HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 Citrus Walk Addendum
Citrus Walk Residential Project
Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
Lead Agency:
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Project Applicant:
NewBridge Homes, LLC
500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 570
Newport Beach, CA 92660
CEQA Consultant:
3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612
June 2025
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
This page intentionally left blank.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
i
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2. EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, OR POLICIES (PPPS) .......................................................................... 2
1.3. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES .............................................................................................................. 2
1.4. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION ................................................................................ 3
2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................................................... 5
2.1. PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2. EXISTING LAND USE .................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS ............................................ 5
2.4. SURROUNDING LAND USES ..................................................................................................................... 5
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 25
3.1. RFSP FINAL EIR ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE PROJECT SITE .................................................................. 25
3.2. PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................... 25
3.3. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT ................................................................................................................. 25
3.4. PROJECT FEATURES .................................................................................................................................. 26
3.5. CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 28
3.6. DISCRETIONARY ACTION CHECKLIST .................................................................................................. 28
4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ..................................................................................................... 39
4.1. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................... 39
4.2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ..................................................................... 40
4.3. DETERMINATION ....................................................................................................................................... 40
4.4. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................................................... 42
5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 44
5.1. AESTHETICS ................................................................................................................................................ 44
5.2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 49
5.3. AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................................................................. 53
5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES....................................................................................................................... 62
5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................ 67
5.6. ENERGY ....................................................................................................................................................... 71
5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................................................ 77
5.8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................ 85
5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................................................................... 94
5.10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................................................................................. 99
5.11. LAND USE AND PLANNING .................................................................................................................. 106
5.12. MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................ 114
5.13. NOISE ........................................................................................................................................................ 116
5.14. POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................................................................. 128
5.15. PUBLIC SERVICES .................................................................................................................................... 131
5.16. RECREATION ............................................................................................................................................ 140
5.17. TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................................................. 143
5.18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................ 151
5.19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 154
5.20. WILDFIRE ................................................................................................................................................... 163
6. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 166
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
ii
Tables
TABLE 3-1: RFSP REMAINING CAPACITY ............................................................................................................................ 25
TABLE 3-2: PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT .......................................................................................................... 25
TABLE 3-3: RESIDENTIAL UNIT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 26
TABLE AES-1: CONSISTENCY WITH RFSP DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS .............................................................................. 46
TABLE AQ-1: SCAQMD REGIONAL DAILY EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS ................................................................................ 56
TABLE AQ-2: REGIONAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ......................................................................... 56
TABLE AQ-3: REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ESTIMATES ......................................................................................... 57
TABLE AQ-4: LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ....................................................................................... 58
TABLE AQ-5: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION HEALTH RISK ........................................................................................................ 60
TABLE E-1: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT FUEL USAGE ........................................................................................................ 73
TABLE E-2: TOTAL FUEL USAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................. 74
TABLE E-3: PROJECT ANNUAL OPERATIONAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................. 74
TABLE GHG-1: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS ............................................................................................ 87
TABLE GHG-2: PROJECT TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS............................................................................................................ 88
TABLE GHG-3: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH 2022 SCOPING PLAN .............................................................................. 88
TABLE GHG-4: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH CITY OF FONTANA GENERAL PLAN .......................................................... 91
TABLE LU-1: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH RFSP GOALS AND POLICIES ........................................................................ 108
TABLE LU-2: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICIES .............................................................................. 108
TABLE N-1: LONG TERM 24-HOUR AMBIENT NOISE MONITORING RESULTS .................................................................. 117
TABLE N-2: OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS ................................................................................................................. 121
TABLE N-3: DETAILED ASSESSMENT DAYTIME CONSTRUCTION NOISE CRITERIA ............................................................... 121
