plan boundaries. In addition, the proposed Specific Plan includes two
ten-acre elementary school sites and one 60-acre high school site which would be developed by the
respective school districts in the future as local population growth demands (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services,
2015, p 4.H-16]).
Hazardous materials could be used in the construction and operation of new light industrial/commercial
development within the Mixed Use portions of the Specific Plan, including the use of standard construction
materials (e.g., paints, solvents, and fuels), cleaning and other maintenance products (used in the
maintenance of buildings, pumps, pipes, and equipment), diesel and other fuels (used in construction and
maintenance equipment and vehicles), and the limited application of pesticides associated with landscaping
(WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p 4.H-16]).
Construction-related health hazards on future school sites would be minimized through adherence to
applicable local, state, and federal regulations regarding hazardous materials, as well as mitigation
measures provided below that require site-specific hazardous materials investigations (and cleanup if
necessary) for proposed school sites. It is anticipated that prior to occupancy of future on-site schools, site
investigation and remediation activities will have adequately addressed potential health hazards and
effectively eliminated associated risks. Therefore, with adherence to existing regulations
SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-2
May 2024
and implementation of applicable mitigation measures, construction-related health risks to existing and
proposed schools would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p 4.H-16]).
Although hazardous materials and/or waste generated from operation of future onsite land uses may pose
a limited health risk to nearby schools, all businesses that handle or have onsite transportation of hazardous
materials would be required to comply with the provisions of the Fontana Fire Protection District/ San
Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD), the City of Fontana Municipal Code, and additional state and
federal regulatory requirements.
The Hazardous Materials Division of the SBCFD is designated by the State Secretary for Environmental
Protection as the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the County of San Bernardino in order to
focus the management of specific environmental programs at the local government level. The CUPA is
charged with the responsibility of conducting compliance inspections for over 7000 regulated facilities in
San Bernardino County. The CUPA program is designed to consolidate, coordinate, and uniformly and
consistently administer permits, inspection activities, and enforcement activities throughout San
Bernardino County (SBCFD, 2019).
As described previously, both federal and state regulations require all businesses that handle more than a
specified amount of hazardous materials to submit a Risk Management Plan to the CUPA. The routine
transport, use, and disposal of these materials would be subject to a wide range of laws and regulations
intended to minimize potential health risks associated with their use or the accidental release of such
substances; therefore, operational impacts of proposed uses on existing and proposed schools would be
less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p 4.H-16]).
Moreover, all of the proposed land use districts include development standards, landscape standards,
parking and loading standards, and design guidelines aimed to buffer sensitive uses (including schools)
from existing offsite and proposed onsite development (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p 4.H-16]).
Overall, impacts on schools would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Location on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment (Impact 4.H-3): Several properties located within or near the Specific Plan boundaries are
included in various hazardous materials database listings obtained as part of the HMA process. While all
but one of these properties are not considered potential environmental risks, one property was determined
to pose a potential health risk. This property is an existing dry cleaner/laundry business within the onsite
Falcon Ridge Town Center, which is listed in the state’s Dry Cleaners database (as is required for all licensed
dry-cleaning businesses in California). This facility operates under various permits, including permits from
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which regulates hazardous air emissions from
such facilities, and a permit issued by the CUPA that regulates the use, handling, and storage of hazardous
materials (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p 4.H-17]).
Mitigation provided below would require that business records available at the SBCFD’s Hazardous
Materials Division be reviewed for compliance with the requirements of the CUPA permit issued for
SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-3
May 2024
the facility. With adherence to existing permit conditions and implementation of applicable mitigation,
impacts related to listed hazardous materials sites would be less than significant.
Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan (Impact 4.H-4): The City’s Emergency Operations Plan anticipates that all
major streets within the project area would serve as evacuation routes. Construction activities associated
with future development could temporarily impact street traffic adjacent to the proposed sites during the
construction phase due to roadway improvements and potential extension of construction activities into
the right-of-way. This could reduce the number of lanes or temporarily close certain street segments. Any
such impacts would be limited to the construction period and would affect only adjacent streets or
intersections. With implementation of the recommended mitigation, provided below, which would ensure
that temporary street closures would not affect emergency access in the vicinity of future developments,
short-term construction-related impacts would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015,
pp 4.H-17-18]).
The City of Fontana, including the entire proposed Specific Plan area, is subject to various City, county, and
state emergency management plans, as noted previously, which provide procedures, communications
protocols, and chains of command for emergency services and public agencies during large-scale disasters
or other emergency events. While the Approved Project would involve the addition of residents, employees,
and shoppers to the project area, implementation of the Approved Project would not have a notable impact
on the function of established emergency management and response plans. All future development projects
would be required to provide sufficient emergency access, as required by the City’s Zoning Code and/or the
proposed Specific Plan’s Development Regulations, as applicable. Furthermore, given that future onsite
development pursuant to the proposed Specific Plan would be subject to review and approval by the SBCFD,
which is most directly responsible for emergency response in the project vicinity, the systems and facilities
designed to protect public health and safety during emergencies would be adequate to effectively
implement emergency management procedures within the project area. Coordination with the SBCFD
would preclude the possibility of inadequate access for emergency vehicles at the project site. As no
apparent conflicts with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans would result from project
implementation, impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Therefore, operation of future
development within the Specific Plan boundaries would not interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan and/or the emergency evacuation plan and less than significant impacts would occur (WSP Draft EIR
[PCR Services, 2015, pp 4.H-17-18]).
Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands (Section 6.0 [F][5], page 6-11-6-12 and Initial Study [VIII][h]: This threshold was discussed
in the DEIR Chapter 6, Other Mandatory CEQA Considerations, and the Initial Study. The FEIR determined
that impacts would be less than significant. The Approved Project site is not located in an area that has a
significant amount of vegetation and is characterized by relatively flat topography. Although sloped areas
with extensive vegetation are located to the north of the project site in the San Gabriel and San Bernardino
Mountains, these areas are located at a sufficient distance from the project area that they do not pose a
substantial risk to people or structures on-site. Furthermore, future development on-site would be subject
to all applicable
SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-4
May 2024
standards and regulations related to fire protection and prevention such that wildland fire hazards would
be less than significant. Further analysis of this issue in the EIR was not required (WSP Draft EIR [PCR
Services, 2015, pp. 6-11 to 6-12 and Appendix A, Initial Study, p. B-10]).
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
No.Mitigation Measure
H-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 schools,
child-care centers, and senior centers, shall not to be located near existing sites that use, store,
or generate hazardous materials. [GP EIR Mitigation Measure HM-1]
H-2
The City shall assure the continued response and capability of the SBCFD/Fontana Fire
Protection District to handle hazardous materials incidents in the City and along the sections of
freeways that extend across the City. [GP EIR Mitigation Measure HM-2]
H-3
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 SBCFD –
Hazardous Materials Division in coordination with the Fontana Fire Protection District. [GP EIR
Mitigation Measure HM-4]
H-4
The City shall identify roadways along which hazardous materials are routinely transported. If
essential facilities, such as schools, hospitals, child care centers or other facilities with special
evacuation needs are located along these routes, identify emergency response plans that these
facilities can implement in the event of an unauthorized release of hazardous materials in their
area. [GP EIR Mitigation Measure HM-5]
H-5
Development of school sites within the project area shall include Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment in accordance with ASTM Standard 1527-05 and the DTSC’s school site evaluation
program.
H-6
Due to the potential that concentrations of commercial pesticides likely applied on portions of
the Specific Plan area may still be present in onsite soils, soil samples shall be collected and
analyzed for the presence of organochlorine pesticides and Title 22 Metals. Sampling and
analysis shall be conducted in accordance with appropriate California guidelines (e.g.,
Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2008, Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural
Properties). Soils with elevated organochlorine pesticides or metals compared with these
guidelines shall be removed and disposed offsite in accordance applicable federal, state, and local
regulations.
H-7
Because aerially dispersed lead (ADL) may be present in the soil as a result of historical vehicle
emissions during the era of leaded gasoline, an ADL survey shall be conducted within areas of
exposed soil which will be disturbed during construction within 50 feet of the Interstate 15
Freeway and the Interstate 210 Freeway. Sampling and analysis shall be conducted in accordance
with appropriate California guidelines (e.g., Department of Transportation, 2007, Caltrans
Aerially Deposited Lead Guidance). Soils with elevated lead shall be removed and disposed offsite
in accordance applicable federal, state, and local regulations. ADL borings shall be located at no
more than 300-foot horizontal intervals along the shoulders and medians where earth will be
disturbed. The borings shall be advanced up to 4 feet below ground surface or the maximum
anticipated construction depth, whichever is shallower.
H-8
Construction contractors shall develop a soil management plan (SMP) prior to construction
activities to address potentially impacted soils that may be uncovered during the construction
phase of each future development project. SMPs shall include: potential chemicals of concern, a
health and safety plan, identification of individuals responsible for the implementation of the
SMP, dust and odor suppression control methods, procedure for notification and identification
SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-5
May 2024
No.Mitigation Measure
of unknown environmental features, site specific soil-management protocols, cleanup criteria,
and soil reuse options.
In accordance with the SMP, such soil generated during construction activities shall be
characterized for disposal using new laboratory data representative of the soil being excavated
and disposed.
H-9
Piles of dumped materials, including soil, brick and concrete pieces, wood, and other trash and
construction debris, were observed on the southeast corner of Westgate Center study area along
Sierra Lakes Parkway. Soil piles and construction debris shall be analyzed for volatile organic
compounds, total petroleum hydrocarbons, and Title 22 Metals to characterize the disposal of
the unknown debris on the study area. Sampling and analysis shall be conducted in accordance
with appropriate California guidelines (e.g., Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2001,
Information Advisory, Clean Imported Fill Material). A minimum of four samples shall be
collected and analyzed under an assumed residential/commercial land use. Sample results shall
be compared to residential land use regional screening levels specified by the Department of
Toxic Substances Control, 2005, Use of California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs) in
Evaluation of Contaminated Properties, or latest available Regional Screening Levels provided
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Soils or debris with elevated
concentrations shall be removed and disposed offsite in accordance applicable federal, state, and
local regulations.
H-10
Due to the presence of a former railroad alignment within project boundaries, any construction
in which the soil around the railroad is to be disturbed shall be conducted under the purview of
the Fontana Fire Protection District to identify proper handling procedures. Once the soil around
the railroad has been removed, a visual inspection of the areas beneath and around the removed
area shall be performed. Any stained soils observed underneath the area shall be sampled.
Sampling and analysis shall be conducted in accordance with appropriate California guidelines
(e.g., Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2001, Information Advisory, Clean Imported Fill
Material). Samples shall be collected and analyzed at one-foot intervals to a depth of four feet at
a 300-foot horizontal distance. Samples shall be analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons,
polychlorinated biphenyls, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and Title 22 Metals, in accordance
with appropriate US EPA Methods specified in SW-846. Sample results shall be compared to
residential land use regional screening levels specified by Department of Toxic Substances
Control, 2005, Use of CHHSLs in Evaluation of Contaminated Properties, or latest available
Regional Screening Levels provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9. Soils with elevated concentrations shall be removed and disposed offsite in accordance
applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
H-11 Records available for the Falcon Ridge Cleaners & Shirt Laundry (15218 Summit Avenue) at the
SBCFD Hazardous Materials Division shall be reviewed for compliance with this facility’s
Consolidated Unified Program Agency (CUPA) permit.
SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-6
May 2024
No.Mitigation Measure
H-12 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, future developers shall prepare a Traffic Control Plan
(TCP) for implementation during the construction phase. The TCP may include, but is not limited
to, the following provisions:
At least one unobstructed lane shall be maintained in both directions on surrounding
roadways.
If at any time only a single lane is available, the developer shall provide a temporary
traffic signal, signal carriers (i.e., flagpersons), or other appropriate traffic controls to
allow travel in both directions.
If construction activities require the complete closure of a roadway segment, the
developer shall provide appropriate signage indicating detours/
alternative routes.
H-13 Prior to construction, the City of Fontana Engineering Department shall consult with the City of
Fontana Police Department to disclose temporary closures and alternative travel routes, in order
to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles when construction of future projects would
result in temporary lane or roadway closures.
Source: PCR 2015a, pp. 4H-19 – 4H-22.
4.9.2 Summary of Approved Project versus the Modified Project Impacts
The Modified project’s potential impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials have been evaluated
in light of the present environmental regulatory setting in relation to the impacts identified in the Certified
FEIR. No new hazardous materials sites in or next to the modified project site were identified in a review of
environmental databases compared to the Approved FEIR.19 The modified project—medical office building
use—is within the ranges of types and intensities of land use permitted on the modified project site by the
Certified FEIR. Therefore, modified project impacts would be similar to those of the previous Approved
Project.
4.9.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
With regard to hazards and hazardous materials the following checklist compares the impacts of the
Previous Approved Project analyzed in the Westgate Specific Plan FEIR with those of the Modified Project
described in this document. The comparative conclusions provided in the following table for the Modified
Project are based on the discussions immediately thereafter.
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
19 The one site identified during a search of several internet environmental databases, High School No. 9 at San Sevaine Road at
Walnut Avenue, is a case that was closed many years before certification of the Certified EIR.
SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-7
May 2024
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
a)Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b)Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X
c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d)Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
X
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 for people
residing or working in the project area?
X
f)For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
X
g)Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
h)Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
X
a)Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-8
May 2024
Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information
Proposed project construction would involve use of hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, greases,
degreasers, cleansers, paints and other architectural coatings, pesticides, and fertilizers. Hazardous
materials would be used in compliance with existing regulations of several agencies including the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Division of
Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), and Caltrans. Hazardous materials would not be used or stored in
quantities that could pose substantial hazards to public health or the environment. After implementation
of mitigation measures H-1 through H-5 set forth in the Certified FEIR, incremental impacts of proposed
project construction would be less than significant.
Operation
Operation of the proposed medical office buildings would involve use of small amounts of hazardous
materials for cleaning and maintenance purposes, such as cleansers, paints, pesticides, and fertilizers.
Hazardous materials would be used and stored in compliance with existing regulations of agencies listed
above regarding construction impacts; for instance, materials would be stored in clearly marked containers.
The use, storage, and transport of such small amounts of hazardous materials would not pose substantial
hazards to the public or the environment, and no significant impact would occur beyond the corresponding
impact identified in the Certified FEIR.
Modified project operation would also generate medical waste. The Approved Project included planning
areas designated for medical use (for instance, Planning Area 14). Therefore, the medical office use
proposed in the modified project would not be a new use not included in the Approved Project. Operation
of the medical office use comprising the modified project would comply with state and federal regulations
governing storage, transport, and disposal of medical waste.
The San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, Division of Environmental Health Services (EHS)
regulates medical waste generators, transporters, transfer stations, and treatment facilities within the
County under the authority of the Medical Waste Management Act (California Health and Safety Code
Sections 117600 et seq.). Medical waste generators producing 200 pounds or more of medical waste per
month are classified as Large Quantity Generators (LQGs), who must obtain a permit from EHS. The Medical
Waste Management Act sets forth requirements governing containment and storage, transport, and
treatment of medical wastes. LQGs, medical waste haulers, and treatment facilities are required to register
or obtain permits from EHS (EHS, 2023). Eight medical waste transporters located in San Bernardino
County are currently registered with the California Department of Public Health (CDPH, 2023a). The CDPH
lists one medical waste transfer station, and one medical waste treatment facility, in San Bernardino County
(CDPH, 2023b).
State regulations governing medical waste are also issued and enforced by the California Division of
Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) and Caltrans. Federal regulations governing medical waste are also
issued and enforced by Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.
The Approved Project also included proposed medical and medical office uses that would be required to
comply with laws and regulations governing medical waste. No new impact would occur.
SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-9
May 2024
b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information
Construction
Construction contractors on the modified project would train workers on safe containment and cleanup of
small spills of hazardous materials; and would maintain equipment and supplies onsite for such
containment and cleanup. Contractors would notify the San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous
Materials Division immediately in the event of a release of hazardous materials of quantity and/or toxicity
that on-site workers could not safely contain and cleanup. After compliance with existing regulations and
implementation of mitigation measures H-1 through H-5 set forth in the Certified FEIR, modified project
construction would not cause substantial impacts arising from accidental release of hazardous materials.
Incremental impacts of modified project construction would be less than significant.
Operation
The analysis in Section 4.9.a applies to accidental releases of hazardous materials as well. Hazardous
materials would be used in small amounts during operation of the proposed medical office buildings; thus,
potential accidental releases of such materials would not pose substantial hazards to the public or the
environment. Medical wastes would be stored, transported, and disposed of in accordance with state and
federal regulations as described above in Section 4.9.3.a. No new significant impacts would occur.
c)Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information
No existing schools are within 0.25 mile of the modified project site. The Approved Project includes a
proposed high school in Planning Area 39 about 700 feet south of the modified project site.
Use of hazardous materials in modified project construction would be conducted in accordance with
existing regulations of several agencies, as described above in Section 4.9.3.a. Proposed project construction
would generate diesel emissions, which are considered hazardous. However, the project construction
period would be temporary. Health risk is based upon the conservative assumption that exposure is
continuous and occurs over a 70-year lifetime. A determination of risk is not appropriate for short-term
construction activities. Exposure to diesel exhaust during the construction period would not pose
substantial hazards to persons at schools. No new significant impact would occur.
Modified project operation would involve use of small amounts of hazardous materials for cleaning and
maintenance purposes. Such use would not pose substantial hazards to the public or the environment, as
substantiated above in Section 4.9.a. Handling of medical waste during modified project operation would
comply with state and federal regulations. Therefore, operational impacts of proposed uses on existing and
proposed schools would be less than significant.
SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-10
May 2024
d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information
Per Government Code § 65962.5, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) compiles
and at least annually updates lists of the following:
Hazardous waste and substances sites from the DTSC EnviroStor database.
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites by county and fiscal year in the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database.
Solid waste disposal sites identified by SWRCB with waste constituents above hazardous waste
levels outside waste management units.
SWRCB Cease and Desist Orders (CDOs) and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAOs).
Hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to § 25187.5 of the Health and
Safety Code, identified by DTSC.
The database search conducted for the FEIR was updated by searching the following hazardous materials
site databases on November 11, 2023:
GeoTracker
EnviroStor
Solid Waste Information System (SWIS), California Department of Resources Recovery and
Recycling
EnviroMapper, US Environmental Protection Agency
Search radii varied from the project site to one mile from the site boundary, depending on the type of site.
Kaiser Steel Corporation, at 9400 Cherry Avenue about 2,800 feet north of the modified project site, is listed
on the GeoTracker database as a cleanup program site. Groundwater other than drinking water was listed
as contaminated with other inorganic contaminants and/or salt. The case was closed in 2009 (SWRCB,
2023). That site is not an environmental concern for the modified project site due to the case closure.
One site was listed on the EnviroStor database: High School No. 9 at San Sevaine Road at Walnut Avenue,
about 1,400 feet east of the modified project site; see Figure 4.9-1. This site is a school investigation site;
the DTSC issued a No Further Action (NFA) determination for the site in 2004 (DTSC, 2023). That site is not
an environmental concern for the modified project because the investigation was closed with an NFA
determination.
No other hazardous materials sites were identified in the database searches. No new significant impacts
would occur and no mitigation is required.
SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-11
May 2024
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 for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact
The project site is not within the boundary of an Airport Influence Area (AIA), or within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport. Ontario International Airport, approximately 7 miles southwest of the project
site, is both the nearest public airport and the nearest public use airport to the project site (refer to
Figure 4.9-2). Therefore, project implementation would not expose people to safety hazards due to
proximity to a public airport, and no impacts are anticipated.
f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact
Two private heliports are in the city of Fontana:
The Fontana Police Heliport at 17005 Upland Avenue approximately 3.6 miles southeast of the project site;
and the Kaiser Hospital Heliport at 9961 Sierra Avenue approximately 5 miles southeast of the project site
(Airnav.com, 2023). Helicopters flying over the project site would not be landing or taking off from either
heliport and would be flying at altitudes over urban areas required by Federal Aviation Administration
regulations; and thus, would not pose dangers to people onsite. No new impact would occur.
SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-12
May 2024
Figure 4.9-1
LISTED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-13
May 2024
Figure 4.9-2
NEAREST AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA
SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-14
May 2024
g)Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information
The City of Fontana, including the Modified Project site, is subject to various City, county, and state
emergency management plans, as noted previously, which provide procedures, communications protocols,
and chains of command for emergency services and public agencies during large-scale disasters or other
emergency events. While the Modified Project would involve the development of medical office use on the
project site, project development would not have a notable impact on the function of established emergency
management and response plans. All future development projects would be required to provide sufficient
emergency access, as required by the City’s Fire Code (City of Fontana Municipal Code Sections 5-425 et
sec.). Furthermore, given that future onsite development pursuant to the Modified Project would be subject
to review and approval by the SBCFD, which is most directly responsible for emergency response in the
project vicinity, the systems and facilities designed to protect public health and safety during emergencies
would be adequate to effectively implement emergency management procedures within the project area.
Implementation of Approved Project FEIR Mitigation Measures H-12 and H-13, provided above, would
preclude the possibility of inadequate access for emergency vehicles, or interference with established
emergency management and response plans. No new significant impact would occur.
h)Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) developed Fire Hazard Severity Zones
(FHSZ) for State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) and Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs); SRAs and LRAs are
where state and local governments, respectively, are responsible for the costs of wildfire prevention and
suppression. The modified project site is not in an SRA (CALFIRE FRAP, 2023). The site is in an LRA and is
outside a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The nearest LRA VHFHSZ to the project site is approximately
0.5 mile to the northwest, as depicted in Figures 4.9-3 and 4.9-4.
Very High fire hazard designation refers to either:
a)wildland areas supporting fuels typified by well-developed surface fuels (e.g., mature chaparral) or
forests where crown fire is likely. Additional site elements include steep and mixed topography and
dry seasons with strong winds.
OR
b)developed/urban areas typically with high vegetation density (>70% cover) and associated high
fuel continuity, allowing for frontal flame spread over much of the area to progress impeded by
only isolated non-burnable fractions. Often where tree cover is abundant, these areas look very
similar to adjacent wildland areas. Developed areas may have less vegetation cover and still be in
this class when in the immediate vicinity (0.25 mile) of wildland areas zoned as Very High (see
above).
SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-15
May 2024
Modified project development would include required fire suppression design features (i.e., fire resistant
building materials, where appropriate, smoke detection and fire alarm systems, automatic sprinkler
systems, portable fire extinguishers, and emergency signage in all buildings) identified in the latest edition
of the City of Fontana Fire Code. If the proposed medical office buildings contain outpatient surgery
facilities, then the buildings would be classified as essential facilities under the California Building Code
(CBC). Essential facilities shall be "designed and constructed to minimize fire hazards and to resist the
forces of earthquakes, gravity and winds" (California Health and Safety Code Section 16001). The project
site is in an urbanized area where the Fontana Fire Department provides fire protection and emergency
medical services. No new significant impact would occur.
SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-16
May 2024
Figure 4.9-3
STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREA FOR FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY
SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-17
May 2024
Figure 4.9-4
LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA FOR FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY
SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.10-1
May 2024
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.10.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan (WSP) FEIR)
Analysis and Conclusions
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements (Impact 4.I-6): For the Approved
Project, impacts related to water quality would occur during three different periods: 1) during the
earthwork and construction phase, when the potential for erosion, siltation, and sedimentation would be
greatest; 2) following construction, prior to the establishment of ground cover, when the erosion potential
may remain relatively high; and 3) after completion of the Approved Project, when impacts related to
sedimentation would decrease markedly, but those associated with urban runoff would increase.
The Approved Project FEIR provides an extensive analysis of potential water quality impacts and best
management practices (BMPs) that will be incorporated into the project design to minimize or avoid such
impacts, including but not limited to low impact design (LID) features (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015,
pp. 4.I-19 through 4.I-32]). The Approved Project anticipates infiltration of the entire design capture
volume (DCV) based on highly permeable soil conditions. The infiltration of the entire DCV ranks as the
most effective BMP strategy for pollutant removal. It would also result in infiltration of the increased
volume of stormwater between existing and proposed two-year storm events based on preliminary
calculations, thus satisfying the Hydrologic Condition of Concern (HCOC) requirements (i.e.,
post-development stormwater flow volumes entering off-site drainage facilities would not exceed
predevelopment volumes).
Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted) (Impact 4.I‐5): The Approved Project will not
use local groundwater wells for water supply. However, as noted in the Water Supply Assessments (WSAs)
for the Approved Project (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015. Appendix K]), potable water will be provided
for proposed future uses by the Fontana Water Company (FWC) and the Cucamonga Valley Water District
(CVWD), which utilize groundwater sources in Chino Basin, Cucamonga Basin, Rialto Basin, Lytle Basin, and
the No-Man’s Land Basin (an unnamed basin between the Chino Basin and the Rialto Basin), for a
substantial portion of domestic water supplies within their respective service areas. Although these
groundwater basins are used by these and other water purveyors in the area for a portion of their water
supplies, each respective agency is limited to the amount of water that can be extracted from each basin
without substantially reducing the productivity of water supply wells, otherwise referred to as the “safe
yield” the limit of which are regulated through various agreements between agencies, adjudicated rights
from court decisions, and other mechanisms that preclude overdraft of groundwater resources.
Furthermore, given these established extraction limits, as well as limits on other sources of water, such as
surface water from Lytle Creek, fluctuations in water demand in each respective service area of FWC and
CVWD are met primarily through imported water supplies from the State Water Project (SWP) and
Colorado River. Therefore, since future demand for water supply would be addressed through increased
import water delivery and groundwater extractions are strictly limited to safe yield volumes, the
project-related water demand would not have the potential to result in excessive groundwater withdrawals
such that a decrease in the local groundwater table would occur. The
SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.10-2
May 2024
impacts associated with the depletion of groundwater supplies due to increased demand for groundwater
resources are considered less than significant.
Under existing conditions, groundwater recharging occurs through pervious surfaces and highly permeable
soils. Under the proposed conditions, LID BMPs and features will be required to infiltrate the 85th percentile
storm event for the entire development area to ensure that groundwater recharge occurs after the
implementation of the project. Infiltration BMPs are discussed below under Post-Construction Activities.
The use of infiltrating LID BMPs and features will result in a less than significant impact on groundwater
recharge (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.I-35/36]).
Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site
(Impact 4.I‐7): For the Approved Project, under existing conditions, runoff from the project area generally
flows southwest via sheet flow towards existing interim debris basins before entering into existing regional
flood control facilities (e.g., Summit Avenue Storm Drain, Highland Avenue Storm Drain, Baseline Avenue
Storm Drain, etc.). The soil erosion potential is generally classified as high, given the type of alluvial soil,
and interim basins help reduce erosion and siltation off-site. Under the proposed conditions, runoff from
development areas will be collected in a local storm drain network and conveyed to downstream regional
flood control facilities. The drain pattern will be largely preserved, and the flow will continue to drain in a
south-west direction. The increase in impervious surfaces will serve to reduce the potential for erosion and
siltation downstream, and interim debris basins will no longer be needed. In the southern portion of the
site, there are two existing earthen channels. However, one no longer serves as a flood conveyance channel,
and the second has been channelized downstream (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.I-41]).
In the proposed condition, the channels will be abandoned and filled for development and downstream
improvements will be extended upstream of the project. Implementing the project will reduce the potential
for erosion and siltation on site to reach downstream. Additionally, all project runoff drains into hardened
regional flood control channels or reinforced box culverts, eliminating the potential for downstream
erosion or siltation. Potential impacts related to erosion or siltation due to hydromodification are
considered less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.I-41]).
Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alternation of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site (Impact 4.I‐1): The Approved Project will substantially increase the
rate and volume of runoff compared to existing conditions. To safely convey runoff to downstream facilities
and prevent flooding on and off site, both on- and off-site storm drain systems must be properly sized for
expected rates and volumes. A preliminary analysis was performed, and storm drain facilities were sized
for a 25-year storm event consistent with local drainage criteria. Detailed storm drain and hydrology
analysis including hydraulic modeling will be performed as part of the final engineering documents to
confirm pipe sizes, connections, and 100-year flood conveyance. Furthermore, a detailed hydrological
analysis will be required to confirm that the regional downstream flood control facility has the capacity to
accept projected runoff conditions, and if the capacity is limited, the Approved Project will have to control
peak flows on site to
SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.10-3
May 2024
downstream capacity. This scenario is not anticipated as the existing regional flood control facilities were
sized based on the full build-out of the General Plan which includes the Westgate property. Impacts related
to on-site and off-site flooding are considered less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015.
p 4.I-34]).
Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff (Impact 4.I-2): All runoff water
will be collected and discharged into existing regional flood control facilities that were sized upon full build-out
of the General Plan which includes the Westgate property. Furthermore, the Approved Project was required to
develop detailed storm drain and hydrology analyzes to confirm that regional flood control facilities can
accommodate projected peak flow events. The implementation plan includes a series of LID BMPs and features
that will use highly permeable native soil to infiltrate the first 85th percentile storm event and prevent the “first
flush” pollutants from leaving the project site and entering downstream facilities.
Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality (Impact 4.1-8): As discussed previously, under Impact 4.I-1,
given the proposed construction-related site design, LID, and source control BMPs and the reliance on infiltration
BMPs, water quality exceedances are not anticipated, and pollutants are not expected in project runoff that would
adversely affect beneficial uses in downstream receiving waters.
Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map, or Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood flows (Impact 4.I-3): The Westgate Specific Plan does not
propose housing within a 100-year floodplain according to the FIRM map or flood hazard delineation maps.
Furthermore, no proposed improvements associated with the project would be located within a 100-year floodplain
that would impede or redirect flood flows.
Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam (Impact 4.I-4): The Westgate Specific Plan is not subject
to flooding as a result of a failure of a levee or dam as there are no major dams or levees upstream or within the
project vicinity.
Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow (Section 6.0 [F][6], page 6-12): A seiche is an oscillation of
a body of water in an enclosed or semi-enclosed basin, such as a reservoir, harbor, lake, or storage tank. A tsunami
is a great sea wave, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, produced by a significant undersea disturbance, such as
tectonic displacement of the sea floor associated with large and shallow earthquakes. Mudflows are downslope
movements of saturated soils and/or rock with the consistency of wet cement.
SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.10-4
May 2024
The project area is not subject to tsunami hazards given the distance from the Pacific Ocean and the elevation of
the project area. Therefore, the project would not be subject to flood hazards associated with seiches. Furthermore,
despite the steep hills in the foothills north of the project area, the potential for mud flows to affect the proposed
uses would be negligible given the distance of the mountains from the project and the amount of intervening
development.
Previous Approved Project Determination: No Impact.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: None are required.
4.10.2 Summary of Previous Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
Modified project impacts to hydrology and water quality have been evaluated in light of the present
environmental regulatory setting. Certified Draft EIR Section 4.I.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, concluded
that impacts on hydrology and water quality attributable to the Approved Project would be less than
significant after compliance with NPDES requirements and with project design features set forth in the
DEIR, and that mitigation measures are not required. Draft EIR Section 6-F concluded that Approved Project
development would not cause adverse impacts associated with inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflows.
The absence of any mitigation measure requirements assumed that each subsequent implementing project
would be required to comply with and/or adhere to established codes, ordinances, and other requirements
that specifically address hydrology and water quality. The modified project site is located within the
boundaries of the Westgate Specific Plan and constitutes one of the subsequent implementing projects
alluded to above and is therefore required to comply with the aforementioned NPDES requirements and
project design features. Therefore, the impacts on hydrology and water quality due to modified project
development would be equal to or less than those of the Approved Project.
4.10.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist responses compare the Approved Project analyzed under the certified WSP FEIR
with the project as described in this document and analyze the potential impacts resulting from the
development of the modified project.
SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.10-5
May 2024
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
a)Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?
X
b)Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
X
c)Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i)result in a substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;X
ii)substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
offsite;
X
iii)create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
X
iv)impede or redirect flood flows?X
d)In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
X
e)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.10-6
May 2024
a)Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information
Impacts related to water quality standards or waste discharge would occur during two periods: 1) during
the excavation and construction phase, when the potential for erosion, siltation, and sedimentation would
be greatest; and 2) after completion of the project, when impacts related to sedimentation would decrease
markedly, but those associated with urban runoff (e.g., pathogens, oil and grease, pesticides and herbicides,
metals, and metalloids) would increase.
The modified project would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements of the federal Clean Water Act during both construction and operation, as detailed in the
Westgate Specific Plan. Dischargers whose projects disturb one or more acres of soil or whose projects
disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or
more acres are required to obtain coverage under the Statewide Construction General Permit, SWRCB
Order 2009-0009-DWQ.
Construction
Modified project construction activities subject to this permit include clearing, grading, and disturbance to
the ground such as stockpiling or excavation, but do not include regular maintenance activities performed
to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility (SWRCB, 2023). The permit requires that a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) be prepared; the SWPPP would mandate the
implementation of site-specific BMPs that would minimize potential off-site water quality impacts. BMPs
prescribed under a SWPPP are grouped in six categories: erosion controls, sediment controls, wind erosion
controls, tracking controls, non-stormwater management controls, and waste management and controls.
Operation
According to the municipal stormwater permit for the portion of San Bernardino County and the within the
Santa Ana Region (MS4 Permit), and the County of San Bernardino Technical Guidance Document for Water
Quality Management Plans (CDM Smith, 2013), new development and redevelopment projects are required
to implement site design BMPs to minimize directly connected impervious areas and promote infiltration
of runoff. The Technical Guidance Document for WQMPs identifies examples of site design BMPs that can
be implemented where applicable and feasible. Preventive measures associated with site planning and site
design BMPs that apply to the modified project include (but are not limited to):
Disconnect impervious areas. Plan site layout and mass grading to allow runoff to be directed to
permeable areas, such as natural retention areas, open spaces, medians, parking islands and planter
boxes. Design roof downspouts to drain to pervious areas. Use alternative permeable or porous
building materials allowed by the code (Fuscoe Engineering, 2012, p. 31).
Preserve Existing Drainage Patterns and Increase the Time of Concentration. This includes
avoiding channelization of natural drainage, using mild slopes and using pervious channel linings
to increase infiltration.
SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.10-7
May 2024
Minimize Impervious Area & Maximize Natural Infiltration Capacity. Selecting areas and
designing to take advantage of the natural infiltration capacity of a site. Examples include reducing
development footprints by building vertically rather than horizontally, reducing road and sidewalk
widths to the maximum extent practicable, clustering construction elements to preserve open
space, and minimizing lot setbacks to reduce driveway length (Fuscoe Engineering, 2012, p. 31).
The modified project includes landscaping along the site perimeter; extensive landscaping
surrounding the two proposed buildings; and in the medians of each double row of parking spaces
(except for those rows of parking spaces that would be covered by structures supporting
photovoltaic panels). The modified project also includes a triangular infiltration basin in the
southwest corner of the project site that would be 15 feet deep; have preliminary capacity of
165,048 cubic feet; and the top of the basin would extend about 300 feet east-west by 235 feet
north-south (DEA, 2023).
Hydrologic Source Controls (HSCs) are a class of LID features that can be considered a hybrid between site
design practices and LID BMPs. HSCs are distinguished from site design BMPs in that they do not reduce
the tributary area or the imperviousness of a drainage area; rather, they reduce the runoff volume that
would result from a drainage area with a given degree of impermeability compared to what would result if
HSCs were not used.
HSCs that would retain runoff and are considered applicable to the project include the following (Fuscoe
Engineering, 2012, p. 31):
Impervious Area Dispersion
Localized on-lot infiltration.
Street trees
With the implementation of construction and operational BMPs, the potential impacts on water quality
standards or waste discharge would be minimal. Therefore, modified project impacts would be less than
significant, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of an EIR.
b)Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supply or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information
The 17.5-acre modified project site is currently vacant and completely pervious. Modified project
development would involve covering most of the site with impervious surfaces. The modified project would
be required to infiltrate all stormwater originating onsite from an 85th-percentile storm, as would the entire
Approved Project. The modified project includes an infiltration basin described above in Section 4.10.3.a.
Therefore, the impact of the project would be less than significant and no changes or new information would
require the preparation of an EIR.
SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.10-8
May 2024
c)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:
d)result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
e)substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site;
f)create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
g)impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information
Drainage
The modified project site is relatively level, slopes gently from northeast to southwest, has no substantive
topographic relief, and is currently vacant. Drainage within the project site is sheet flow from north to south,
discharging into curb and gutter on South Highland Avenue. Un-channelized streams or rivers are not
located on or near the modified project site.
Approved Project storm drainage plans relevant to the modified project include a 42-inch storm drain in
Highland Avenue, and a storm drain in a segment of Cherry Avenue extending from Highland Avenue south
to Walnut Avenue that would be 42 inches along part of its length and 60 inches along the remainder. The
planned storm drain in Cherry Avenue would discharge into an existing 60-inch storm drain in Cherry
Avenue extending south to Baseline Avenue where it would discharge into an existing double 14-foot by 8-
foot storm drain that extends west till it discharges into San Sevaine Channel (Westgate Specific Plan [JHA
Consulting, 2017, figure 4.I-3]).
The modified project storm drainage plan includes a storm drain in Highland Avenue fronting the west part
of the modified project site that would have segments of diameters 24 inches and 42 inches from east to
west. The storm drain would turn southwestward next to the southwest corner of the project site, extending
to Cherry Avenue. Just northeast of Cherry Avenue the storm drain would increase to 54 inches diameter;
and would then discharge into a storm drain in Cherry Avenue.
The stormwater runoff within the modified project will be collected and treated during and after
construction in conformance with the requirements of the general permits of the MS4 Permit and the San
Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for WQMPs.
The modified project includes an infiltration basin described above in Section 4.10.3.a; and underground
stormwater storage pipes that would be eight feet in diameter and total 270 feet in length. The infiltration
basin plus the storage pipes would have combined capacity to detain the net increase in stormwater runoff
from the modified project site from a 100-year storm (DEA, 2023).
The effective size of the drainage of the modified project is approximately 17.5 acres. The drainage area of
the San Sevaine-Etiwanda Channel area covers a total of 12,622 acres and includes areas
SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.10-9
May 2024
within the cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana, as well as unincorporated areas of the County of San
Bernardino (City of Fontana, 1989. p. 20).
Water Quality and Erosion
The modified project will generate a number of pollutants due to development, but there will be minimal
impact on the Chino Basin Watershed Management Area, as the receiving waters are hard-lined channels
that are regularly maintained. Implementation of erosion control BMPs during project construction, as
described above in Section 4.10.3(a), would minimize erosion during construction. At project completion
the entire modified project site would consist of buildings, hardscape, and landscaping, and thus would not
be susceptible to substantial erosion.