TABLE N-4: INTERPRETATION OF VIBRATION CRITERIA FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS ............................................................... 121
TABLE N-5: CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION DAMAGE CRITERIA ............................................................................................ 122
TABLE N-6: POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT NEAREST RECEPTORS ............................................................. 123
TABLE N-7: CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION REFERENCE LEVELS ............................................................................................. 125
TABLE N-8: POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ANNOYANCE LEVELS AT NEAREST RECEPTORS ............................... 125
TABLE N-9: POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION DAMAGE LEVELS AT NEAREST RECEPTORS ...................................... 125
TABLE PS-2: STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR ................................................................................................................... 137
TABLE T-1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ............................................................................................................................ 147
TABLE UT-1: FONTANA WATER COMPANY PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY (AF) ................................................................. 160
Figures
FIGURE 2-1: REGIONAL LOCATION........................................................................................................................................ 7
FIGURE 2-2: LOCAL VICINITY ................................................................................................................................................. 9
FIGURE 2-3: AERIAL VIEW................................................................................................................................................... 11
FIGURE 2-4A: SITE PHOTOS ................................................................................................................................................ 13
FIGURE 2-4B: SITE PHOTOS ................................................................................................................................................ 15
FIGURE 2-5: EXISTING LAND USE ........................................................................................................................................ 17
FIGURE 2-6: EXISTING ZONING .......................................................................................................................................... 19
FIGURE 2-7: ORIGINAL RANCHO FONTANA SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION ....................................................................... 21
FIGURE 2-8: CURRENT RANCHO FONTANA SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION ........................................................................ 23
FIGURE 3-1: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ................................................................................................................................. 29
FIGURE 3-2: PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT ........................................................................................................ 31
FIGURE 3-3A: ELEVATIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 33
FIGURE 3-3B: ELEVATIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 35
FIGURE 3-4: LANDSCAPE PLAN ........................................................................................................................................... 37
FIGURE 5-1: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS .............................................................................................................. 119
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
iii
Appendices
APPENDIX A AIR QUALITY, ENERGY, AND GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX C GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX D CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
APPENDIX F PALEONTOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX G PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX H HYDROLOGY REPORT
APPENDIX I WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX J NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
APPENDIX K VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS
APPENDIX L QUEUING ANALYSIS MEMO
APPENDIX M LEVEL OF SERVICE SCREENING ANALYSIS
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
iv
Acronym List
AB Assembly Bill
ADT average daily trips
AF acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
amsl above mean seal level
A-P Alquist-Priolo (Earthquake Fault Zoning Act)
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
BMP Best Management Practice
CAL FIRE California Department of Foresty and Fire Protection
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CBC California Building Code
CBMWD Chino Basin Municipal Water District
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDOC California Department of Conservation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFC California Fire Code
CGP Construction General Permit
CNEL community noise equivalent level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CUP Conditional Use Permit
CREC controlled recognized environmental conditions
CY cubic yards
dBA A-weighted decibel
DPM diesel particulate matter
DPR Department of Parks and Recreation
DTSC Department of Toxic Substance Control
ESS Electric Storage System
FAR floor area ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FFPD Fontana Fire Protection District
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FPD Fontana Police Department
FPP Fire Protection Plan
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FUSD Fontana Unified School District
FWC Fontana Water Company
GBA General Biological Assessment
GHG greenhouse gas
gpad gallons per acre per day
gpcd gallons per capita per day
gpd gallons per day
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HPLV high pressure low volume
HRA Health Risk Assessment
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
v
HREC historical recognized environmental conditions
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
IEUA Inland Empire Utilities Agency
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
kBTU thousand British thermal units
kWh kilowatt-hour
Leq equivalent continuous sound level
LID low impact development
LOS level of service
LST localized significant threshold
Lv velocity in decibels
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mgd million gallons per day
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MM Mitigation Measure
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MS4 Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System
MTCO2e metric tons carbon dioxide equivalents
MWD Metropolitan Water District
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan
NOI Notice of Intent
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
ONT Ontario International Airport
ONTLUCP Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
PM10 particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less
PM2.5 particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less
PPP Plan, Programs, or Policies
PPV peak particle velocity
QSD Qualified SWPPP Preparer
REC Recognized Environmental Concern
RFSP Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
R-M Medium Density Residential
ROG reactive organic gases
RP Regional Plant
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standards
RSA Regional Statistical Area
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
RV recreational vehicle
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SBCFCD San Bernardino County Flood Control District
SBCFD San Bernardino County Fire Department
SBCTA San Bernardino County Transit Authority
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
vi
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCE Southern California Edison Company
SF square foot
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SL Screening Level
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SP service population
SPRR Southern Pacific Railroad
SR-60 State Route 60
SRA source receptor area
STLC Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminants
TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TPA Transit Priority Area
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFW United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VdB vibration velocity decibels
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VOC volatile organic compound
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This document is an Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan Master Environmental Impact Report No.