Flood Risks
The inclusion of drainage improvements into the modified project design is intended to prevent flooding
within the modified project from a 100-year flood event (see Figure 4.10-1), and it is not anticipated that
the discharge from the modified project site would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems. Additionally, the inclusion of such drainage improvements is a component of the
development plan within the Approved Project. This would ensure that the drainage infrastructure is
adequate for future development and does not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area. Therefore, modified project impacts would be less than significant, and no changes or new
information would require the preparation of an EIR.
SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.10-10
May 2024
Figure 4.10-1
FEMA FIRM MAP
SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.10-11
May 2024
h)In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
No Impact
The modified project site is located more than 40 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and at elevation
ranging from about 1,389 to 1,425 feet above mean sea level (amsl); thus, project development would not
exacerbate flood hazards due to tsunamis. Furthermore, the site is not close to any significant bodies of
water, except the Victoria Recharge Basin and the San Sevaine Basins (see Figure 4.10-2). However, the
water capacity of these basins is not sufficient to generate a seiche triggered by an earthquake or other
natural phenomena. Modified project development would not exacerbate risks of release of pollutants due
to flooding. Therefore, no new significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no changes or
new information would require the preparation of an EIR.
i)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
No Impact
The water quality control plan (“Basin Plan”) for the Santa Ana Watershed was issued by the Santa Ana
RWQCB in 2019. In the portion of San Bernardino County within the Santa Ana Basin, compliance with the
Basin Plan is implemented through conformance with the MS4 permit and the technical guidance document.
No sustainable groundwater management plan is in effect for the project region. The modified project site
is over the Chino Groundwater Basin. Groundwater withdrawals within the Chino Groundwater Basin are
managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster pursuant to a court judgment.
The San Gabriel Valley Water Company Fontana Division (“Fontana Division”) would provide water to the
modified project site. In 2020, the last year for which data are available, Fontana Division water supplies
comprised about 59 percent groundwater, 25 percent imported water, 15 percent surface water from Lytle
Creek, and 1 percent recycled water (SGVWC, 2021). The modified project would infiltrate all stormwater
originating from the project site from an 85th-percentile storm. Thus, modified project development would
not conflict with a groundwater management plan. Therefore, no new significant adverse impacts are
identified, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of an EIR.
SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.10-12
May 2024
Figure 4.10-2
GROUNDWATER BASINS, SUBBASINS, AND RECHARGE BASINS MAP
SECTION 4.11 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.11-1
May 2024
4.11 Land Use and Planning
4.11.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR) Analysis and
Conclusions
Physically Divide an Established Community (Section 6.0 [F][7], page 6-12 and Initial Study [X][a]:
The Approved Project is not expected to divide an established community because while there are several
developed residential, commercial, and public facility uses within the project vicinity, no established
communities are located within the project area that could be physically divided by Specific Plan
implementation (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.J-6 and Appendix A, Initial Study, p. B-13]).
Previous Approved Project Determination: No Impact
Conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (Impact 4.J-1):
Implementation of the modified project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.J-8]).
The analysis provided in Section J, Land Use and Planning, of the Westgate Specific Plan EIR, concluded that
the Approved Project is in compliance with all relevant policies and specific actions of the City’s General Plan
and with the land use plans, policies and regulations of the City’s Zoning and Development Code. Overall,
future development associated with the Approved Project would be subject to review through the
development application process and would be analyzed by the City to ensure that the development is
consistent with the development regulations and requirements. The Approved Project would not result in
any potentially significant impacts regarding land use consistency, and therefore no mitigation measures
are required (PCR, 2015b, p. 4.J-21).
Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan
(Section 6.0 [F][7], page 6-12 and Initial Study [X][c]: The impacts to this threshold question were
discussed in Section 6.0 of the DEIR and in the Initial Study (included in Appendix A of the DEIR). In Chapter
6.0, it states that the approved project would have no potential to conflict with any Habitat Conservation
Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plans, since no such plans have been prepared for the project
area. As such, no impact would occur in this regard (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 6-12]). The Initial
Study text states the Previously Approved Project would have no impact and refers to Response No. IV.f,
which also states the project would have no potential to conflict with any Habitat Conservation Plan or
Natural Community Conservation Plans, since no such plans have been prepared for the project area.
Therefore, no impact would occur in this regard and further evaluation of this issue in an EIR is not required
(WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, Appendix A, p. 4.J-6 and Initial Study, p. B-13]).
To further support this conclusion of no impact, the following text is from the DEIR (Impact 4.D-6, pp. 4.D-
42 to 43): The northern portion of the study area is within the proposed North Fontana Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) areas, which cover approximately 7.69 acres.
SECTION 4.11 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.11-2
May 2024
As outlined in the North Fontana Interim MSHCP Policy, a tiered development mitigation fee is proposed
for new development in North Fontana based on its potential for supporting sensitive species. However,
the 7.69 acres of habitat within the proposed North Fontana MSHCP comprise Non-Native Grassland, which
is consistent with the mapping provided in the North Fontana Interim MSHCP Policy. Since Non-Native
Grassland is not within the habitat tiers defined under the North Fontana Interim MSHCP Policy, no
significant impacts would occur and no mitigation would be required (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015,
p. 4.D-43]).
Previous Approved Project Determination: No Impact
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: None are required.
4.11.2 Summary of Previous Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
The potential impacts of the modified project and potential impacts on land use have been evaluated in light
of the current environmental regulatory setting. It would be similar to the Approved Project in that it would
have a less than significant land use impact.
4.11.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist responses compare the Approved Project analyzed under the adopted Westgate
Specific Plan FEIR with the modified project as described in this document and analyze the potential
impacts resulting from its implementation.
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impact/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
i)Physically divide an established
community?X
j)Would the project cause a significant
environmental impact due to a conflict
with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
X
a)Would the project physically divide an established community?
No Impact
The modified project site is currently vacant and approximately a 17.5-acre portion of the 964-acre
Westgate Specific Plan area. It is bounded by vacant land opposite San Sevaine Road to the east and
SECTION 4.11 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.11-3
May 2024
South Highland Avenue to the south; a utility corridor to the west; and SR-210 to the north. The project site
is not used for transiting between nearby land uses particularly since the nearby lands are currently vacant.
Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are
required. No new impact would occur.
b)Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
The modified project proposes medical office use; see Section 3.0, Project Description, for further details.
The Approved Project allows for a broad range of business, commercial retail, medical, educational,
entertainment, commercial services, and other complementary uses, on the modified project site. The
proposed medical office use is within the range of uses permitted by the Approved Project under the MU-1
zoning for the modified project site.
The modified project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Fontana General Plan
(WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 1-7]). The General Plan land use designation for the modified project
site is Regional Mixed Use (RMU; see Figure 4.11-1). The modified project zoning designation is the
Westgate Specific Plan, with designations of Mixed-Use 1 (MU-1) (Westgate Specific Plan [JHA Consulting,
2017. p. 3-20]); see Figure 4.11-2.
The modified project has been reviewed for consistency with the City’s General Plan, the Westgate Specific
Plan, and other applicable plans, policies, and regulations, and determined that the modified project would
not conflict with any plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. Furthermore, and as noted in the Approved Project, the project site is not subject to
any state, local, or regional habitat conservation plans or community preservation plans. Therefore, the
impact of the project on land use would be less than significant, and no changes or new information require
the preparation of an EIR.
SECTION 4.11 – LAND USE AND PLANNING
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.11-1
May 2024
Figure 4.11-1
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
SECTION 4.11 – LAND USE AND PLANNING
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.11-2
May 2024
Figure 4.11-2
ZONING DESIGNATION MAP
SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.12-1
May 2024
4.12 Mineral Resources
4.12.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR) Analysis
and Conclusions
Mineral Resources (Section 6.0 [F][8], page 6-12 and Initial Study [XI][a and b]): The Westgate
Specific Plan FEIR stated that no known local mineral resources and no known State-designated mineral
resource areas have been identified within the Approved Project site. Therefore, the approved project
would have no impact regarding mineral resources (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 6-12 and
Appendix A, Initial Study, pp. B-13 to B-14]).
Approved Project Determination: No Impact.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: None Required.
4.12.2 Summary of Approved Project Modified Project Impacts
Modified project development would not cause any impacts on mineral resources (see the analysis below
in Section 4.11.3), as was determined for the Approved Project.
4.12.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist responses compare the Previous Approved Project analyzed under the adopted
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR with the modified project as described in this document.
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
a)Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
X
b)Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
X
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?
and
SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.12-2
May 2024
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 modified project site is located in Mineral Resource Zone-2 (MRZ-2) mapped by the California
Geological Survey, which are areas known to or likely to contain significant aggregate mineral resources
(CGS, 2008; refer to Figure 4.12-1). The modified project site is surrounded by land uses incompatible with
mining—residential uses, a utility easement, and roadways—and is thus unavailable for mining. The utility
easements next to the modified project site are unavailable for mining due to the presence of underground
utility mains (water and natural gas) and overhead electric transmission lines. Additionally, as mentioned
in the Westgate Specific Plan FEIR, it was determined that no impacts would occur to mineral resources as
a result of Approved Project development. No known deposits of precious gemstones, ores, or unique or
rare minerals have been identified within the Approved Project Area (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015,
p. 6-12]).
The City of Fontana General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element omits mineral resource
conservation because no active sand and gravel mines are within city limits and no new mines had been
proposed for the City. In addition, it is expected that any proposed mine would be vigorously opposed due
to anticipated conflicts with existing land uses (City of Fontana, 2018a, p. 7.6)
According to the Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), no
active or idle oil or gas wells are present within the city; only plugged wells. The closest active oil and gas
well is located 13 miles to the north; see Figure 4.12-2. Additionally, no geothermal wells exist within the
City; the nearest active geothermal well is 12 miles to the east (refer to Figure 4.12-3).
Thus, modified project development would not cause any impact to the availability of mineral resources.
SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.12-3
May 2024
Figure 4.12-1
MINERAL RESOURCES
SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.12-4
May 2024
Figure 4.12-2
OIL AND GAS WELLS
SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.12-5
May 2024
Figure 4.12-3
GEOTHERMAL WELLS
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.13-2
May 2024
4.13 Noise
4.13.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR) Analysis
and Conclusions
Violation of Noise Standards (Impact 4.K-1): Implementation of the Approved Project could significantly
impact adjacent noise-sensitive receptors in the project area. Implementation of the prescribed mitigation
measures [see below] would ensure that potentially significant noise impacts to onsite sensitive uses are
reduced to a less than significant level. However, noise impacts on sensitive receivers from offsite traffic
noise would be significant and unavoidable (PCR, 2015, p. 4.K-18).
The significance threshold for this impact was:
Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
For this threshold, the Westgate Specific Plan FEIR analyzed offsite roadway noise. Daily traffic volumes
estimated elsewhere in the FEIR were used in conjunction with a traffic noise model to estimate community
noise equivalent (CNEL) values along 29 roadway segments throughout the Westgate Specific Plan area.
Five scenarios were modeled: existing traffic; future (2018) traffic without Approved Project Phase I traffic;
buildout year (2038) traffic without Approved Project buildout traffic; future traffic with Approved Project
Phase I traffic; and buildout year with Approved Project buildout traffic. For all these scenarios, the
increment in CNEL due to the project was estimated.
In Phase 1, Approved Project-related traffic would increase offsite residential exposures along certain
segments by up to 5.3 dBA CNEL. At buildout, Approved Project-related traffic would increase offsite
residential exposures by 3.2 to 4.4 dBA CNEL (PCR, 2015, p. 4.K-24). Because the City of Fontana does not
have a statutory threshold for the significance of traffic noise impacts, the FEIR uses a conservative
threshold of 3 dBA CNEL, which is an increase perceivable by humans (PCR, 2015, p. 4.K-17).
Approved Project Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
Groundborne Noise and Vibration (Impact 4.K-2): Construction and operation of future land uses under
the proposed Specific Plan would produce groundborne noise and vibration. However, vibration velocities
would not exceed allowable levels at the nearest vibration sensitive uses. Thus, construction-related and
operational vibration impacts would be less than significant.
The significance threshold for this impact was:
Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
To evaluate the significance of groundborne vibration and noise from the Approved Project, the FEIR
estimated vibration velocities in five residential neighborhoods within 50 feet of construction activities for
the Approved Project site. The significance levels used were 0.5 inch per second for damage to residential
structures and 0.04 inch per second for human annoyance. The estimated
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.13-3
May 2024
vibration exposure for the nearest residences was 0.031 inch per second, which is below both criteria (PCR,
2015, p. 4.K-27). Thus, vibration impacts during construction would be less than significant.
For the Approved Project’s operational phase, vibration sources would include typical residential and
commercial-grade stationary mechanical and electrical equipment such as air handling units, condenser
units, exhaust fans, and electrical emergency power generators, which would produce vibration.
Ground-borne vibration generated by each of the abovementioned activities would be similar to the
vibration generated by existing sources (i.e., traffic on adjacent roadways) in the project area. The potential
vibration impacts from all proposed project sources at the closest structure locations would be less than
the significance threshold 0.04 inches per second peak particle velocity (PPV) for perceptibility. Therefore,
vibration impacts associated with operation of the project would be below the significance threshold and
impacts would be less than significant (PCR, 2015, p. 4.K-27).
Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Permanent Noise Level Increases (Impact 4.K-3): Project implementation would have a minimal effect
on the existing noise environment adjacent to the project area. Thus, long-term noise impacts would be less
than significant.
The significance threshold for this impact was:
Would the project have a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project above levels existing without the project?
Future residents of the Westgate Specific Plan area would generate and would be exposed to onsite noise
sources typical of residential neighborhoods. The same types of noise generation and exposure would occur
in offsite residential areas near the Approved Project site (PCR, 2015, p. 4.K-27).
Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Temporary Noise Level Increases (Impact 4.K-4): Construction activities associated with project
implementation would be conducted within the allowable hours specified in the City’s Municipal Code.
Compliance with the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code would ensure that construction noise
impacts are less than significant.
The significance threshold for this impact was:
Would the project have a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
The FEIR presents a generalized analysis of construction noise impacts, listing typical types of construction
equipment, their reference noise levels at 50 feet, and their estimated usage factors.20 Using “worst-case”
assumptions, such as the concentration of construction equipment at the site b
20 Usage factors are fractions of the time that given types of equipment are actually generating noise. In the FEIR analysis, they
range from 10% to 50%.
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.13-4
May 2024
oundary, near sensitive receptors, results in estimated exposures of about 85 to 88 dBA hourly Leq.21 These
levels are considerably higher than the measured short-term ambient noise levels in surrounding
residential areas (PCR, 2015, p. 4.K-12). However, construction activities would be required to comply with
the City’s allowable hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays
(Fontana Municipal Code Section 18-63[7]) and would be temporary in nature. Since temporary
construction noise is exempt from the City’s noise ordinance requirements,22 construction-related noise
would result in a less than significant noise impact (PCR, 2015, p. 4.K-30).
Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:23
No. Mitigation Measure
K-1
Prior to approval of design review permits for sensitive uses, such as residential uses, libraries,
daycare facilities, neighborhood parks and playgrounds, planned for areas forecasted to exceed an
exterior noise level of 65 CNEL (based on Table 4.K-13 of this Draft EIR), the following shall occur.
a)An acoustical analysis shall be performed for residential structures to ensure that interior noise
levels due to exterior sources would be at or below 45 [dBA] CNEL. For these residential use
areas, it may be necessary for the windows to be able to remain closed to ensure that interior noise
levels meet the interior design standard of 45 [dBA] CNEL. Consequently the design for these
units may need to include mechanical ventilation or air conditioning systems to provide a habitable
interior environment with the windows closed based on the results of the interior acoustical
analysis.
b)To reduce exterior noise levels to 65 [dBA] CNEL or lower at outdoor sensitive uses (i.e.,
residential courtyards, parks, and passive recreation areas), a combination of sound barrier walls,
earthen berms, and landscaping shall be designed and implemented by a qualified acoustical
consultant. Alternatively, outdoor uses shall be located behind buildings (not facing traffic
corridors) in a manner that shields outdoor sensitive uses from roadway noise and reduces the
exterior noise level to 65 [dBA] CNEL or below.
c)Prior to occupancy of residential uses in Planning Areas 2, 6, and 8, the project applicant shall
construct a 20‐foot‐high sound wall or equivalent physical barrier at the residential property line
along the east side of the I‐15 Freeway in order to reduce mobile‐source noise to acceptable levels.
The specific type and design of the physical barrier to be employed at this location shall be
determined by the results of the design‐specific acoustical analysis noted above.
d)Prior to occupancy of proposed residential uses in Planning Areas 24 and 26, the project applicant
shall construct a 15‐foot‐high sound wall or equivalent physical barrier at the residential property
line along the north side of the Route 210 Freeway in order to reduce mobile‐source noise to
acceptable levels. The specific type and design of the physical barrier to be employed at this
location shall be determined by the results of the design‐specific acoustical analysis noted above.
21 Leq, the equivalent noise level, is an average of sound level over a defined time period, such as one hour. The Leq of a time-
varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure.
22 City of Fontana Municipal Code, §18-63(a)(7).
23 PCR, 2015, pp. ES 53-55.
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.13-5
May 2024
4.13.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
The modified project’s potential noise impacts have been evaluated considering the present environmental
regulatory setting. The modified project—two medical office buildings—would be compatible with the
Westgate SP. The modified project site is a very small portion of the 964-acre Approved Project site.
Therefore, impacts of modified project development would be similar to those of the previous Approved
Project and no additional significant impacts beyond those identified for the previous Approved Project
would occur.
4.13.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist responses compare the previous Approved Project analyzed under the adopted
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR with the modified project as described in this document, and analyzes the
potential impacts resulting from the development of the Modified Project.
Would the project result in:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing Ability
to Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
a)Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise level in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b)Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X
c)A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
X
d)A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
X
4.13.3.1 Existing Noise
Existing conditions are similar to those of 2017 when the Approved Project EIR was certified. The project
site and surroundings consist of vacant land opposite San Sevaine Road to the east and South Highland
Avenue to the south; a utility corridor to the west; and SR-210 to the north. The nearest sensitive receptors
to noise are residences to the southeast opposite the intersection of San Sevaine
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.13-6
May 2024
Road and South Highland Avenue, the same as existed in 2017. The primary noise source near the project
site is the SR-210 freeway.
4.13.3.2 Regulatory Setting
There have been no changes to federal, state or municipal noise laws or regulations applicable to the
modified project since adoption of the Approved Project FEIR.
4.13.3.3 Evaluation of Impacts
a)Would the project expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
No Changes or New Information
The modified project would include construction activities and operating characteristics similar to those
described for the Westgate Specific Plan area in the latter’s FEIR, albeit at a much smaller scale.
Construction would not include exceptionally noisy equipment, such as impact pile drivers, as they are
excluded by the Specific Plan. To estimate construction noise impact on the surrounding community,
exposures at three nearby sensitive receivers, all single-family residences, were estimated by methods
prescribed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA, 2018, Section 7.1). Table 4.13-1 lists the sensitive
receivers and gives their distances from the project boundary.24
Table 4.13-1
SENSITIVE RECEIVERS FOR CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
No.Location
Distance
(feet)
SR-1 Directly east of project site, across San Sevaine Road 385
SR-2 Southeast corner of San Sevaine Road and South Highland
Avenue 148
SR-3 Southeast corner of San Sevaine Road and Preston Drive 609
Types and populations of construction equipment for each construction phase (site clearance, grading,
building construction, etc.) were estimated by the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod)
(CAPCOA, 2022), which was used to calculate criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions. Being the
closest sensitive receiver to the construction activity, SR-1 would ordinarily have the highest noise
exposure, However, a seven-foot-high concrete block wall shields its location 25
24 The distances used in the noise exposure calculations were from the centers of onsite construction activity to outdoor areas
on each property where residents would spend time.
25 Leq, the equivalent noise level, is an average of sound level over a defined time period (such as 1 minute, 15 minutes, 1 hour or
24 hours). Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy
to the ear during exposure.
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.13-7
May 2024
from noise from the west. Hourly average exposures at the unshielded sensitive receivers would range from
50.8 to 56.3 dBA Leq, which is typical for residential neighborhoods. A frequently used significance
threshold for construction noise is 80 dBA Leq (FTA, 2018, p. 179). Therefore, construction noise would be
less than significant, Furthermore, the argument that construction activities during certain hours are exempt
from Municipal Code requirements (Fontana Municipal Code Section 18-63[7]), which was advanced in the
Approved Project FEIR, applies equally to the modified project. Therefore, there would be no change to the
FEIR’s conclusion of a less than significant impact from construction.
The traffic generated by the modified project would increase over the amount estimated for the Approved Project
development within the modified project site. The traffic study for the Approved Project estimated that 3,474 trips
would be generated by the land uses in PA27 (Crawford et al., 2013, p. 26). According to the latest edition of the
ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition), the weekday daily rate for Land Use 720: Medical-Dental Office
Building (Stand-Alone) is 36.00 per 1,000 square feet. Using this trip generation rate and the 208,000-square-foot
building area results in an estimate of 7,488 trips per day (Tucker, 2024). Since traffic noise generation is
approximately proportional to traffic volume, noise exposures to residential receivers in the project area, such as
those on San Sevaine Road and Highland Avenue would be higher than those estimated for the Approved project.
The certified Westgate SP EIR (PCR, 2015, pp. 4.K-36 and 4.K-37) found that “off-site traffic-related noise
impacts would be significant and unavoidable for the existing residential uses in the surrounding area since no
additional mitigation measures would be feasible (i.e., sound walls are already in place).” In addition, the
Approved Project would contribute to a cumulative impact that is significant and unavoidable. The proposed
project’s traffic noise impacts therefore would not change conclusions regarding the significance of mobile source
noise.
b)Would the project expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
No Changes or New Information
It is expected that groundborne vibration from the modified project’s construction activities would cause
only intermittent, localized intrusion. The project’s construction activities most likely to cause vibration
impacts are:
Heavy Construction Equipment: Although all heavy, mobile construction equipment has the potential
of causing at least some perceptible vibration while operating close to buildings, the vibration is usually
short-term and is not of sufficient magnitude to cause building damage. It is not expected that heavy
equipment such as large bulldozers would operate close enough to any sensitive receivers to cause
vibration impact.
Trucks: Trucks hauling building materials to construction sites can be sources of vibration intrusion if
the haul routes pass through residential neighborhoods on streets with bumps or potholes. Repairing the
bumps and potholes almost always eliminates the problem.
SECTION 4.13 – NOISE
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.13-8
May 2024
As discussed in Section 4.13.1, the Approved Project FEIR analyzed vibration impact to nearby sensitive
receptors during both construction and operational phases, and concluded that impacts would be less than
significant. Construction of the modified project will not use major sources of groundborne vibration or
noise, such as impact pile drivers. It will therefore not add any new impacts or intensify those from the
Approved Project. Impacts would be less than significant.
c)Would the project cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
No Changes or New Information
As discussed in Section 4.13.1, the Approved Project FEIR concluded that future residents of the Westgate
Specific Plan area would generate and would be exposed to onsite noise sources typical of residential
neighborhoods. The same types of noise generation and exposure would occur in offsite residential areas
near the Approved Project site. Because the modified project would conform to the Westgate Specific Plan,
and would neither generate nor be exposed to substantially different noise sources than those evaluated by
the Westgate Specific Plan EIR, the project covered by this addendum would not cause a substantial increase
in ambient noise level in its vicinity. Operational noise generation by the modified project—both traffic
noise and stationary mechanical noise—would be reduced compared to that of Approved Project
development on the modified project site due to the reduction in building area. Impacts would be less than
significant.
d)Would the project cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
No Changes or New Information
Construction activities for the modified project would comply with the City’s allowable hours of 7:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays (City of Fontana Municipal Code, Section
18-63[7]). and would be temporary in nature. In addition, construction noise generation by the modified
project would be lower compared to that of the Approved Project on the modified project site due to the
reduced construction effort. Thus, impacts on noise levels in the project vicinity would be less than
significant.
SECTION 4.14 - POPULATION AND HOUSING
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.14-1
May 2024
4.14 Population and Housing
4.14.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR) Analysis
and Conclusions
Induce Substantial Population Growth (Impact 4.L-1): The Approved Project would increase the
population and housing in the city by approximately 21,478 people and 5,410 homes. Approved Project
buildout is estimated to generate 3,485 jobs consisting of 2,330 jobs by office uses, 145 by retail uses, 651
by light industrial uses, and 359 from schools. It is expected that population and housing in the city would
increase by 66,100 people and 18,100 homes by 2035; and that employment in the city would increase by
21,400 jobs by 2035 (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.L-8]). Therefore, Approved Project
development would not exceed the forecasted population, housing, or employment growth for the city and
impacts would be less than significant.
Approved Westgate Specific Plan Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Displace Existing People or Housing ( Section 6.0 [F][10], page 6-13 and Initial Study [XIII][b and c]):
There are no existing housing or residents on the project site. Therefore, Approved Project development
would not displace existing housing or people (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 6-13 and Appendix A,
Initial Study, p. B-15]).
Approved Westgate Specific Plan Determination: No Impact.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: None Required.
4.14.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
The modified project’s potential impacts on population and housing have been evaluated in light of the
present environmental regulatory setting. The modified project would develop two medical office buildings
with 208,000 total square feet of building area. The two medical office buildings are estimated to generate
200 jobs. The medical office use proposed in the modified project is within the range of uses permitted in
PA 27 by the Approved Project. Therefore, the 200 jobs that would be generated by modified project
operation are within the estimate of 3,485 jobs in the entire WSP. The Modified project does not propose
development of housing. No new impact would occur.
4.14.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist responses compare the Approved Project analyzed with the modified project as
described in this document, and analyze the potential impacts resulting from the modified project.
SECTION 4.14 - POPULATION AND HOUSING
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.14-2
May 2024
Would the project:
New Information
Showing New or
Increased Effects
Compared to the
Certified
Westgate Specific
Plan FEIR
New Information
Showing Ability to
Reduce, but Not
Eliminate Effects
Compared to the
Certified
Westgate Specific
Plan FEIR
Less than Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of an
MND or EIR
No
Impact
a)Induce substantial 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)?
X
b)Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
X
c)Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
X
a)Would the project induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads
or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
The modified project would develop two medical office buildings with 208,000 total square feet of building
area. The employment density estimate used in the Certified EIR was 2,417,403 square feet of office uses
generating 2,330 jobs, for an average of 1,038 square feet per job. Therefore, the two medical office
buildings are estimated to generate 200 jobs. PA 27 was designated for MU-1 zoning in the WSP, permitting
a broad range of business, commercial retail, medical, educational, entertainment, and commercial services.
The medical office use proposed in the modified project is within the range of land uses permitted in PA 27
by the WSP. Therefore, the 200 jobs that would be generated by modified project operation are within the
estimate of 3,485 jobs in the entire WSP. No new impact would occur.
Modified project development would not cause any new indirect operational impact on housing growth
(that is, employment onsite inducing households to move into the city of Fontana), because modified project
employment would be within employment estimated for the Approved Project.
Modified project construction would not cause a new significant employment impact for the same reason—
modified project construction would be part of construction of the entire WSP analyzed in the Certified EIR.
SECTION 4.14 - POPULATION AND HOUSING
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.14-3
May 2024
b)Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact
The modified project site is vacant and does not have any existing housing. Therefore, no new impact would
occur.
c)Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact
There are no existing residents on the modified project site. Therefore, the modified project would not
displace people and would not require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No new impact
would occur.
SECTION 4.15 - PUBLIC SERVICES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.15-1
May 2024
4.15 Public Services
4.15.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR) Analysis
and Conclusions.
Fire Protection (Impact 4.M-1):
Fire Protection Services and Facilities: The Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD) provides fire
protection and emergency medical services to the city of Fontana, and to areas of the unincorporated San
Bernardino County within the city of Fontana Sphere of Influence, under contract between the City of
Fontana and the San Bernardino County Fire Department. Future development occurring under the
Approved Project may create impacts on fire and emergency medical services. Fire stations 79, 78, and the
relocated/upgraded Fire Station 73 would enhance the ability of FFPD/SBCFD to provide fire protection
and emergency medical services within the
Approved Project boundaries in the long-term. The approved project would not require the provision of
new or physically altered fire protection facilities, and therefore project-related impacts to fire protection
facilities would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.M-13-4.M-14]).
All development projects in accordance with the Approved Project would be required to pay the City’s
Development Fee for fire facilities ($164.00 per residential dwelling unit, $0.25 per square foot of
commercial development, and $0.10 per square foot of industrial development). These fees would be
utilized to fund additional services and improvements that may be determined to be required to provide
adequate fire protection to the Approved Project (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.M-14]).
Upon the implementation of the Approved Project FEIR Mitigation Measures M-1 through M-3 and the
payment of applicable developer fees for fire facilities, impacts would be less than significant (WSP Draft
EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.M-14]).
Fire Flow: Additional FFPD review of project engineering plans would be necessary to ensure that adequate
fire flows are achieved. With FFPD plan review to ensure that adequate water pressure would be provided,
impacts related to fire flow would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.M-14-
4.M-15]).
Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
No.Mitigation Measure
M-1 The City shall maintain an average fire response time of 4 to 5 minutes. [GP EIR MM FS-1].
M-2 The City shall continue to maintain an ISO fire rating of Class 3. [GP EIR MM FS-2].
M-3 The City shall ensure that new fire stations are built in areas of new development so that response
times are not eroded. [GP EIR MM FS-3].
Source: WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.M-27 – 4.M-28].
SECTION 4.15 - PUBLIC SERVICES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.15-2
May 2024
Police Protection (Impact 4.M-2):
The Fontana Police Department (FPD) provides law enforcement service to the city. Public safety
improvements, such as street lighting, roadway improvements, and enhanced site design requirements
would be implemented as part of the proposed Specific Plan, and it is unlikely that any individual future
project or even the buildout of the entire Approved Project would result in the need to construct new police
facilities. The City currently collects Development Fees on behalf of the Police Department in the amounts
of $526.52 per single-family dwelling unit, $710.80 per multi-family dwelling unit, $0.526 per square foot
of commercial development, and $0.131 per square foot of industrial development. These fees would be
utilized to fund additional police services and improvements that may be determined to be required to
provide adequate police protection for the Approved Project. Upon the implementation of the
recommended mitigation measures and payment of developer fees, impacts related to police projection
would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.M-16]).
Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
No.Mitigation Measure
M-4 The City shall continue to work towards a ratio of 1.4 sworn officers per 1,000 residents. [GP EIR MM
P-1].
M-5 The Fontana Police Department shall continue to expand its Area Commander Program to more
effectively serve specific areas of the City. [GP EIR MM P-2].
M-6 The Fontana Police Department shall expand its Contact Stations to more effectively serve outlying
areas. [GPEIR MM P-3].
M-7 The Fontana Police Department shall continue its School Resource Officer Program on all current and
future middle school campuses. [GP EIR MM P-4].
M-8 The Fontana Police Department shall continue its extensive volunteer crime prevention programs,
including Citizen Volunteers, Explorers, Citizens on Patrol, Neighborhood Watch, Police Reserves, and
Community Emergency. [GP EIR MM P-5].
M-9 The Fontana Police Department shall continue its bilingual incentive program to more effectively
serve the Latino community more. [GP EIR MM P-6].
M-10 The City shall maintain an average police and fire response time of 4 to 5 minutes. [GP EIR MM P-7].
M-11 The City shall continue to promote the establishment of Neighborhood Watch programs in residential
neighborhoods, aimed at encouraging neighborhoods to form associations to patrol or watch for any
suspicious activity. [GP EIR MM P-8]
M-12 The City shall incorporate appropriate staffing levels in the annual
budget process keyed to City growth in population and employment. [GP EIR MM P-9]
Source: WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.M-28].
Schools (Impact 4.M-3): The Approved Project site is within the Etiwanda School District and the Chaffey
Joint Union High School District. The Approved Project would generate population growth and associated
demands for schools.
SECTION 4.15 - PUBLIC SERVICES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.15-3
May 2024
School facilities are either available, planned, or under construction within the Approved Project area and
would have sufficient capacity to handle additional numbers of students generated by development in the
Approved Project Area. More specifically, the Westgate Specific Plan includes the development of three
school sites within the project boundaries, including two elementary schools and one high school.
To reduce the potential effects of future development on the City’s ability to provide public education
services, all future development projects within the Approved Project area would be required to pay school
impact fees in effect at the time of development. (SB 50, 2019), SB 50 permits school districts to levy a fee,
charge, dedication, or other requirements against any development project within its boundaries, to fund
the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. SB 50 also sets the maximum level of fees a developer
may be required to pay. Pursuant to the Government Code Section 65995, the payment of these fees by a
developer serves to mitigate all potential impacts on school facilities that may result from the
implementation of a project. Accordingly, the Approved Project’s impact on public school facilities would
be less than significant with the implementation of Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures M-13
through M-18 (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.M-16 - 4.M-17-4.M]).
Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
No.Mitigation Measure
M-13 Planning and development in the City shall continue to be integrated with the needs of school districts
for new facilities. [GP EIR MM S-1].
M-14 The City shall continue to support local school districts in their efforts to obtain additional funding
sources, including special assessment districts and supplementary state and federal funding. [GP EIR
MM S-2].
M-15 The City shall establish and maintain effective joint-use agreements with school districts serving the
community to achieve optimum, cost effective use of school facilities. [GP EIR MM S-3].
M-16 The City shall continue to withhold building permits until verification that applicable school fees have
been collected by the appropriate school district. [GP EIR MM S-4]
M-17 The City shall collaborate with school districts in designing adjacent school/recreation facilities to
achieve maximum usability and cost-effectiveness for both the City and the school districts. [GP EIR
MM S-5].
M-18 The City shall collaborate with school districts in expanding educational opportunities and programs
that benefit from City facilities. [GP EIR MM S-6].
Source: WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.M-28 – 4.M-29]
Parks and Recreation (Impact 4.M-4): The Approved Project area is served on a local level by the City’s
Community Services and Recreation Department and on a regional level by the County’s Regional Parks
Department. Although no City parks are currently located within project boundaries, the Approved Project
includes an extensive network of public and private parks, open spaces, trails, and various pedestrian and
bicycle facilities. Specifically, the Westgate Specific Plan includes ten planning areas, totaling 47.8 acres,
designated for public parks (OS/P1), and 14 planning areas, totaling 9.15 acres designated for private parks
(OS/P2). In addition to these onsite recreational facilities, residents would also have limited use of
school-related recreational facilities and sports
SECTION 4.15 - PUBLIC SERVICES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.15-4
May 2024
leagues through existing joint-use agreements with ESD and CJUHSD, and potential future agreements for
onsite school facilities.
The City currently collects Development Fees to fund new and expanded public facilities, including parks
and recreational facilities, in the amount of $796.26 per single-family residential unit, $358.32 per
multi-family residential unit, and $0.398 per square foot of commercial and industrial development. These
fees would be utilized to fund additional services and improvements that may be determined to be required
to provide adequate parks and recreational facilities to serve the Specific Plan area. Although such fees may
be utilized to fund the construction or expansion of additional parks and recreational facilities to serve
future development, the nature and location of such facilities is not known at this time, and as such
evaluation of the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of these facilities
is not currently possible. However, as is the case for future development within the Specific Plan area,
individual projects (including parks and recreational facilities) would be subject to future environmental
review, as determined necessary and appropriate by the City, in order to evaluate the specific impacts at a
level of detail not possible in this Draft EIR. Additionally, mitigation measures M-19 through M-25 would
be implemented, as appropriate, to ensure that impacts are minimized. As such, with implementation of
applicable mitigation measures and payment of required Development Fees to support City public facilities,
impacts related to parks and recreation would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015,
pp. 4.M-16 - 4.M-17]).
Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
No.Mitigation Measure
M-19 A wide variety of parks and recreation facilities, including regional, community, neighborhood and
sub-neighborhood parks, shall be provided throughout the City. [GPEIR MM PR-1].
M-20 The design of all parks shall meet the particular needs of the specialized populations they serve, such
as seniors, young adults, families, and children. [GPEIR MM PR-2].
M-21 Barrier-free access to all parks shall be provided. [GPEIR MM PR-3].
M-22 The park standards for the City shall be two acres per thousand residents for community parks and
three acres per thousand for neighborhood parks. [GPEIR MM PR-4].
M-23 Each park within the City shall provide a variety of activity options for users, including active and
passive uses. [GPEIR MM PR-5].
M-24 The City shall reevaluate the design of each of its parks as part of the periodic update of its Parks,
Recreation, and Trails Master Plan. [GPEIR MM PR-6].
M-25 Each park within the City shall be evaluated for safety on a periodic basis. [GPEIR MM PR-7].
Source: WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. M.4-29]
Other Public Services - Libraries (Impact 4.M-5):
Two San Bernardino County Library facilities in the site vicinity serve the project area: Summit Branch
Library, located on the campus of Summit High School, adjacent to the project site boundaries
SECTION 4.15 - PUBLIC SERVICES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.15-5
May 2024
at 15551 Summit Avenue; and Fontana Lewis Library and Technology Center, located approximately 3.5
miles southeast of the project site at 8437 Sierra Avenue.
Library facilities impact fees are collected by the city from new construction projects and would be imposed
on any new project within the Approved Project area. In addition, as development occurs in the Approved
Project area, the City-collected library fees would fund new improvements to either expand existing library
services in the vicinity or construct new facilities as required. Thus, upon payment of the required fees, any
impact would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.M-6 – 4.M-7]).
Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
No.Mitigation Measure
M-26 The City shall continue to coordinate its library services with surrounding school districts. [GP EIR
MM LS-2]
M-27 The City shall evaluate methods of expanding library services through staffing strategies, technical
advancements and facilities design. [GP EIR MM LS-3]
Source: WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. M.4-29]
4.15.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts.
Fire Protection and Police Protection Services
Demands for fire protection and police protection are generated by the population and the total building
area in the respective agencies’ service areas. The modified project proposes medical office uses that are
within both the land use types and intensity permitted on the modified project site by the WSP. Therefore,
demands for fire and police protection that would be generated by modified project development would be
within those demands generated by WSP development. Developers would pay fees to fund additional
services and improvements that may be determined to be required to provide adequate fire protection to
the Westgate Specific Plan area. Therefore, regarding fire and police protection services, impacts 4.M-1 and
4.M-2 through M-3 due to modified project development would be similar to those of the Approved Project
and no new impacts would occur.
Schools, Parks, and Libraries
Demands for schools are generated by the numbers of households in the schools’ service areas, and
demands for parks and libraries are generated by the population in the facilities’ service areas. The modified
project proposes medical office uses within the range and intensity of uses in the modified project site
analyzed in the Certified EIR, and does not propose development of housing. Therefore, modified project
development would not generate demands for schools, parks, or libraries, and no impacts beyond those
identified in the Certified EIR would occur.