81-6, which has been the subject of eight previous addenda (collectively, the “RFSP Final EIR”), certified by
the City of Fontana (City) in December 1982. The RFSP Final EIR, in conjunction with this Addendum, serve as
the environmental review for the proposed Citrus Walk Project (“Project”). The Project proposes development
of a 4.53-gross-acre 1 (3.33-net-acre) site, including construction of 54 single-family residences, landscape,
common use amenities, including a common area park, and site improvements.
The Rancho Fontana Specific Plan (RFSP) was adopted by the City of Fontana in 1982 as a tool for providing
development standards, design theme, and administrative procedures necessary to implement policies of the
City of Fontana General Plan. The RFSP Final EIR analyzed the development of at least 2,395 residential
units within the 510-acre RFSP area. Since 1982, at least eight amendments to the RFSP have been
processed, bringing the total acreage to approximately 520 acres and allowed unit count within the plan to
2,445. Since 1982, a total of 2,360 residential units have been constructed within the RFSP area.
The RFSP divided the Specific Plan area into 33 distinct Planning Areas. The Project site is located within
Planning Area 18 of the RFSP. The RFSP designates Planning Area 18 as Low Density Residential, which
allows for a maximum of six dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Thus, the RFSP Final EIR assumed up to 27 units
could be constructed on the 4.53-gross-acre site.
The Project evaluated herein involves a Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, and Site Plan Review
for construction and operation of 54 single-family residential units on an approximately 4.53-gross-acre site
located south of Baseline Avenue, east of Orlando Drive, and west of Lime Avenue within the City of Fontana.
The proposed Project is within the overall density permitted by the RFSP.
Development within the RFSP area is subject to mitigation measures identified in the RFSP Final EIR, the
development regulations in the RFSP, and the City’s Municipal Code. Pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21167.2, the RFSP Final EIR must be conclusively presumed to be valid with regard to its use for
later activities unless any of the circumstances requiring supplemental review exist.2
This environmental checklist provides the basis for an Addendum to the previously certified Final EIR and
serves as the appropriate level of environmental review of the proposed Project, as required pursuant to
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et
seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines. This Checklist confirms that the Project is within the scope of the RFSP
analyzed in the RFSP Final EIR, and the Addendum augments the analysis in the RFSP Final EIR as provided
in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15164 and provides the basis for the City’s determination
that no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required to evaluate the proposed Project. Environmental analysis
and mitigation measures from the RFSP Final EIR have been incorporated into this Addendum, and
1 Per the tract map exhibit, the site is 4.03-gross acres (3.33-net acres); however, RFSP Section 6.3.17 defines gross acreage as the
total land area within a defined boundary, measured to the centerline of streets. For the purposes of consistency with the RFSP,
this document utilizes the site acreage per the RFSP definition.
2 See Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.2; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th
1112, 1130 (“[a]fter certification, the interests of finality are favored”); Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. City of San Jose (2003)
114 Cal. App. 4th 689, 705-706.)
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
2
applicability of each has been described. In cases where mitigation measures from the RFSP Final EIR have
been revised or satisfied by studies prepared for Addendum, it is noted.
Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City, as the Lead Agency, is charged
with the responsibility of deciding whether or not to approve the proposed Project. As part of the decision-
making process, the City is required to review and consider the potential environmental effects that could
result from construction and operation of the proposed Project. The analysis in this document discusses the
impacts identified within the RFSP Final EIR and compares them with the impacts that would result from
implementation of the proposed Project’s 54 single-family residential units.
1.2. EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, OR POLICIES (PPPS)
Throughout the analysis of this document, reference is made to requirements that are applied to all
development on the basis of federal, State, or local law. Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies are collectively
identified in this document as PPPs. Where applicable, PPPs are listed to show their effect in reducing
potential environmental impacts. Additionally, applicable mitigation measures from the RFSP Final EIR are
included herein and will be incorporated into the Project. As shown throughout the analysis, the Project does
not result in any new impacts and no additional mitigation measures are required.
1.3. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City’s review of the Checklist and Addendum will
determine if approval of the requested discretionary actions and subsequent development could cause a
change in the conclusions of the certified Final EIR and disclose any change in circumstances or new
information of substantial importance that would substantially change the conclusions of the RFSP Final EIR.
This environmental Checklist and Addendum provide the City with information to document potential impacts
of the proposed Project.
Pursuant to Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines,
when an EIR has been certified or a Negative Declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be
prepared for the project unless the Lead Agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that one
or more of the following conditions are met:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which
will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. 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, shows any
of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative
declaration.
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the
previous EIR.
c. 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
proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
3
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the
previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the
project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.
Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an Addendum to an EIR shall be prepared “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.”
In reviewing this Addendum, the question before City decision-makers is not whether the RFSP Final EIR
complies with CEQA, but only whether one of the events triggering the need for subsequent environmental
review has occurred. (A Local & Regional Monitor v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1773;
Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32.)
This Addendum and the technical studies in support of the analysis review the proposed Project and any
changes to the existing conditions that have occurred since the RFSP Final EIR was certified. It also reviews
any new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with
exercise of reasonable diligence at the time that the RFSP Final EIR was certified. It further examines whether,
as a result of any changes or any new information, a subsequent EIR may be required. This examination
includes an analysis of the provisions of Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of
the State CEQA Guidelines and their applicability to the proposed Project. This Addendum relies on use of
the Environmental Analysis provided herein, which addresses environmental issues on a section-by-section
basis and provides a comparison to the findings in the RFSP Final EIR.
On the basis of the findings of the certified RFSP Final EIR and the provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines,
the City as the Lead Agency determined that, as documented in this Addendum to the previously certified
Final EIR, no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required to review the proposed Project.
1.4. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
As directed by CEQA, this Addendum relies on the environmental analysis in the RFSP Final EIR. A summary
of the previous environmental documentation and how it relates to the proposed Project is provided below.
The RFSP was adopted by Ordinance on December 7, 1982, as a tool for providing development standards,
design theme, and administrative procedures necessary to implement the policies of the City of Fontana
General Plan. The RFSP Final EIR evaluated buildout of the RFSP area pursuant to the RFSP design criteria
and residential and non-residential development allowances. The RFSP Final EIR analyzed the development
of 2,395 residential units within the 510-acre RFSP area. Since 1982, eight amendments to the RFSP have
been processed, bringing the total acreage to 520 acres and expanding the unit count within the plan to
2,445. Since 1982, a total of 2,360 residential units have been constructed within the RFSP area.
The RFSP Final EIR determined that implementation and buildout of the RFSP would not have significant and
unavoidable environmental effects related to any environmental topic areas. However, the RFSP Final EIR
also identified 15 environmental impact areas for which mitigation measures were required to reduce
potential environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level. These include: topography; geology; land
resources and relevant planning; noise; cultural/scientific resources; biological resources; hydrology/flood
control; climate and air quality resources; traffic and circulation; scenic resources; population and
socioeconomic characteristics; energy consumption and conservation; utilities (solid waste, water, sewer,
telephone service, electricity, and natural gas); public services (fire protection, police protection, library
service, schools, and health and emergency facilities); and parks/recreation/open space.