SECTION 4.15 - PUBLIC SERVICES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.15-6
May 2024
4.15.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusion
The following checklist responses compare the Approved Project analyzed under the adopted Westgate
Specific Plan FEIR with the Modified project as described in this document and analyzes the potential
impacts resulting from modified project development.
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
a)Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services:
1)Fire protection?X
2)Police protection?X
3)Schools?X
4)Parks?X
5)Other public facilities? X
a)Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information
The modified project implements a portion of the Approved Project. The impacts of the Approved Project
on fire protection and emergency medical services were determined to be less than significant. Mitigation
measures M-1 through M-3 were identified in the Westgate Specific Plan FEIR concerning this issue, which
was programmatic and not specific to any incremental development within the Westgate Specific Plan
project area. The developers would be required to pay the City’s development fee for fire facilities, and
funding would provide additional services and improvements necessary for the project. Thus, modified
project development would not generate impacts on fire protection and emergency medical services
exceeding those analyzed in the Certified EIR and no new mitigation measures would be required.
b)Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information
The modified project implements a portion of the Approved Project. The impacts of the Approved Project
on police protection were determined to be less than significant with the implementation of
SECTION 4.15 - PUBLIC SERVICES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.15-7
May 2024
mitigation measures. Mitigation measures M-4 through M-12 were identified in the Westgate Specific Plan
FEIR concerning this issue which was programmatic and not specific to any incremental development
within the project area. Demands for police services are generated by both the population and the total
building area in the police agency’s service area. The modified project proposes 208,000 square feet of
medical office uses that are within both the types and intensity of land use proposed for the modified project
site in the WSP. Thus, modified project development would not generate demands for police services
exceeding those that would be generated by development of the WSP. The City currently collects
development fees on behalf of the Police Department, and those fees would be utilized to fund additional
police services and improvements that may be determined to be required to provide adequate police
protection for the Westgate Specific Plan area. Therefore, no new impact to police protection would occur
and no new mitigation measures would be required.
c)Schools?
No Impact/No Change or New Information
Demands for school facilities are generated by the number of households in the facilities’ service areas. The
modified project proposes medical office use and would not involve development of housing. Therefore,
modified project development would not generate demand for schools. No new impact would occur.
d)Parks?
No Impact/No Change or New Information
Demands for parks are generated by the population within the parks’ service areas. The modified project
proposes medical office use and would not involve development of housing. Therefore, modified project
development would not generate demand for parks. No new impact would occur.
e)Other public facilities?
Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information
Demands for libraries are generated by the population within the libraries’ service areas. The modified
project proposes medical office use and would not involve development of housing. Therefore, modified
project development would not generate demand for libraries. No new impact would occur.
SECTION 4.16 - RECREATION
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.16-1
May 2024
4.16 Recreation
4.16.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR) Analysis
and Conclusions
Parks and Recreation (Impact 4.M-4): Approved Project buildout is estimated to add 28,908 persons to the
Approved Project site. The City of Fontana’s parkland standard is five acres of parkland per 1,000 people.
Therefore, Approved Project development would generate a demand for approximately 144.54 acres of
parkland. The Approved Project proposed 47.8 acres of public parks and 9.15 acres of private parks, for a
total of 56.95 acres of parks. Therefore, the Approved Project would generate unmet demand for 87.59
acres of parks. Projects developed in accordance with the Approved Project would pay development fees to
the City of Fontana. In addition. mitigation measures from the City’s 2003 General Plan EIR would be
implemented as appropriate to ensure impacts are minimized. This impact is considered less than
significant with mitigation incorporated (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.M-16 - 4.M-17]).
Approved Project Determination: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
No.Mitigation Measure
M-19 A wide variety of parks and recreation facilities, including regional, community, neighborhood and
sub-neighborhood parks, shall be provided throughout the City. [GPEIR MM PR-1].
M-20 The design of all parks shall meet the particular needs of the specialized populations they serve, such
as seniors, young adults, families, and children. [GPEIR MM PR-2].
M-21 Barrier-free access to all parks shall be provided. [GPEIR MM PR-3].
M-22 The park standards for the City shall be two acres per thousand residents for community parks and
three acres per thousand for neighborhood parks. [GPEIR MM PR-4].
M-23 Each park within the City shall provide a variety of activity options for users, including active and
passive uses. [GPEIR MM PR-5].
M-24 The City shall reevaluate the design of each of its parks as part of the periodic update of its Parks,
Recreation, and Trails Master Plan. [GPEIR MM PR-6].
M-25 Each park within the City shall be evaluated for safety on a periodic basis. [GPEIR MM PR-7].
Source: WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. M.4-29]
4.16.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
The modified project proposes development of medical office uses, implementing the WSP within the
modified project site (PA 27). Demands for parks are generated by the population in the parks’ service
areas. The modified project does not propose development of housing and thus would not generate demand
for parks. No new impact would occur.
SECTION 4.16 - RECREATION
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.16-2
May 2024
4.16.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist responses compare the previous Approved Project analyzed under the adopted
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR with the modified project as described in this document, and analyzes the
potential impacts resulting from the development of the project.
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New or
Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing Ability
to Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New Information
Requiring the
Preparation of an
MND or EIR
No
Impact
a)Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b)Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
X
a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
The modified project proposes medical office uses totaling 208,000 square feet in building area. The
proposed uses are within the range of land use types, and land use intensity, proposed for PA 27 by the
WSP. Demands for parks are generated by the population in the parks’ service areas. The modified project
does not propose development of housing and thus would not generate demand for parks. No new impact
would occur.
b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
The modified project does not propose recreational facilities. No additional impact would occur.
SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-1
May 2024
4.17 Transportation and Traffic
4.17.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR) Analysis
and Conclusions
The CEQA Guidelines were revised in 2019 (effective 2020) and include a new separate discussion for
vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Although not addressed as a separate threshold, the FEIR analyzed VMT as
part of air quality and GHG modeling. The FEIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would
result in significant and unavoidable impacts relative to air quality for both short and long-term air quality
as well as consistency with the AQMP. Cumulative air quality impacts associated with operation of the
Approved Project would also remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation (WSP Draft EIR [PCR
Services, 2015, p. 4.C-72]). The Approved Project would have less than significant impacts with mitigation
incorporated relative to GHG emissions for both project-level and cumulative impacts (WSP Draft EIR [PCR
Services, 2015, p. 4.G-28]). VMT is discussed further below in Sections 4.17.2 and 4.17.3.
Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including
mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including
but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit (Impact 4.N-1): Implementation of the Approved Project under Existing Plus Project, Phase 1
(Year 2018), and Buildout (Year 2035) conditions would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. With implementation of mitigation measures
and/or payment of fair-share contributions for necessary traffic system improvements, this impact was
considered less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-16; PCR, 2015b, p. 3-29]).
Construction Impacts
Construction of each specific development phase within the various Westgate Specific Planning Areas
would commence with a site clearing stage. The next stage would involve on- and off-site infrastructure
improvements, utility connections, site clearance, grading and site preparation, followed by construction of
structures (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-16]).
Construction trips associated with trucks and employees traveling to and from the site in the morning and
afternoon would result in some minor traffic delays on local streets in the area; potential traffic interference
caused by construction vehicles would create a temporary impact to vehicles using the street system in the
immediate area in the morning and afternoon hours. It is anticipated that a majority of the
construction-related traffic would use both I-15 and SR-210 to access the site. Vehicle trips would result
from haul and/or material delivery truck trips as well as from construction workers traveling to and from
the site. While this would generally increase traffic on streets and highways in the project area on a
temporary basis during construction activities, construction-related traffic would be considerably less than
the operational traffic. Traffic impacts to the adjacent roadway network associated with project
construction activities would be minimal and short-term. Therefore, aside from the nuisance traffic that
would occur as a result of construction-related traffic
SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-2
May 2024
(e.g., construction materials, construction workers, etc.), impacts resulting from construction traffic would
be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.N-16 – 4.N-17]).
Project Operational Trip Generation/Distribution
Phase 1 of the Approved Project development was projected to generate a total of approximately 25,745
daily vehicle trips. At Approved Project buildout, a total of approximately 84,579 daily vehicle trips would
be generated (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-17]).
To quantify the land uses within the Approved Project site, the Westgate Specific Plan Area was divided into
four traffic analysis zones; A-Falcon Ridge, B-Westgate Central, C-Westgate East, D-Westgate West. The trip
distributions of the project traffic were based on the select zone evening peak period trip distribution from
the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.N-16 – 4.N-
17]).
Existing Plus Project Phase I: For Existing Plus Project Phase 1 traffic conditions (without
improvements/mitigation), study area intersections were projected to operate at unacceptable Levels of
Service during the peak hours (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.N-19 – 4.N-20]).
Under Existing Plus Project Phase 1 traffic conditions (with improvements/mitigation), the study area
intersections are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours and would
not cause any significant impacts, with implementation of improvements included as mitigation below
(WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-20; PCR, 2015b, p. 3-30]).
Existing Plus Project Buildout: For Existing Plus Project Buildout traffic conditions (without
improvements/mitigation), study area intersections were projected to operate at unacceptable Levels of
Service during the peak hours.
Under The Existing Plus Project Buildout traffic conditions (with improvements/mitigation), the study area
intersections are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours. The
Approved Project would not cause any significant impacts, with implementation of improvements included
as mitigation below (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-22; PCR, 2015b, p. 3-30]).
Year 2018 With the Project Phase I. Without improvements/mitigation, for Year 2018 With Project Phase
1 traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable Levels of Service
during the peak hours (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-24]).
For Year 2018 With Project Phase 1 traffic conditions (with improvements/mitigation), the study area
intersections were projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours and
would not cause any significant impacts, with improvements included as mitigation below (WSP Draft EIR
[PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-25; PCR, 2015b, pp. 3-30 to 3-31]).
Year 2035 with Project: Without improvements/mitigation, under Year 2035 With Project Buildout traffic
conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable Levels of Service during
the peak hours (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-26]).
Under Year 2035 With Project Buildout (with improvements/mitigation), the study area intersections are
projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours. Therefore, the Approved
Project would not cause any significant impacts, with implementation of
SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-3
May 2024
improvements included as mitigation below (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-28; PCR, 2015b, p.
3-31]).
Approved Project Determination: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of
service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads and highways (Impact 4.N-2): Implementation
of the Approved Project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including
but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established
by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways. With implementation of
applicable mitigation measures and/or payment of fair-share contributions to necessary traffic system
improvements, this impact is considered less than significant with mitigation (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services,
2015, p. 4.N-28]).
For the Year 2035 With Project Buildout, several thoroughfares within or abutting the Approved Project
site are CMP roadways including Baseline Avenue, Highland Avenue, Cherry Avenue, Citrus Avenue, and the
I-15 and SR-210 freeways (and associated on- and off-ramps). However, since the City of Fontana has a
standard program (Circulation Development Fees) to fund regional improvements, SANBAG considers the
City exempt from CMP traffic impact analysis. Nonetheless, as indicated above, all project-related impacts
to study area intersections and roadway segments, including these CMP facilities, would be reduced to less
than significant with implementation of applicable mitigation measures provided below. In addition, future
development of high-density residential uses within Planning Area 24, if it were to occur, would be required
to contribute funds to the City as part of the Circulation Development Fee program, which would be applied
to necessary regional improvements, and thus no development-specific CMP traffic analysis is required by
SANBAG. Therefore, CMP-related traffic impacts would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR
Services, 2015, p. 4.N-28; PCR, 2015b, pp. 3-31 to 3-32]).
Approved Project Determination: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses (Impact 4.N-3): The Approved Project
would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). This impact is considered less than significant
(WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-29]).
Potential future development associated with the Approved Project may require considerable construction
and demolition. It may be necessary to completely restrict public access during brief periods of construction
to ensure public safety. Appropriate signage would be provided as motorists/pedestrians approach the site
to indicate access options. Construction vehicle traffic may create temporary congestion and safety hazards
for local residents, on-site employees, motorists, and pedestrians. Potential safety hazards and traffic
congestion would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of the standard
construction safety measures, including use of flag men, signage and appropriate construction area fencing
(WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-29]).
With regard to long-term project operation, the site circulation plans prepared for future onsite
development projects would be subject to review and approval by the City of Fontana and Fontana
SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-4
May 2024
Fire Protection District (FFPD)/San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD), which would ensure that
roadway and intersection designs meet appropriate requirements for site distance and implement
appropriate control mechanisms. With review and approval of future development plans by the City of
Fontana and FFPD/SBCFD, operational vehicular hazard impacts would be less than significant (WSP Draft
EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-29]).
Approved Project Determination: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Inadequate Parking Capacity (Impact 4.N-4): The Approved Project would not result in inadequate
parking capacity. With implementation of applicable mitigation measures, this impact is considered less
than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-29]).
The Approved Project includes parking requirements for future development on-site, which generally relies
on the parking standards contained in the FMC with various exceptions noted in the Specific Plan text.
Off-street parking would be provided for future on-site development in adequate quantity to meet the
combined demands of proposed uses. However, mitigation is provided below that would serve to ensure
that adequate parking is provided for all future on-site development projects, and thus no significant
parking impacts would occur (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-29]).
Approved Project Determination: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities (Impact 4.N-5): The
Approved Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. This
impact is considered less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-30]).
Public transit facilities, such as bus turnouts, shelters, and signage, would be provided for all future
development projects within the Specific Plan boundaries, to the satisfaction of affected public transit
agencies. The development of future projects pursuant to the Specific Plan will increase demands on
affected transit services and facilities, and such demands would be incrementally greater if residential uses
were developed within Planning Area 24 given the potential for up to 1,000 additional housing units.
However, vehicles, routes, and facilities are anticipated to be expanded to meet the growing needs of the
community, funded by revenues from increased ridership (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-30]).
The Approved Specific Plan includes extensive pedestrian and bicycle-related facilities, including Class I
and Class II bike lanes, paseos, and a pedestrian bridge, which would serve to minimize safety hazards to
pedestrians and bicyclists while maximizing non-vehicular transportation opportunities throughout the
project area (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-30]).
Since the Approved Project includes extensive improvements that support alternative transportation, and
these improvements are subject to review and approval by the City of Fontana, County of San Bernardino,
Omnitrans, and/or other affected agencies, the Approved Specific Plan would not conflict with adopted
policies, plans, or programs supporting public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Therefore, impacts
related to alternative transportation would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p.
4.N-30]).
SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-5
May 2024
Approved Project Determination: Less than Significant Impact.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
The Approved Project EIR mitigation measures address on-site improvements, off-site improvements and
the phasing of all necessary study area transportation improvements. Although most of these proposed
improvements would be located within the City of Fontana, some of them are located outside of the City’s
jurisdiction in the Cities of Rialto and Rancho Cucamonga, in unincorporated San Bernardino County, or are
State highway facilities under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. While such mitigation measures located outside
the City of Fontana’s jurisdiction would address project-related and cumulative traffic system impacts, the
City of Fontana cannot compel other affected jurisdictions to implement these improvements. However, the
project applicant would be required to pay “fair share” contributions to address the proposed project’s
proportion of traffic impacts at each facility, as summarized in Table 21 of the project’s Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) Report (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-41, Appendix J]; Kunzman Associates, Inc.,
2013, Table 21, p. 133).
Intersection Improvements
The intersection improvements required to mitigate all Approved Project impacts are summarized in the
Approved Project DEIR in Table 4.N-3, Summary of Intersection Improvements, on page 4.N-42 through 4.N-
46 (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.N-42 through 4.N-46]).
On-Site Roadway Segment Improvements
On-site roadway segment improvements and improvements adjacent to the site will be required in
conjunction with the proposed development to ensure adequate circulation within the project itself (WSP
Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-41]). These on-site improvements are presented in the DEIR (WSP
Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015]) as mitigation measures N-1 through N-10 on pages 4.N-41 and 4.N-47 and
listed in the table below.
Intersection Improvements
Intersection improvements are presented in the DEIR (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015]) as mitigation
measure N-11 on page 4.N-47 and listed in the table below.
Traffic-Related Hazards Mitigation
Traffic-related hazards mitigation measures are presented in the DEIR (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services,
2015]) as mitigation measures N-12 and N-13 on page 4.N-48, and are listed in the table below.
Parking Capacity Mitigation
Parking capacity mitigation is presented in the DEIR (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015]) as mitigation
measure N-14 on page 4.N-48, and is listed in the table below.
No.Mitigation Measure
On-Site Roadway Segment Improvements
N-1 Construct Heritage Circle from Victoria Avenue to Baseline Avenue at its ultimate cross-section width
including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development.
SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-6
May 2024
No.Mitigation Measure
N-2
Construct Cherry Avenue from the I-15 Freeway to Walnut Avenue/Victoria Street at its ultimate
cross-section width including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with
development. Construct Cherry Avenue from Walnut Avenue/Victoria Street to Baseline Avenue at its
ultimate half-section width including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with
development.
N-2a
Within five (5) years from the Certificate of Occupancy of any future warehouse in PA 41, the Developer
will, subject to eligible fee credits for the construction of master infrastructure improvements,
complete construction of Cherry Avenue from the I-15 Freeway to Walnut Avenue/Victoria Street at
its ultimate cross-section width, including the median, landscaping and parkway improvements as well
as the completion of construction of Cherry Avenue from Walnut Avenue/Victoria Street to Baseline
Avenue at its ultimate half-section section width, including the remaining portion of the median,
landscaping and parkway improvements.
N-3
Construct Summit Avenue from San Sevaine Road to Sierra Lakes Parkway at its ultimate cross-section
width including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development. Construct
Summit Avenue from its western project boundary to Lytle Creek Road at its ultimate half-section
width including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development.
N-4
Construct San Sevaine Road from Summit Avenue to the northern boundary of Planning Area 21 and
from Sierra Lakes Parkway to Walnut Avenue at its ultimate half-section width including landscaping
and parkway improvements in conjunction with development. Construct San Sevaine Road from the
northern boundary of Planning Area 21 to Sierra Lakes Parkway at its ultimate cross-section width
including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development.
N-5
Construct Lytle Creek Road from its northern project boundary to Summit Avenue at its ultimate
half-section width including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with
development.
N-6
Construct Sierra Lakes Parkway from Cherry Avenue to San Sevaine Road at its ultimate cross-section
width including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development. Construct
Sierra Lakes Parkway from San Sevaine Road to its eastern project boundary at its ultimate half-section
width including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development.
N-7 Construct Highland Avenue from Victoria Street to San Sevaine Road at its ultimate cross-section width
including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development.
N-8 Construct Victoria Avenue from the I-15 Freeway to Cherry Avenue at is ultimate cross-section width
including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development.
N-9 Construct Walnut Avenue from Cherry Avenue to San Sevaine Road at its ultimate half-section width
including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development.
N-10
Construct Baseline Avenue from its western project boundary to Cherry Avenue at its ultimate
half-section width including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with
development.
Intersection Improvements
N-11
Necessary intersection improvement recommendations and proposed phasing of each improvement,
which are summarized above in Table 4.N-3 shall be implemented as necessary to address potential
project-related traffic impacts. As is the case for any roadway design, the City of Fontana shall
periodically review traffic operations in the vicinity of the project once the project is constructed to
assure that the traffic operations are satisfactory. The phasing of improvements is summarized in
Table 4.N-3. The project shall provide on-site roadways to connect to the existing infrastructure in
conjunction with development and consistent with the alignment plan.