This Addendum incorporates by reference the RFSP Final EIR and the technical documents that relate to the
proposed Project or provide additional information concerning the environmental setting of the proposed
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
4
Project. The information within this Addendum is based on the following technical studies and/or planning
documents:
• Rancho Fontana Specific Plan (https://www.fontanaca.gov/1293/Rancho-Fontana-Specific-Plan)
• Rancho Fontana Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report No. 81-6 as amended and
supplemented (https://www.fontanaca.gov/1293/Rancho-Fontana-Specific-Plan)
• City of Fontana Municipal Code
(https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances)
• City of Fontana General Plan (https://www.fontana.org/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015---2035)
• Technical studies, personal communications, and web sites listed in Section 6.0, References
In addition to the websites listed above, all documents are available for review at the Lead Agency.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
5
2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1. PROJECT LOCATION
The 4.53-gross-acre (3.33-net-acre) Project site is located within the central portion of the City of Fontana
southwest of the intersection of Baseline Avenue and Lime Avenue. Regional access to the Project site is
provided via State Route 210 (SR-210), located approximately 1 mile north, Interstate 15 (I-15), located
approximately 2.7 miles west, and US Route 66 (known locally as Foothill Boulevard), located approximately
1 mile south, as depicted on Figure 2-1, Regional Location. Local access is provided by Baseline Avenue,
Lime Avenue, and Orlando Drive as shown in Figure 2-2, Local Vicinity.
2.2. EXISTING LAND USE
The Project site is comprised of one parcel identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 1110-171-02. The
Project site is currently undeveloped and consists of disturbed land that contains sparse vegetation and
existing ornamental trees. A sidewalk with a sheltered Omnitrans bus stop exists on the site along Baseline
Avenue. Also adjacent to the existing sidewalk are street light poles, powerline poles and utility boxes. A
block wall exists along the southern property line and a two-rail fence exists along the western property
line. The site is relatively level with elevations ranging from 1,376 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the
northeast corner to 1,366 feet amsl in the south-central portion of the site. The Project site’s existing conditions
are shown in Figure 2-3, Aerial View, and Figures 2-4a and 2-4b, Site Photos.
2.3. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS
The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of Residential Planned Community (R-PC). The
Fontana General Plan explains that the R-PC designation acts as a “legacy” land use category linked to the
zoning and density approved in the specific plans. The Project is zoned Rancho Fontana Specific Plan (RFSP).
Within the RFSP, the site is within Planning Area 18 which is currently designated as Low Density Residential
(originally designated as Low Medium Density). The Low Density Residential designation is defined as an
area in which the gross density does not exceed six dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The site’s existing land
use and zoning designations are shown in Figure 2-5, Existing Land Use, Figure 2-6, Existing Zoning, Figure
2-7, Original Rancho Fontana Specific Plan Designation, and Figure 2-8, Current Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
Designation.
2.4. SURROUNDING LAND USES
The surrounding land uses are shown on Figure 2-3, Aerial View, and described below. The General Plan
land use designation, zoning designation, and Specific Plan designation of the surrounding land uses are
listed in Table 2-1.
•North: Baseline Avenue followed by single-family residences.
•East: Lime Avenue followed by single-family residences.
•South: Single-family residences.
•West: Orlando Drive followed by single-family residences.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
6
Table 2-2-1: Surrounding Uses General Plan Land Use, Zoning, and Specific Plan Designations
General Plan Designation Zoning Designation RFSP Designation
North Residential Planned
Community (R-PC) Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
(RFSP)
Low Density Residential
East Single Family Residential
(R-SF) Single Family (R-1) N/A
South Residential Planned
Community (R-PC) Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
(RFSP)
Low Density Residential
West Residential Planned
Community (R-PC) Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
(RFSP)
Low Density Residential
Source: City of Fontana General Plan Land Use Map (2023), City of Fontana Zoning District Map (2024), Rancho Fontana Specific
Plan (1982, amended 2003)
Figure 2-1Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana
Regional Location
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
8
This page intentionally left blank.
Local Vicinity
Figure 2-2Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
10
This page intentionally left blank.