Traffic-Related Hazards
SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-7
May 2024
No.Mitigation Measure
N-12
Sight distance at each project access shall be reviewed with respect to the California Department of
Transportation/City of Fontana standards in conjunction with the preparation of final grading,
landscaping, and street improvement plans.
N-13 On-site traffic signing and striping shall be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction
plans for the project.
Parking Capacity
N-14 Each future development within the Specific Plan boundaries shall provide sufficient parking spaces
to meet City of Fontana parking code requirements in order to service on-site parking demand.
Source: WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.N-41 to 4.N-48]
4.17.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
The CEQA Guidelines were revised in 2019 (effective 2020) and include a new separate discussion for VMT.
As presented above, VMT was not addressed as a separate threshold in the FEIR but it was analyzed as part
of air quality and GHG modeling. The FEIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would result
in significant and unavoidable impacts relative to air quality for both short and long-term air quality as well
as consistency with the AQMP. Cumulative air quality impacts associated with operation of the Approved
Project would also remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015,
p. 4.C-72]). The Approved Project would have less than significant impacts with mitigation relative to GHG
emissions for both project-level and cumulative impacts (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.G-28]).
Project VMT for the Approved Project is estimated at 33.13 daily VMT per service population, as shown
below in Table 4.17-1.26 The Certified EIR did not set forth a significance threshold for VMT, and no
significance finding is determined here.
Table 4.17-1
VEHICE MILES TRAVELED, 2015 APPROVED PROJECT DEIR
Service Population VMT, Annual VMT, Daily Daily VMT per Service Population
24,963 301,830,364 826,933 33.13
1 Source: WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, Appendix B (Air Quality), pp. 170, 175]
Estimated VMT for the Modified Project is 21.7, as shown in Section 4.17.3 below. Both the estimated VMT
for the Approved Project and for the modified project are both below the City’s VMT threshold of 27.8 per
service population (see Section 4.17.3 below). The modified project’s potential impacts to transportation
and traffic resources have been evaluated in light of the present environmental regulatory setting. The
analysis of modified project impacts is based on the Westgate Medical Campus Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Screening Analysis, City of Fontana, completed by RK Engineering in November 2023; a complete copy of
this report is included as Appendix D to this Addendum.
26 VMT for the approved project was estimated in the air quality assessment supporting the Certified EIR (PCR, @)by categorizing
trips by origin and destination (for example, home-work, home-shopping, and home-other); estimating VMT by each origin-
destination category by estimating the numbers and average distances of trips; then summing the VMT for all the categories.
SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-8
May 2024
Impacts associated with implementation of the modified project would not require additional mitigation
beyond those already identified for the Approved Project in the Westgate Specific Plan DEIR.
4.17.3 Modified Project Impacts Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist responses compare the previous Approved Project analyzed under the certified
FEIR with the modified project, and analyzes the potential impacts resulting from modified project
development.
Would the project:
New Information
Showing New or
Increased Effects
Compared to the
Certified
Westgate Specific
Plan FEIR
New Information
Showing Ability to
Reduce, but Not
Eliminate Effects
Compared to the
Certified
Westgate Specific
Plan FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New Information
Requiring the
Preparation of an
MND or EIR
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program,
plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation
system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X
b)Conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines §
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X
c)Substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
d)Result in inadequate
emergency access?X
The information in this section on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is based on the Westgate Medical Campus
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis, City of Fontana, by RK Engineering Group, Inc., dated
November 13, 2023. A complete copy of this technical memorandum is included as Appendix D.
a)Would the project Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
The following City and County plans, ordinances and policies would apply to the project.
SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-9
May 2024
City of Fontana Active Transportation Plan (ATP)
The 2017 Fontana ATP is used to implement infrastructure improvements for better connectivity
throughout Fontana, to surrounding cities, and the region by providing safe and comfortable walking and
bicycling linkages (Stantec, 2018, p. 5.13-14). The modified project would be developed within the modified
project site except for utility improvements in roadways abutting the modified project site, and would not
involve improvements to the two roadways abutting the modified project site. However, Approved Project
plans include Class II (striped and signed) bikeways on South Highland Avenue abutting the south side of
the modified project site, and Class I (off-road) bikeways along the segment of San Sevaine Road abutting
the project site. It is expected that roadways next to the modified project site would be improved to the
configurations specified in the WSP before development of the modified project. Therefore, modified
project development would not conflict with the Fontana ATP. No new impact would occur.
City of Fontana Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program
The City’s DIF program was adopted pursuant to Government Code § 66000 et seq. Fontana’s Development
Services Department oversees the use of the DIF fees, which fund projects in the City’s capital improvement
program (Stantec, 2018, p. 5.13-14). The modified project is not part of the DIF program, and therefore, the
modified project would not conflict with the DIF program.
San Bernardino Congestion Management Program (CMP)
The City of Fontana has a standard program (Circulation Development Fees) to fund regional
improvements; therefore, SANBAG considers the City exempt from CMP traffic impact analysis. Thus, no
CMP analysis is required for the modified project and no impact is anticipated (PCR, 2015, p. 4.N-10).
Construction
Construction trips associated with trucks and employees traveling to and from the site in the morning and
afternoon would result in some minor traffic delays on local streets in the project area; potential traffic
interference caused by construction vehicles would create a temporary/short-term impact to vehicles using
the street system in the immediate area in the morning and afternoon hours. It is anticipated that most
construction-related traffic would use I-15 and/or SR-210 to access the site. Vehicle trips would result from
haul and/or material delivery truck trips as well as construction worker commute trips. However,
construction would be temporary and the project would implement a construction traffic control plan
subject to review and approval by the City of Fontana Engineering Department, which would reduce the
potential for disruptions to existing circulation facilities during the project construction phase. Additionally,
the project would adhere to the city’s construction hours, limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and
from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays (with no construction on Sundays and holidays) (City of Fontana
Municipal Code, Section 18-63[7]). Therefore, with implementation of the traffic control plan, modified
project construction would not conflict with any applicable transportation plan, ordinance, or policy.
Operation
VMT became the metric for determining significance of transportation impacts in the city of Fontana
effective October 2020 when the city issued its Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle
SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-10
May 2024
Miles Traveled (VMT) And Level of Service Assessment. Please see the VMT analysis in Section 4.16(b)
immediately below.
b)Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
Less than Significant Impact
The City of Fontana is exempt from congestion management program traffic impact analysis, as described
above in Section 4.17.1.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
Subsequent to certification of the EIR, the California Natural Resources Agency revised CEQA Guidelines
Appendix G Threshold Transportation (b) to ask whether the project would conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b). The specified Guidelines section pertains to the use of
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as a method of determining the significance of transportation impacts. A VMT
analysis was performed for the modified project by RK Engineering Group. The VMT analysis analyzed two
scenarios: baseline (2023) conditions and horizon year (2040) cumulative conditions. The VMT analysis
used the San Bernardino County Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM); the horizon year is that analyzed
in the SBTAM model. A project would result in a significant project-generated VMT impact if the baseline
or cumulative project-generated VMT per service population exceeds 15% below the baseline County of
San Bernardino VMT per service population.
VMT per service population for the proposed medical office use is estimated at 23.3 for the 2023 baseline
condition and 19.7 for the 2040 cumulative condition, as shown below in Table 4.17-3. The City of Fontana
VMT thresholds are 23.7 VMT per service population for the 2023 baseline condition and 22.6 VMT per
service population for the 2040 cumulative condition; each threshold is 15 percent below baseline San
Bernardino County VMT per service population. Thus, project-generated VMT per service population is
estimated to be below the City’s threshold for each of the two scenarios. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant, and no new impact would occur.
Table 4.17-3
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED SCREENING ASSESSMENT
Scenario Modified project City of Fontana Threshold
2023 Baseline 23.3 23.7
2040 Cumulative 19.7 22.6
Source: RK Engineering, 2023
c)Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
Construction
SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-11
May 2024
The Certified EIR determined that construction traffic hazard impacts were less than significant through
implementation of the standard construction safety measures, including use of flag men, signage and
appropriate construction area fencing.
Modified project construction would involve construction equipment and heavy trucks entering and exiting
the site to and from South Highland Avenue. Such movements could pose hazards to motorists, pedestrians,
and bicyclists on South Highland Avenue. Modified project construction would involve use of the same
measures as those identified in the Certified EIR (such as use of flag men, signage and appropriate
construction area fencing; see discussion of Certified EIR Impact 4.N-3 in Section 4.17.1 above) to reduce
construction-phase traffic hazards. No new significant impact would occur.
Operation
Modified project site access would be via three driveways: two from South Highland Avenue and one from
San Sevaine Road. Each of the intersections would be conventional and perpendicular or nearly so. The
proposed intersection designs would not create traffic hazards. Modified project site plans include
sidewalks along site frontages on both South Highland Avenue and San Sevaine Road, as do the relevant
roadway cross-sections in the WSP. No new impact would occur.
d)Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
Construction
Modified project construction would involve temporary construction in South Highland Avenue for utilities
installation. The project proponent would be required to obtain a Traffic Control Permit from the City of
Fontana Engineering Department for work in roadway rights-of-way that would affect traffic. The
Engineering Department would ensure that emergency access to other properties was maintained during
review of the Traffic Control Permit application. No new impact would occur.
Operation
The modified project’s access points have been designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. Modified
project site access would be via three driveways: two from South Highland Avenue and one from San
Sevaine Road. Therefore, modified project operation would not result in inadequate emergency access and
no new impacts would occur.
SECTION 4.18 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.18-1
May 2024
4.18 Utilities and Service Systems
4.18.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR) Analysis
and Conclusions
Water Supply Infrastructure (Impact 4.O.1-1): The Westgate Specific Plan Infrastructure Study
(Appendix L of the WSP Draft EIR) was prepared for the Approved Project to provide a general estimate of
the water distribution infrastructure necessary to serve land uses to be constructed pursuant to the
proposed Westgate Specific Plan. The intent of the domestic water analysis contained in the Westgate
Specific Plan Infrastructure Study was to determine the preliminary sizing and alignments for the domestic
water infrastructure required to support the future development of the Approved Project (WSP Draft EIR
[PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.0.1-29]).
As noted in the infrastructure study, it is assumed that the delivery of domestic water can be provided by
the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) and Fontana Water Company (FWC) infrastructure currently
in place near the project site. Domestic water pipeline sizes shown in Figure 4.O.1-1, Water Master Plan on
page 4.O.1-27 of the approved WSP Draft EIR (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015]) were determined using
engineering judgment and are roughly based on the extension of existing line sizes to serve the Approved
Project area. Existing water lines are abundant in the areas surrounding the Approved Project, allowing
new water lines for future development to have multiple points of connection to the existing facilities.
Pipeline sizes were compared against system demands placed on each pipeline to validate the sizing
recommendations. In general, as shown in the aforementioned Figure 4.O.1-1, Water Master Plan, new
water lines will extend from those currently in existence, matching existing line sizes, and completing the
loops where necessary. As the city receives future development proposals for the Approved Project site,
each project will be reviewed to ensure that adequate water conveyance infrastructure exists to serve each
development. Therefore, the impacts related to water distribution capacity would be less than significant
(WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.O.1-29]).
Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Storm Drain Capacity - create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff (Impact 4.I-2): The Approved Project EIR did not address storm water infrastructure capacity in
Section 4.O, Utilities and Service Systems, but it was addressed in Section 4.I, Hydrology and Water Quality,
under Impact Statement 4.I-2 (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.I-34]). The WSP includes one
planned set of storm drains in Falcon Ridge that would discharge into San Sevaine Basin 5 opposite the I-
15 from the Approved Project site. A second set of planned storm drains in the Westgate Central area
discharges into the Highland Channel, which discharges into the Etiwanda Creek Channel. Westgate East
and the east half of Westgate West would be served by storm drains that would extend south and discharge
into an existing storm drain in Baseline Avenue. Finally, the west half of Westgate West would include a set
of storm drains that would discharge into Etiwanda Creek Channel (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p.
3-59]).
Implementation of the Approved Project would not create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff. This impact is considered less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p.
4.I-34]).
SECTION 4.18 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.18-2
May 2024
Water Supply (Impact 4.O.1-2): Sufficient water supplies are available to service the project from existing
entitlements and resources, and no new or expanded entitlements are needed. This impact is considered
less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.O.1-29]). The WSP is located within the service
areas of two water purveyors; the service area east of Cherry Avenue is the Fontana Water Company, and
the service area west of Cherry Avenue is the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). The proposed
project is located west of Cherry Avenue and is subsequently located within the CVWD service area (WSP
Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.O.1-1]).
The EIR summarizes that as demonstrated by the respective Water Study Assessments prepared by CVWD
and FWC (Appendix K of the WSP Draft EIR) and presented in Section 4.O of the WSP Draft EIR, adequate
water supply would be available to serve the Approved Project through buildout in 2035. As such, impacts
related to water supply adequacy are considered less than significant and no mitigation measures are
required (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.O.1-37]).
However, even though the Approved Project would not result in significant impacts related to water supply
and no mitigation measures would be required, the mitigation measures included in the City of Fontana
2003 General Plan EIR (GP EIR) are applicable to the Approved Project and would be implemented, as
appropriate, to ensure that impacts to water supply remain less than significant. These mitigation measures
are listed below as O-1 through O-5 below. (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.O.1-40])
Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment Capacity (Impact 4.O.1-1): Approved Project development
would not (1) exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board; (2) require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects; or (3) result
in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it
does not have adequate capacity to meet the projected demand of the project in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments.
Approved Project construction would generate a negligible amount of wastewater. Portable toilets are
expected to be provided by a private company and waste will be disposed off-site. The generation of
wastewater from construction activities is not expected to exceed the existing or planned IEUA wastewater
treatment capacity. Therefore, the impact of construction on the local wastewater conveyance and
treatment system would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.O.2-9]).
Approved Project operation would increase wastewater generation. Each developer of a project built in
accordance with the WSP would be required to pay standard IEUA sewer connection fees, which are utilized
to fund wastewater treatment and regional wastewater conveyance improvements associated with the new
development. Additionally, each project would be reviewed to ensure that adequate wastewater
conveyance facilities exist to serve each development site. These reviews would address site-specific
changes in wastewater generation associated with each development project to identify the necessary
improvements to the wastewater infrastructure for each planning area. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant upon implementation of Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures O-6 through O-9
(WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.O.1-10]).
Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated.
SECTION 4.18 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.18-3
May 2024
Solid Waste - Landfill Disposal Capacity (Impact 4.O.3-1): Implementation of the Approved Project
would not exceed the capacity of the landfill serving the project area. This impact is considered less than
significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.O.3-7]). The City currently contracts with Burrtec Waste
Industries (Burrtec) to provide the city with refuse and recycling disposal services that comply with federal,
state, and local laws and regulations. The Approved Project is consistent with respective regulatory
measures (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.O.3-2]).
Construction of future development projects as part of the Approved Project would generate construction
and demolition (C&D) waste including soil, wood, asphalt, concrete, paper, glass, plastic, metals, and
cardboard that would be disposed of at the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill, operated by the County of San
Bernardino, which currently accepts most solid waste from the City of Fontana, and is located at 2390 North
Alder Avenue, in Rialto. This facility is permitted to accept up to 7,500 tons per day (TPD) of waste and is
projected to have sufficient capacity to accept this amount of waste daily until April 2033 (WSP Draft EIR
[PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.O.3-7]). Based on the incremental, long-term buildout of the Approved Project, and
the associated volume of C&D waste requiring disposal for each new project within the Approved Project
site, the volume of construction-related waste requiring disposal is not expected to be substantial.
Therefore, the Approved Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the Approved Project’s solid waste disposal needs during construction and impacts are
anticipated to be less than significant. Mitigation Measures O-10 and O-11 are proposed to provide
assurance that construction-related solid waste impacts remain less than significant to the extent feasible
(WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.O.3-7]).
Approved Project operations would generate 43,467 pounds per day of solid waste, or a total of
approximately 7,932 tons per year. The project’s daily generation of solid waste represents approximately
0.29-percent of the maximum permitted daily capacity or 1.07-percent of the average daily tonnage for the
Mid-Valley landfill (PCR, 2015b, p. 3-37). This amount of solid waste is well within the permitted capacity
of 7,500 tpd for the Mid-Valley Landfill, which is projected to accept this maximum daily volume of waste
through 2033. The waste diversion for the Approved Project is expected to be consistent with other similar
developments within the City and divert a minimum of 50 percent of trash from landfills based on
compliance with standard City practices and regulations. The available capacity of existing and/or planned
future landfills would not be exceeded, and therefore the impacts on the generation of solid waste from
project operations would be less than significant. Mitigation measures O-12 through O-15, although not
required, are proposed to ensure that operational-related solid waste impacts remain less than significant
to the extent feasible (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.O.3-8]).
The approved WSP would require future projects within the Approved Project site to be consistent with
existing refuse management programs within the City of Fontana and to divert a minimum of 50 percent of
solid waste from landfills and to material recovery facilities, in accordance with AB 939, and with standard
City practices and regulations.
In addition, the Approved Project would also be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the
Fontana General Plan (City of Fontana, 2003) regarding solid waste and recycling, as discussed in the
Approved Project Draft EIR (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.O.3-9]).
Chapter 3, Basis for Cumulative Analysis of the WSP Draft EIR identifies four related projects that are
anticipated to be developed within the vicinity of the project site. It is conservatively assumed that each of
these projects would contribute solid waste to the landfill serving the project site. The
SECTION 4.18 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.18-4
May 2024
development of these related projects would generate solid waste during their respective construction
periods and on an ongoing basis during their operation. Construction of the proposed project in conjunction
with related projects would generate waste and cumulatively increase the need for waste disposal at the
Mid Valley landfill. As stated above, the Mid Valley Landfill will have adequate capacity until 2033. As such,
future shortages of disposal capacity in unclassified landfills are not expected. Additionally, related projects
would be subject to an environmental review on a case-by-case basis and are therefore expected to recycle
waste to the maximum extent feasible. Based on the above, it is concluded that the cumulative impacts of
solid waste on unclassified landfills due to project construction are less than significant and the project’s
contribution to these impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
As the Approved Project would comply with all state, regional, and local plans, policies, and regulations
related to solid waste, its impact on consistency with relevant regulations would be less than significant.
Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
SECTION 4.18 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.18-5
May 2024
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
No.Mitigation Measure
Water Supply
O-1 The City shall work closely with water supply agencies to ensure the continued supply of water. [GP
EIR MM W-1].
O-2 The City shall act to conserve water in whatever cost-effective ways are reasonably available. [GP EIR
MM W-2].
O-3 The City shall manage urban runoff to minimize water supply contamination. [GP EIR MM W-3].
O-4 The City shall collaborate with water management authorities to devise and implement creative and
cost-effective water management strategies. [GP EIR MM W- 4].
O-5 The City shall provide educational material to its residents and businesses regarding the critical
necessity for careful use of water and management of water systems. [GP EIR MM W-5].
Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment Capacity
O-6 The City shall maintain its current Master Plan of Sewers as the basis for development of a sewer
system to serve the community. [GP EIR MM WW-1].
O-7 The City shall design and operate its local and trunk sewer system in close collaboration with the
IEUA. [GP EIR MM WW-2].
O-8 The City shall establish and maintain an aggressive water recycling program. [GP EIR MM WW-3].
O-9 The City shall devote sufficient financial support for wastewater system maintenance so that current
levels of service, health, and safety are sustained or improved. [GP EIR MM WW-4].