Aerial View
Figure 2-3Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
12
This page intentionally left blank.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana
Existing Site Photos
Figure 2-4a
View of the Project site from the intersection of Baseline Avenue and Lime Ave, looking southwest
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
14
This page intentionally left blank.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana
Existing Site Photos
Figure 2-4b
View of the Project site from the intersection of Baseline Avenue and Orlando Drive, looking southeast
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
16
This page intentionally left blank.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana
Existing General Plan Land Use
Figure 2-5
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
18
This page intentionally left blank.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana
Existing Zoning Designation
Figure 2-6
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
20
This page intentionally left blank.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana
Original Rancho Fontana Specific Plan Designation
Figure 2-7
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
22
This page intentionally left blank.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana
Current Rancho Fontana Specific Plan Designation
Figure 2-8
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
24
This page intentionally left blank.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
25
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1. RFSP FINAL EIR ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE PROJECT SITE
As previously discussed, the 4.53-gross-acre Project site is located in the RFSP area. The RFSP was adopted
by Ordinance on December 7, 1982, and has since been amended at least eight times. The RFSP, as
amended, allows for 2,445 total residential units over the current 520-acre Specific Plan area. Since 1982,
a total of 2,360 residential units have been built, as shown in Table 3-1. With the exception of the Project
site, the RFSP is built out.
Table 3-1: RFSP Remaining Capacity
Units
Rancho Fontana Specific Plan (as amended, 2003) 2,445
Units Constructed (2024) 2,360
Overall Remaining Capacity per Specific Plan 85
3.2. PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project proposes the development of 54 attached, for-sale residential units along with parking,
landscaping, and recreational space as shown in Figure 3-1, Conceptual Site Plan. The proposed Project is
within the remaining development capacity of the RFSP. The RFSP allocated 115 dwelling units for Planning
Area 18 and 88 units have since been constructed within Planning Area 18. Thus, of the 54 proposed units,
27 units were previously assumed to occur on the site and an additional 27 would be transferred to the site
from the overall remaining capacity in the RFSP. Therefore, buildout of the RFSP as modified by the Project
is assumed to be 2,414 units. All other Planning Areas of the RFSP have already been fully developed. The
Project includes approval of a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA), Tentative Tract Map, and a Site Plan Review
from the City of Fontana.
The analysis in this document discusses the impacts identified within the RFSP Final EIR and compares them
with the impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Project’s 54 single-family residential
units.
3.3. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
As described above, the Project site is located within Planning Area 18 of the RFSP and is designated Low
Density Residential which allows a maximum of six du/ac. The Project proposes a SPA to the RFSP to establish
Planning Area 18A for the Project site and to reinstate the High Density Residential land use category at 12
du/ac and change the site’s RFSP land use designation from Low Density Residential to High Density
Residential as shown in Table 3-2. Figure 3-2, Proposed Specific Plan Amendment, illustrates the proposed
change to the RFSP land use map.
Table 3-2: Proposed Specific Plan Amendment
Planning Area Existing RFSP Land Use Proposed Land Use and Density
18 Low Density Residential Low Density Residential (6 du/ac)
18A (Project site) Low Density Residential High Density Residential (12 du/ac)
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
26
Additionally, the SPA would include the following text amendments:
• Amend Section 4.3.1.2, Residential, to update the overall buildout allowance of the RFSP to 2,445 and
to specify that an amendment to the RFSP is not needed for projects that build out individual Planning
Areas within their assigned maximum yields, even if the build out is at a lower yield than assigned.
• Amend Section 6.3.5, General Notes, to allow for a density transfer between Planning Areas with
approval by the City of Fontana and to specify density transfers would not require an amendment to
the RFSP.
• Reinstate Section 6.3.11, High Density Residential, as follows: High density residential shall be defined
as areas in which the gross density is twelve (12) dwelling units per acre.
• Amend Section 6.3.18, Density, to require that the total number of dwelling units in any residential
Planning Area as shown on the statistical summary in Section 6.2 of the RFSP shall not be exceeded
without approval of a density transfer by the City of Fontana. Additionally, the amendment notes that
development of any individual Planning Area to a lower density than what is presented in Section 6.2
may occur without an amendment to the RFSP
• Amend Section 6.5.1.5, Off Street Parking, to specify that parking for High-Density Residential uses shall
require a minimum of two (2) and one-half (0.5) spaces for each dwelling unit. For High-Density
Residential, up to two (2) bedroom dwelling units shall provide at least one (1) covered parking space
and three (3) or more bedroom dwelling units shall provide at least two (2) covered parking spaces. All
required parking spaces shall be located off-street. Parking for all other uses shall be as required by
City of Fontana Zoning Ordinance.
• Amend Section 6.5.3.6, Setback from Street, to reduce the minimum setback requirement on streets
designated “Major” from 25 feet to 15 feet, and to reduce the minimum setback requirement on streets
designated “Primary” from 20 feet to 15 feet. Additionally, text was added to substantially incorporate
Fontana Development Code Sec. 30-417(f).
3.4. PROJECT FEATURES
Development Summary
The proposed Project would construct 54 single-family attached residential units on the 4.53-gross-acre site,
which would result in a density of 11.92 du/ac.3 The residences would be grouped into two types of building
configurations consisting of a 3-plex and a 6-plex. The units would be separated into four different unit
plans and would have 2 to 4 bedrooms and 2 to 2.5 bathrooms. The units would range in size from 925 to
1,668 square feet (SF). Table 3-3 provides a summary of the proposed residences.
Table 3-3: Residential Unit Summary
Unit Plan Unit Square
Footage Bedrooms Bathrooms Number of Units
1 925 2 2 12
2 1,413 3 2.5 12
3 1,535 3 2.5 18
4 1,668 4 2.5 12
3 Per Section 6.3.18 of the RFSP, computation for acreage for determining density for residential use shall be based on gross
acreage. Per Section 6.3.17 of the RFSP, gross acreage is denoted as the total land area within a defined boundary. Acreage
measurements are made to the centerline of the streets.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
27
The proposed residences would be two stories with a maximum height of 27 feet and 1 inch, measured from
finish grade to top of highest roof ridges. The residences would have a variety of architectural elements,
including articulated massing and finish material palates, and have design characteristics consistent with
Spanish style architecture. Conceptual renderings of the proposed residential structures are provided in
Figures 3-3a and 3-3b, Elevations.
Circulation and Parking
Access to the Project site would be provided via two new driveways, one on Orlando Drive and one on Lime
Avenue. The driveway on Orlando Drive would be 35 feet wide at the right-of-way and the driveway on
Lime Avenue would also be 35 feet wide at the right-of-way. Internal circulation would be provided via a
main 26-foot-wide drive aisle as well as 26-foot-wide drive aisles which would provide access to the
individual units.
The Project would include a total of 143 parking spaces (2.6 spaces per unit), including 96 garage spaces
and 47 uncovered head-in spaces.
Open Space, Landscaping, and Fencing
The Project would provide a total of 31,226 SF (0.72 acres) of open space. Of this, 13,368 SF would be
private and 17,858 SF would be common open space. The units would average approximately 247 SF of
private open space each. Additionally, a 6,400 SF common recreation space inclusive of a covered play
structure, bench seating, covered picnic tables, and barbeque grills is proposed in the southeast portion of
the site. The proposed Project would provide 23,680 SF of drought tolerant landscaping, as shown in Figure
3-4, Landscape Plan.
The Project would install 6-foot tall split-face block walls along the northern property line. Additionally, 4-
foot tall stucco patio walls with tube steel gates would be installed around the private yard of each
residence.
Infrastructure Improvements
Water
The Project would install new on-site water lines which would connect to the existing 8-inch water lines in
Orlando Drive and Lime Avenue.
Sewer
The Project would install new on-site sewer lines which would connect to the existing 21-inch sewer line in
Baseline Avenue.