Solid Waste
O-10
Prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permit, the Applicant shall provide a copy of
the receipt or contract indicating that the construction contractor shall only contract for waste
disposal services with a company that recycles demolition and construction-related wastes. The
contract specifying recycled waste service shall be presented to the Development Services
Department prior to approval of certificate of occupancy.
O-11
In order to facilitate on-site separation and recycling of construction related wastes, the construction
contractor shall provide temporary waste separation bins on-site during demolition and construction
activities.
O-12 The City shall continue to maintain a contractual arrangement that achieves maximum recycling rates
at a reasonable price. [GP EIR MM SW-1].
O-13 Where joint programs offer improvement efficiency or reduced cost, the City shall collaborate with
other entities in recycling efforts. [GP EIR MM SW-2].
O-14
The City shall continue to provide services to residents and business citizens that facilitate community
cleanup, curbside collections, and diversion of oil and other hazardous waste materials. [GPEIR MM
SW-3].
O-15 The City should maintain an aggressive public information program to stimulate waste reduction by
its residents and business citizens. [GP EIR MM SW-4].
Source: WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. p 4.O.1-41, 4.O.2-14 – 4.O.2-15, 4.O.3-10].
4.18.2 Summary of Previous Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
The potential impacts of the modified project and potential impacts on utilities and service systems have
been evaluated in light of the current environmental regulatory setting. The modified project is within the
ranges of land uses and land use intensity permitted on the modified project site by the Approved Project
on the modified project site. Thus, modified project development would not increase utilities demands
compared to the Approved Project. Impacts would be less than significant and no new impact would occur.
SECTION 4.18 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.18-6
May 2024
4.18.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist responses compare the Approved Project analyzed under the Certified FEIR with
the modified project as described in this document and analyze the potential impacts resulting from its
implementation.
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New or
Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New Information
Showing Ability
to Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects Compared
to the Certified
Westgate Specific
Plan FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
a)Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric
power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
X
b)Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
X
c)Result in a determination by the
waste water 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?
X
d)Generate solid waste in excess of
state or local standards, or in excess
of the capacity of local infrastructure,
or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e)Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid
waste?
X
SECTION 4.18 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.18-7
May 2024
a)Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
Water Supply
The Approved Project site is located within the service area of the San Gabriel Valley Water Company
Fontana Division, referred to by its previous name of Fontana Water Company (FWC) in the Certified EIR.
The previous acronym FWC is used herein for convenience.
FWC’s water supply sources include groundwater pumped from the Chino, Rialto-Colton, and Lytle
groundwater basins; imported untreated surface water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (MWD) purchased through the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA); local surface water from
Lytle Creek; and recycled water purchased from IEUA. Untreated imported MWD water is treated at the
FWC’s Summit Plant, which has capacity of 29 mgd or 32,480 acre-feet per year (afy) (FWC, 2021, p. 6-4).
The main sources of FWC water are groundwater and imported surface water (FWC, 2021, p. 6-29).
The modified project consists of medical office uses in PA 27, implementing a portion of the WSP. The
building area proposed by the modified project is within the building area proposed for that site by the
WSP. Therefore, modified project development would not increase water demand compared to that
estimated for the WSP. Total water demand by WSP at buildout was estimated as 4,221 acre-feet per year
(WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.0.1-31]). No impact would occur and there is no change or new
information requiring the preparation of an EIR.
Wastewater Treatment
The Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) supplies regional domestic wastewater treatment for the City of
Fontana; wastewater generated within the modified project would be treated at the IEUA Regional Water
Recycling Plant No. 4 (RP-4) about 3.6 miles south of the modified project site in the city of Rancho
Cucamonga. The City of Fontana operates sewers within its boundaries.
RPG-4 has 14 MGD capacity; the average daily flow in 2021 was about 10 MGD (IEUA, 2023).
The modified project consists of medical office uses in PA 27, implementing a portion of the WSP. The land
use type and intensity proposed by the modified project are within the relevant parameters of the WSP.
Therefore, modified project development would not increase wastewater generation compared to that
estimated for the WSP. The Approved Project at the buildout is estimated to generate approximately 78,678
gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater. No impact would occur and there is no change or new information
requiring the preparation of an EIR.
Stormwater Drainage
As discussed in Section 4.18-1 above, the Approved Project EIR did not address the capacity of stormwater
infrastructure in Section 4.O, Utilities and Service Systems, but was addressed in Section
SECTION 4.18 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.18-8
May 2024
4.I, Hydrology and Water Quality, in Impact Statement 4.I-2. Approved Project impacts were found to be
less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.I-34]).
Approved Project storm drainage plans relevant to the modified project include a 42-inch storm drain in
Highland Avenue, and a storm drain in a segment of Cherry Avenue extending from Highland Avenue south
to Walnut Avenue that would be 42 inches along part of its length and 60 inches along the remainder. The
planned storm drain in Cherry Avenue would discharge into an existing 60-inch storm drain in Cherry
Avenue extending from Walnut Avenue south to Baseline Avenue where it would discharge into an existing
double 14-foot by 8-foot storm drain that extends west till it discharges into San Sevaine Channel (Westgate
Specific Plan [JHA Consulting, 2017, figure 4.I-3]).
The Approved Project and the modified project would both involve development of the entire modified
project site with buildings, hardscape, and landscaping. Thus, modified project development is not expected
to substantially increase runoff from the modified project site compared to Approved Project development.
The modified project impacts would be less than significant, and no changes or new information require
the preparation of an EIR.
Electric Power
As noted in Section 4.6 of this document, the Westgate Specific Plan EIR did not include a separate energy
section due to the document preceding the official mandatory inclusion of the energy impact
determinations of Threshold 4.17 a) in the CEQA Appendix G checklist.
Moreover, as discussed in Section 4.6, the project would adhere to and exceed the applicable federal, state,
and local requirements for energy efficiency, including Title 24 of the CCR with respect to building energy
efficiency standards.
Electric power for the Approved Project will be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE). The modified
project site is vacant but within a developed urban area with well-established electricity distribution
infrastructure. A utility corridor including SCE and Southern California Gas (SCG) traverses the Approved
Project site paralleling the I-15 freeway near the west boundary of the modified project site (SCE, 2023).
SCE typically uses existing utility corridors in its efforts to minimize environmental impact. Furthermore,
the company has implemented energy efficiency programs aimed at reducing energy consumption while
ensuring reliable service (SCE, 2023). Modified project development does not require the construction of
new or expanded electric power facilities beyond what has already been approved.
The medical office uses proposed by the modified project are a portion of the Approved Project and are
within the land use types and intensity proposed by the Approved Project for the modified project site.
Therefore, modified project development would not increase electricity demand compared to that of the
Approved Project.
The project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electrical or
natural gas facilities, or the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental
effects. Therefore, the impact of the project on electricity would be less than significant, and no changes or
new information require the preparation of an EIR.
SECTION 4.18 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.18-9
May 2024
Natural Gas
The Southern California Gas Company (SCG) is the primary distributor of retail and wholesale natural gas
in Southern California, including the City of Fontana and the Approved Project area. The service of SCG
facilities to the modified project will be provided in accordance with the SCG's policies and the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) rules governing gas distribution (CPUC, 2023). Therefore, the impact of
the project on natural gas would be less than significant, and no changes or new information require the
preparation of an EIR.
Telecommunications Facilities:
Telecommunication services, including Internet, phone, and television, for the City of Fontana are provided
by AT&T and Time Warner Cable Company (TWC) (City of Fontana, 2023). There are existing TWC facilities
on the west side of Cherry Avenue and along Summit Avenue, and AT&T operates two cell towers within
the city limits. The modified project would not interfere with the operation of the AT&T or TWC
telecommunication facilities. Therefore, the impact of the project on telecommunications facilities would
be less than significant, and no changes or new information require the preparation of an EIR.
b)Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
No Impact/No Changes or New Information
The FWC forecasts that it will have adequate water supply to meet the water demands of the modified
project, as demonstrated above. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no changes or new information
require the preparation of an EIR.
c)Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to meet the projected
demand of the project in addition to the existing commitments?
No Impact/No Changes or New Information
The wastewater generated by the modified project would not change total wastewater generation by the
WSP and would be well within the capacity of RP-4, as demonstrated above. Therefore, no impact would
occur, and no changes or new information require the preparation of an EIR.
d)Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of
the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
The Mid-Valley Landfill (MVL) currently accepts most of the City of Fontana solid waste with a maximum of
7,500 tons per day (tpd) of waste with a remaining capacity of 61,219,377 tons and an estimated closing
date of 2045 (CalRecycle, 2023a). The remaining capacity of Mid-Valley Landfill was not referenced in the
2015 Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR, so the 2023 remaining capacity is used.
SECTION 4.18 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.18-10
May 2024
The modified project implements the portion of the Approved Project within PA 27. The medical office uses
proposed by the modified project are within the land uses and land use intensity permitted in PA 27 by the
Approved Project. Therefore, modified project development would not increase overall solid waste
generation within the WSP. Thus, no impact would occur, and no changes or new information require the
preparation of an EIR.
e)Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939; California Integrated Waste Management Act); to address solid waste problems
and capacity comprehensively. The law required each city and county to divert 50 percent of its waste from
landfills by 2000. In response to this legislation, in 1990, the City of Fontana adopted a comprehensive
Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRR) and a Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHW) to
strategize and fund the diversion of solid waste from landfills. The project will arrange for a recycling
service as required for commercial uses, as required by AB 939.
Assembly Bill 341 (AB 341; Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) increases the statewide waste diversion goal to
75 percent by 2020 and mandates recycling for commercial and multifamily residential land uses. The
project would include storage areas for recyclable materials in accordance with AB 341.
Assembly Bill 1826 (AB 1826; California Public Resources Code Section 42649.8 et seq.) requires the
recycling of organic matter by businesses and multifamily residences of five or more units, generating such
waste in amounts over certain thresholds. Organic waste means food waste, green waste, landscape and
pruning waste, non-hazardous wood waste, and paper waste soiled with food mixed with food waste. The
project would include the recycling of organic waste as required for businesses under AB 1826.
Senate Bill 1383 (SB 1383; California Health and Safety Code Section 39730.5 et seq.) set goals to achieve a
50 percent reduction in the level of statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a
75 percent reduction by 2025. The law is intended to reduce methane emissions, a short-lived climate
pollutant, from the decomposition of organic waste in landfills, for the protection of people in at-risk
communities, and to reduce GHG emissions. The project would provide organics collection services in
accordance with SB 1383.
Section 4.408 (Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal, and Recycling) of the 2022 California Green
Building Standards Code (CALGreen; Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 11) requires that at least
65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from residential construction
operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. modified project construction would include recycling
and/or salvage of construction and demolition waste in conformance with Section 4.408.
The development within the modified project area would be required to comply with federal, state, and
local laws and regulations related to solid waste. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations would
ensure that the impacts associated with solid waste are less than significant and that no changes or new
information require the preparation of an EIR.
SECTION 4.19 - WILDFIRE
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.19-1
May 2024
4.19 Wildfire
When the EIR for the Approved Project was prepared in 2015, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
Environmental Checklist, did not contain a wildfire section. Wildfire risks arising from implementation of
the Approved Project were addressed in Section 4.H, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. A wildfire section
was added to Appendix G during the CEQA Guidelines Update completed in December 2018. Wildfire risks
due to Modified Project development are therefore analyzed in this Section.
4.19.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR) Analysis
and Conclusions
A discussion of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan is included in the DEIR
in Section 4.H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials [WSP Draft EIR, 2015]. This information is also included
in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this document, and below as well.
The DEIR did not include a separate section for wildfire, nor did it include information about Fire Hazard
Severity Zones. However, the document does analyze the Specific Plan’s potential for impacts regarding fire
protection services and fire flow in the public services section of the DEIR (Section 4.0 Environmental
Impact Analysis M. Public Services, Fire Protection [WSP Draft EIR, 2015]). This information is also included
in Section 4.14, Public Services, of this document.
The DEIR Section 6.0 Other Mandatory CEQA Considerations, Section F. Effects Found Not to be Significant,
5. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, states that the project site is not located in an area that has a significant
amount of vegetation and is characterized by relatively flat topography. Although sloped areas with
extensive vegetation are located to the north of the project site in the San Gabriel and San Bernardino
Mountains, these areas are located at a sufficient distance from the project area that they do not pose a
substantial risk to people or structures on-site. Furthermore, future development on-site would be subject
to all applicable standards and regulations related to fire protection and prevention such that wildland fire
hazards would be less than significant.
The Certified EIR stated that all major streets in the Approved Project site would serve as evacuation routes.
The EIR concluded that construction of projects in accordance with the Approved Project could temporarily
close roadways or lanes in or abutting the Approved Project site. The EIR stated that all future projects
would be required to provide sufficient emergency access; and would be subject for review and approval
by the San Bernardino County Fire Department for fire access roads conforming with City of Fontana Fire
Code requirements. Mitigation measures H-12 and H-13 (regarding emergency access) and M-1 through M-
3 (regarding fire protection) would be implemented, reducing fire hazards.
Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
No.Mitigation Measure
M-1 The City shall maintain an average fire response time of 4 to 5 minutes. [GP EIR MM FS-1]
M-2 The City shall continue to maintain an ISO fire rating of Class 3. [GP EIR MM FS-2]
M-3 The City shall ensure that new fire stations are built in areas of new development so that
response times are not eroded. [GP EIR MM FS-3]
SECTION 4.19 - WILDFIRE
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.19-2
May 2024
No.Mitigation Measure
H-12
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, future developers shall prepare a Traffic Control Plan
(TCP) for implementation during the construction phase. The TCP may include, but is not limited
to, the following provisions:
At least one unobstructed lane shall be maintained in both directions on surrounding
roadways.
At any time only a single lane is available, the developer shall provide a temporary traffic
signal, signal carriers (i.e., flagpersons), or other appropriate traffic controls to allow
travel in both directions.
If construction activities require the complete closure of a roadway segment, the
developer shall provide appropriate signate indicating detours/alternative routes.
H-13
Prior to construction, the City of Fontana Engineering Department shall consult with the City of
Fontana Police Department to disclose temporary closures and alternative travel routes, in
order to assure adequate access for emergency vehicles when construction of future projects
would result in temporary lane or roadway closures.
Source: WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4H-21, 4H-22, 4M-27, and 4M-28].
4.19.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Proposed Project Impacts
The proposed project’s potential impacts regarding wildfire have been evaluated considering the present
environmental regulatory setting. The modified project would be similar to the previous project in that it is
located within the Specific Plan area and wildfire hazards have already been evaluated for the Approved
Project site. Therefore, modified project impacts would be similar to those of the approved project and no
additional significant impacts beyond those identified for the approved project would occur.
4.19.3 Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist responses compare the previous approved project analyzed under the adopted FEIR
with the modified project as described in this document, and analyze the potential impacts resulting from
the development.
Addendum to EIR
If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands
classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would
the project:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring Major
EIR Revisions
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce
Significant
Effects in
Previous EIR
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR
No
Impact
a)Substantially impair an
adopted emergency
response plan or
emergency evacuation
plan?
X
SECTION 4.19 - WILDFIRE
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.19-3
May 2024
Addendum to EIR
If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands
classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would
the project:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring Major
EIR Revisions
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce
Significant
Effects in
Previous EIR
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation of
an EIR
No
Impact
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?
X
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?
X
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?
X
State Responsibility Areas or Lands Classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is legally mandated to periodically
map Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) (Public Resources Code 4201-4204)
as well as recommend Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs)
(Government Code 51175-51189).27 CAL FIRE established the Fire and Resource Assessment Program
(FRAP) to develop a statewide, consistent logic and science-based model for Fire Hazard Zoning for
adoption of new building standards. CAL FIRE’s mapped Fire Hazard Severity Z
27 In SRA the State is responsible for the cost of wildfire prevention and suppression; in LRA cities and counties are responsible
for such costs.
SECTION 4.19 - WILDFIRE
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.19-4
May 2024
ones for SRAs and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) in LRAs are shown on Figures 4.19‐1,
Fire Hazard Severity Zone - State Responsibility Area (SRA), and 4.19‐2, Fire Hazard Severity Zone - Local
Responsibility Area (LRA). As shown on these maps, the project site is not located within an SRA or within
a VHFHSZ in LRA. However, a VHFHSZ-SRA is located 2.8 miles north of the project site and a VHFHSZ-LRA
located approximately 0.5-mile northwest from the project site (CAL FIRE, 2023).
SECTION 4.19 - WILDFIRE
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.19-5
May 2024
Figure 4.19-1
FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE - STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREA (SRA)
SECTION 4.19 - WILDFIRE
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.19-6
May 2024
Figure 4.19-2
FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE - LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA (LRA)
SECTION 4.19 - WILDFIRE
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.19-7
May 2024
a)If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
As detailed above, the proposed project site is not located within an SRA Fire Hazard Severity Zone or within
a VHFHSZ in an LRA. However, as shown on Figure 4.19-1, the project site is located approximately 2.8
miles south from an SRA Fire Hazard Severity Zone and approximately 0.5 mile southeast from a VHFHSZ
LRA (Figure 4.19-2). The City of Fontana has established evacuation plans through the establishment of
the City’s Emergency Management Program and Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). Additionally, Fire
Station #80 is planned to be constructed at Cherry Avenue and S. Highland Avenue approximately the same
time as this project (Lee, 2024a).
Furthermore, the city has accommodated for continued growth and development in VHFHSZs and the
proposed project would not affect efficacy of established fire safety plans. The City of Fontana Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan (LHMP) discusses establishing criteria for land development to decrease risk of wildfire in
Section 6.3, Mitigation Goals and Projects of the LHMP (City of Fontana, 2017). Since the project is near but
not located in an SRA or LRA and development near LRAs and VHFHSZs has been accounted for in the City’s
safety plans, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and no new impact would occur.
b)If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
As detailed above, the project site is not within areas classified as VHFHSZs, however the project site is near
a VHFHSZ in LRA. No slopes which could exacerbate wildfire risks are on the project site. Therefore, the
project would not expose project occupants (residents, workers, customers, or visitors) to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Impacts would be less than
significant.
c)If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
As detailed above, the project site is not located in lands classified as VHFHSZs but the project site is
approximately 0.5 miles southeast from a VHFHSZ in an LRA (CAL-FIRE, 2023). However, the project would
not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk. All
infrastructure other than roadways would be installed underground. The project site is in an urban setting;
no wildland vegetation is on or next to the project site. The project would be
SECTION 4.19 - WILDFIRE
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.19-8
May 2024
constructed in compliance with applicable building and fire codes. Therefore, the modified project would
have a less than significant impact and no new impact would occur.
d)If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
The project site is not located in areas or lands classified as VHFHSZs but is approximately 0.5 mile from a
VHFHSZ in a LRA (CAL-FIRE, 2023). The project site is relatively flat and is not located in an area with
significant slopes. Thus, project development would not exacerbate existing hazards consequent to wildfire
such as downslope or downstream flooding or landslides. Impacts would be less than significant.
SECTION 4.20 – MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.20-1
May 2024
4.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Does the project have:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New Information
Showing Ability
to Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to the
Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
a)The potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
b)Impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
X
c)Environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
The Westgate Specific Plan EIR concluded the following:
Degradation of the Environment
Section 15065(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project may have a significant impact on the
environment if it has the potential to “substantially degrade the quality of the environment.” The Certified
EIR details all potential environmental effects associated with development at a program level of analysis,
including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the following environmental issue areas: (PCR, 2015,
p. i)
SECTION 4.20 – MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.20-2
May 2024
Aesthetics/Visual Resources
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire
The Certified EIR discuses all potential environmental impacts, the level of significance prior to mitigation,
project requirements that are required by law, feasible mitigation measures, and the level of significance
after the incorporation of mitigation measures.
Long-Term Impacts
Section 15065(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project may have a significant effect on the
environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. Section 6.0A, Significant
Unavoidable Impacts, of the Westgate Specific Plan EIR addresses the short-term and irretrievable
commitment of natural resources and concludes that the future consumption of resources in relation to
future development would not be considered wasteful or unjustifiable. Section 6.0, Significant Unavoidable
Impacts, of the Westgate Specific Plan EIR PEIR identifies the following significant and unavoidable impacts
that could occur and that could result in a long-term impact on the environment: agriculture and forestry;
air quality; cultural resources; noise; and transportation/traffic (PCR, 2015, p. 6-1). Section 6.0D, Growth
Inducing Impacts, of the Westgate Specific Plan EIR identifies long-term environmental impacts caused by
the approved project. The Westgate Specific Plan project would not spur additional growth in Fontana other
than that already anticipated in the SCAG growth forecasts, and would not eliminate impediments to
growth. Therefore, the Westgate Specific Plan project would not foster growth inducing impacts that would
result in both direct and indirect growth inducement (PCR January 2015, p. 6-4).
Cumulative Impacts
Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project may have a significant effect on the
environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has potential environmental effects that
are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
SECTION 4.20 – MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.20-3
May 2024
projects. Cumulative impacts are addressed for each of the environmental topics listed above and are
provided in Sections 4.0A-4.0O of the Westgate Specific Plan EIR.
Impacts on Species
Section 15065(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project may have a significant effect on the
environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the
range of an endangered, rare or threatened species; Section 4.0D, Biological Resources, of the Westgate
Specific Plan EIR addresses potential impacts on species.
Impacts on Historical Resources
Section 15065(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project may have a significant effect on the
environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to eliminate important
examples of a major periods of California history or prehistory. Section 4.0E, Cultural Resources, of the
Westgate Specific Plan EIR addresses impacts related to California history and prehistory, historic
resources, archaeological resources and paleontological resources.
Impacts on Human Beings
As required by § 15065(a)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may have a significant effect on the
environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. While changes to the environment that could
indirectly affect human beings are possible for all designated CEQA issue areas, those areas that could
directly affect human beings include: air quality; greenhouse gases, hazards and hazardous materials; noise;
public services, utilities and infrastructure; and traffic and circulation, each of which are addressed in the
appropriate sections of the Westgate Specific Plan EIR.
4.20.1 Project Impact Analysis
a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
Vineyard is the primary land cover occurring within the modified project site, and contains disturbed soils
of low-quality habitat value for sensitive plant species. Implementation of the modified project would not
have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the
CDFW or USFWS. The modified project site does not support wetland or riparian habitats. The modified
project site is adjacent to the Highland Channel, a water of the U.S. However, drainage onsite in both existing
conditions and after modified project development is southwest toward South Highland Avenue, and not
north toward Highland Channel; thus, project development is not expected to cause impacts to Highland
Channel.
SECTION 4.20 – MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.20-4
May 2024
The modified project site provides potential nesting, hunting, and foraging habitat for special-status bird
species as well as for bird species protected by the MBTA. However, with the implementation of WSP FEIR
Mitigation Measure D-5, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, modified project impacts to
biological resources would involve no changes or new information compared to the WSP FEIR, and would
be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Refer to Section 4.4 for details regarding the modified
project’s potential impacts on biological resources.
The Certified EIR determined that Approved Project impacts on historical resources would be significant
and unavoidable. The cultural resources inventory supporting this Addendum did not identify significant
historical or archaeological resources onsite.
b)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
As described throughout this Addendum, the modified project would have no impacts beyond those
analyzed in the previous EIR, and therefore, there is no new information showing new or increased effects,
including cumulative impacts, compared to the Certified FEIR.
The modified project is one of many projects anticipated to be implemented within the Westgate Specific
Plan (“Approved Project”) site. The modified project would not significantly change the Approved Project
relative to CEQA in that the modified project does not change the assumptions, analysis, conclusions, or
mitigation for the Approved Project. The components of the modified project do not modify the Approved
Project’s significance conclusions nor would the conclusions provide significant new information. The
modified project does not result in major revisions to the Westgate Specific Plan EIR and no new significant
environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects
would occur with implementation of the modified project. The modified project would not warrant
preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
The modified project’s impacts have been fully examined and mitigated to the extent discussed in this
Addendum. The modified project does not require substantial changes to the certified Westgate Specific
Plan EIR, or previously adopted mitigation measures. Thus, the appropriate CEQA document for the
modified project, as outlined in CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15164, is the preparation of this Addendum
to the previously certified Westgate Specific Plan EIR.
c)Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
As detailed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the modified project would implement WSP
FEIR Mitigation Measure E-1 to E-5 to ensure that construction would not cause significant hazardous
materials impacts. The modified project would store, transport, and use small amounts of hazardous
materials such as janitorial and landscaping supplies; in addition to medical waste. These materials would
be stored, handled, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. There are no proposed future
operations that would involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of
SECTION 4.20 – MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.20-5
May 2024
hazardous materials or hazardous wastes that may create a significant hazard to the public or environment.
Therefore, no adverse effects to human health are anticipated either directly or indirectly due to risk of
accident or upset conditions. Additionally, as detailed throughout the document, none of the environmental
topics would have significant impacts. Therefore, with the implementation of certified EIR mitigation
measures, impacts on human beings would be less than significant.
Conclusions
Modified project construction and operation would not involve any new information or changes compared
to the WSP FEIR. Additionally, the modified project would not have any significant impacts with the
incorporation of mitigation measures set forth in the WSP FEIR. Therefore, modified project development
would not cause cumulatively considerable impacts and would not require preparation of a subsequent EIR.
SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 5-1
May 2024
5.0 REFERENCES
Airnav.com. 2023. Airport Information. Accessed online at: http://airnav.com/airports/, on June 1, 2023.
CALFIRE, 2023. FRAP – FHSZ Viewer. Accessed online at: http://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed on May 3,
2023.
Calflora, 2023. Information on California plants for education, research and conservation. Observation
Search. Available at https://www.calflora.org/entry/observ.html. Accessed on May 24, 2023.
Cal-IPC (California Invasive Plant Council), 2006. California Invasive Plant Inventory. Cal-IPC Publication
2006-02. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA. Accessed online at: https://www.cal-
ipc.org/plants/inventory/ Accessed on July 16, 2022.
California Geological Survey (CGS). 2023. Data Viewer. Accessed online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/DataViewer/, on January 4, 2023.
CalRecycle, 2023a. Solid Waste Landfill Data, Accessed online at
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LandfillTipFees/ViewReport on June 5, 2023.
CalRecycle, 2023b. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details - Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055) Accessed
online at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662
on June 5, 2023.
Caltrans, 2023. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed online at
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e80
57116f1aacaa, accessed on May 31, 2023.
CAPCOA, 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association. Accessed online at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/ceqa/handbook/capcoa-quantifying-greenhouse-gas-mitigation-measures.pdf on March
12, 2024.
CAPCOA, 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model®, Version 2022.1. California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association. Accessed online at https://www.caleemod.com/ on May 17, 2023.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Game). 2022. California Natural Community List. July 5, 2022.
Retrieved from https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities. Accessed on
February 20, 2023
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife) 2023. BIOS Habitat Connectivity Viewer. Accessed at
ftp://ftp.dfg.ca.gov/BDB/GIS/BIOS/Habitat_Connectivity/. Accessed on February 20, 2023.
CDM Smith, 2013. Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans. Dated June 17,
2013.Accessed online at
SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 5-2
May 2024
https://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/DPW/docs/SantaAnaRiver-WQMP-Final-June2013.pdf on
March 29, 2023.
City of Fontana, 1989. City of Fontana and County of San Bernardino Upper Etiwanda Creek & San Sevaine
Creek Area Drainage Plan. Dated September 1989. Accessed online at
https://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/DPW/docs/20090708_dpw_etiwanda_san_sevaine_fee_pla
n1.pdf on March 29, 2023.
City of Fontana. 2006. Master Storm Drain Plan and Master Storm Drainage Benefit Areas Map. Prepared by
the City of Fontana Department of Engineering/Mapping.
City of Fontana, 2017. City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2017. Accessed online at:
https://fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan.
Accessed on May 3, 2023.
City of Fontana, 2018a. Fontana Forward General Plan Update. Adopted February November 13, 2018.
Accessed online at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28271/Complete-
Document---Approved-General-Plan-Documents-11-13-2018 on March 27, 2023.
City of Fontana. 2018b. Fontana Forward General Plan Update Draft EIR. Adopted June 8, 2018. Accessed
online at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29525/Final-Environmental-
Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update on March 27, 2023.
City of Fontana. 2018c. Fontana Forward General Plan Update Final EIR. Adopted August 10, 2018. Accessed
online at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-Environmental-
Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update on March 27, 2023.
City of Fontana, 2023a. General Plan Land Use Map. Adopted February 8, 2022. Accessed online at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28163/General-Plan-Land-Use-Map-04-20-
2022?bidId= on March 27, 2023.
City of Fontana, 2023b. Zoning District Map. Adopted on April 20, 2022. Accessed online at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/30623/Zoning-District-Map-3-2-21?bidId=
accessed on March 27, 2023.
CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database), 2023a. Maps and Data (Internet). California Department of
Fish and Wildlife. Available at https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Accessed on
April 15, 2023.
CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database), 2023b. Natural Diversity Database. Special Animals List.
April 2023. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. Available at. Last accessed
on https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406&inline. Accessed May 2,
2023.
CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database), 2023c. Natural Diversity Database. State and Federally
Listed Endangered and Rare Plants of California. April 2023. California Department of Fish and
Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. Available at
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109390. Accessed May 19, 2023.
SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 5-3
May 2024
CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database), 2023d. Natural Diversity Database. State and Federally
Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. April 2023. California Department of
Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. Available at
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109405&inline. Accessed May 19, 2023.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society), 2022a. Rare Plant Program. Inventory of Rare and Endangered
Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Available at http://www.rareplants.cnps.org.
Accessed on July 5, 2022.
CNPS. 2022b. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition. California Native Plant Society, CA. 1300
pp. Retrieved from: http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/. Accessed on July 7, 2022.
Contech, 2019. Contech® Engineered Solutions: Stormwater Management, Underground Stormwater
Detention and Infiltration. Accessed online at https://www.conteches.com/
stormwater-management/detention-and-infiltration/ on January 8, 2019.
Crawford, B., C. Ballard and W. Kunzman, 2013. Westgate Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis. Kunzman
Associates, Inc., Orange, CA. December 30, 2013.
DOC, 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed online at
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/, on February 6, 2023.
DOF (Department of Finance), 2020. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the
State, 2020-2022. Accessed online at https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-
5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/, on February
28, 2023.
Dutcher, L. C. and Garrett, Arthur A., 1963. Geologic and Hydrologic Features of the San Bernardino Area,
California. Available at L. C. Dutcher and Arthur A. Garrett. Accessed on May 24, 2023.
DWR (California Department of Water Resources), 2023. Water Data Library; Groundwater Levels for
Station 341217N1175119W001. Available at http://wdl.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/.
Accessed online at
https://www.fusd.net/cms/lib/CA50000190/Centricity/Domain/4/Fontana%20Unified%20D
eveloper%20Fee%20Justification%20Study%202022.pdf on March 23, 2023.
eBird. 2023. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. All About Birds. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.
Available at https://www.allaboutbirds.org. Accessed on March 11, 2023.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Panel
06071C7915H. Map revised August 28, 2008. Available at the FEMA Flood Map Service Center
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Downloaded on January 10, 2019.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2014. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Panel
06071C7895J. Map revised August 28, 2008. Available at the FEMA Flood Map Service Center
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Downloaded on January 10, 2019.
SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 5-4
May 2024
Fuscoe Engineering, 2012. WSP DEIR Appendix H, Water Quality & Hydrology Technical Report. Prepared
for PCH Services Corporation, Dated September 10, 2012.
FWC (Fontana Water Company). 2022. Water Treatment. Available at
http://www.fontanawater.com/water-quality-supply/water-treatment/. Accessed on June 10,
2022.
FWC (Fontana Water Company). 2021. San Gabriel Valley Water Company – Fontana Division 2020 Urban
Water Management Plan (UWMP). Dated June 2021. Accessed online at
https://www.fontanawater.com/water-quality-supply/2020-urban-water-management-plan/
on June 5, 2023.
Google Earth Pro, 2023. V 7.3.6.9345 (December 29, 2022). City of Fontana, San Bernardino County,
California, U.S.A. 34.°07’43.63”N-117°29’24.83”W. Imagery date: December 1985-September
2021. Eye alt 1,355 feet. Accessed on March 5, 2023.
IEAU, 2023. Regional Water Recycling Plant No.4 (RP-4). Accessed online at https://www.ieua.org/wp-
content/uploads/2022/09/Final02_RP4-Brochure-.pdf on June 2, 2023.
IPCC, 2007a. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007.
Hogan, J., 2023. Email. January 30, 2023.
JHA Consulting, 2017. City of Fontana Westgate Specific Plan. Adopted February 14, 2017. Accessed online
at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/18283/West-Gate-Specific-Plan---
Approved-March-2017?bidId= on March 29, 2023.
LACSD (Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts), 2023. Wastewater Treatment Process. Accessed online at:
https://www.lacsd.org/services/wastewater-sewage/facilities/wastewater-treatment-process,
on May 31, 2023.
Lee, Millard, 2024a. Email from Millard Lee (Millard Lee Consulting) to Michael Milroy (UltraSystems
Environmental, Inc.) regarding EIR Addendum Comments. January 5, 2024.
Lee, Millard, 2024b. Telephone communication with Betsy Lyndsay regarding xxxxx, UltraSystems. January
11, 2024.
McKernan, R.L., 1997. The status and known distribution of the San Bernardino Kangaroo rat (Dipodomys
merriami parvus): Field surveys conducted between 1987 and 1996. Prepared for U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Morton, D. M., and R. Streitz., 1969. Reconnaissance Map of Major Landslides, San Gabriel Mountains,
California. Accessed online at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse on
March 29, 2023.
PCR (PCR Services Corporation), 2015a. WSP Draft EIR, Westgate Specific Plan. Accessed online at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/38282/Westgate-Specific-Plan-Draft-EIR on
February 6, 2023.
SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 5-5
May 2024
PCR (PCR Services Corporation), 2015b. WSP Final EIR, Westgate Specific Plan. Accessed online at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/3828 3/Westgate-Final-EIR on March 27,
2023.
SBCDPW (County of San Bernardino Department of Public Works). 2014. Road System Map Series: Map
15V11. Available at http://web.sbcounty.gov/dpw/GIS/CMRS/PDF/15V11.pdf. Accessed on
April 6, 2023.
SBCFD, 2019 – San Bernardino County Fire Department, About CUPA. Accessed online at:
https://www.sbcfire.org/ofm/Hazmat/CUPA.aspx on January 21, 2019.
Shuford et al. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies,
and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of
Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department
of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Sibley, David Allen. 2000. National Audubon Society, The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York
Soil Survey Staff, 2023. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture,
Web Soil Survey: Custom Soil Resource Report, San Bernardino County, California. Available at
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Downloaded on April 20, 2023.
SCAQMD 2017a – Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. South Coast Air Quality Management District.
March 2017.
SCAQMD 2019 – SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Revision: March 2015. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/
handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf . Accessed January 2019.
SCAQMD, 2009. Localized Significant Thresholds. Appendix C. South Coast Air Quality Management.
Accessed online at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-
significance-thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2. On May 16, 2023.
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2023. Construction Stormwater Program. Accessed online
at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/construction.html on
March 29, 2023.
Tucker, J., 2024. Email from RK Engineering Group, Inc. to Michael Milroy, UltraSystems Environmental
Incorporated. February 28.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2017. Public Notice/Application No. SPL-2016-00378-PKK for the
Chino Basin Recharge Facilities Operations and Maintenance Project. Available at
https://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Portals/17/Users/117/09/1909/SPL-2016-
00378_PN_20170214_Chino_Basin.pdf?ver=2017-02-21-102754-630. Downloaded on March 27,
2023.
SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 5-6
May 2024
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2023a. WATERS GeoViewer. Available at
https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-geoviewer. Accessed on April 19, 2023.
USEPA, 2011. “Methane.” Climate Change Web Site. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www.epa.gov/methane/. Updated April 1, 2011.
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2022a. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. Official Species
List: Consultation Code: 2022-0063454. Carlsbad, California. Retrieved from
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed on July 13, 2022.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2022b. USFWS Critical Habitat Portal: http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/.
Accessed on July 13, 2022.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2022c. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) website, National
Wetlands Mapper. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed on July 16, 2022.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) 2001. Devore Quadrangle, California, 7.5-Minute Series [map]. Scale 1:24,000.
Prepared in cooperation with the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, U.S. Forest
Service, (San Bernardino National Forest) and the California Division of Mines and Geology.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/0173/pdf/of01-173_map.pdf. Accessed on May 9, 2023.
US Geological Survey (USGS). 2022. The National Map. Accessed online at:
https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/advanced-viewer/, on May 17, 2022.
US Geological Survey (USGS). 2023. Areas of Land Subsidence in California. Accessed online at:
https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html, on January 4,
2023.
SECTION 6.0 – LIST OF PREPARERS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 6-1
May 2024
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
6.1 Lead Agency (CEQA)
Cecily Session-Goins, Planning Contractor
DiTanyon Johnson, Principal Planner
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335-3528
6.2 Project Applicant
Douglas Ford, Vice President
Jeff Pierson, Vice President/COO
Intex Properties Corporation
4001 Via Oro Avenue
Long Beach, CA 90810
6.3 UltraSystems Environmental, Inc.
6.3.1 Environmental Planning Team
Betsy Lindsay, MURP, ENV SP, Project Director
Michael Milroy, MS, Senior Project Manager
Victor Paitimusa, BA, ENV SP. Assistant Project Manager
6.3.2 Technical Team
Allison Carver, BS, BS, Senior Biologist II
Amir Ayati, BS, Staff Scientist
Andrew Soto, BA, Word Processing
Audrey McNamara, BA, Staff Biologist
Billye Breckenridge, BA, Assistant Project Manager, Senior GIS Analyst
Gulben Kaplan, MS, GIS Analyst
Matthew Sutton, MS, ISA, Staff Biologist
Megan Black, BA, Archaeological Technician
Michael Rogozen, D. Env, Senior Principal Engineer
Steve O’Neil, MS, RPA, Cultural Resources Manager
SECTION 6.0 – LIST OF PREPARERS
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 6-2
May 2024
6.3.3 Consultants Working under the Project Applicant
FORMA
H. Gene Hsieh, Principal/Executive Vice President
Scott Armsworth, Senior Project Manager
Millard Lee Consulting
Millard Lee, Studio Principal - AIA, NCARB, DBIA
John Hogan Consulting
John C. Hogan, PE, Principal
RK Engineering
Justin Tucker, Associate Principal
Stetson Engineers Inc.
Stan Chen, PE
Converse Consultants
Hashmi Quazi, PhD, PE, GE
c|a Architects
Miguel Cuevas, AIA, Caren Cupp, AIA
ima Design
William Schulz, ASLA