Drainage
The Project would install an on-site storm drain system. The 100-year stormwater runoff would be captured
by drain inlets and storm drain pipes and then conveyed to two underground infiltration chamber systems
for treatment. Once the designed captured volume has been achieved and retained, the excess storm runoff
would overflow the chamber system and exit out of the center driveways on the surface and drain out into
the existing curb and gutter in Orlando Drive and be conveyed by the existing drainage facilities to the
Miller Avenue Detention Basin where such drainage volumes will be mitigated prior to continuing downstream
into the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Channel.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
28
Street Improvements
The Project would install a 6-foot-wide sidewalk along the Project frontage on Orlando Drive and a 5-foot-
wide sidewalk along the Project frontage on Lime Avenue. The existing sidewalk along the Project frontage
on Baseline Avenue would be protected in place and would not be changed through implementation of the
Project.
3.5. CONSTRUCTION
Construction activities for the Project would occur over one phase lasting approximately 14 months, beginning
in September 2025. Construction would occur in the following stages: (1) site preparation and grading; (2)
building construction; (3) paving; and (4) architectural coatings. Construction would occur within the hours
allowable by the City of Fontana Municipal Code Section 18-63, which states that construction shall occur
only between the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday to Friday, and between the hours of 8:00 AM and
5:00 PM on Saturdays.
The grading activities for development of the proposed Project include a cut of 5,000 cubic yards (CY) of
soil and a fill of 5,000 CY of soil for a balanced site condition.
3.6. DISCRETIONARY ACTION CHECKLIST
The following discretionary approvals from the City, as Lead Agency, are anticipated to be necessary for
implementation of the proposed Project:
• Adoption of this Addendum
• Amendment to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
• Site Plan Review
• Tentative Tract Map for Condominium Purposes (TTM No. 20729)
• Approvals and permits necessary to execute the proposed Project, including but not limited to, grading
permit, building permits, etc.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana
Conceptual Site Plan
Figure 3-1
26
'
30'
26'2'2'
25.3'
26'2'2'
15
.
1
'
15
'
15
.
1
'
8'72.7'
28'
30.3'
30'
17.7'
23.6'
15'
30.9'
5'
3.
7
'
24
'
8'
5'
11
.
5
'
19
'
6.
5
'
29.7'8'14'8'
15.2'8'8'12'8'19.1'
8'
15
'
OR
L
A
N
D
O
D
R
BASELINE AVE
LI
M
E
A
V
E
****
ACTIVE OPEN SPACE
6,212 sq.ft.
1812 3
*
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
BBQ
407 sq.ft.
BBQ
405 sq.ft.
BBQ
407 sq.ft.
13
'
2
16
'
10
.
1
'
2' DEDICATION
PROPOSED R/W
PROPOSED R/W
N
0 15 30 60
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
30
This page intentionally left blank.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana
Proposed Specific Plan Amendment
Figure 3-2
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
32
This page intentionally left blank.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana
3-Plex Elevations
Figure 3-3a
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
34
This page intentionally left blank.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana
6-Plex Elevations
Figure 3-3b
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
36
This page intentionally left blank.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana
Landscape Plan
Figure 3-4
DECK4'
ARCH BRIDGE
DECK4'
SQUARE TRANSFERPOINT, 4' DECK
ST
E
E
L
P
A
N
E
L
ST
E
E
R
I
N
G
W
H
E
E
L
CURVED CLIMBER
45° SLOPED CLIMBING WALL
BUMP & GLIDE SLIDE
HO
N
E
Y
C
O
M
B
CLI
M
B
E
R
4
'TALL
R
U
HOW
(POST
M
O
U
N
T
)
BELL
18'
X
1
8
'
S
A
I
L
PLA
Y
C
O
V
E
R
S
H
A
D
E
T
O
P
P
E
R
718-502-9
718-970-9
718-502-9
718-851-49
71
8
-
6
0
2
-
1
5
718-967
718-757-34
718-728-4
71
8
-
7
5
5
-
4
E718
-
6
3
3
718-7
9
6
-
P
1
718
-
6
6
9
-
1
8
S
STOP
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD SD
SD
SD
BASELINE AVE
LI
M
E
A
V
E
OR
L
A
N
D
O
D
R
CURBBUS STOP STREETLIGHTONUMENT MONUMENT
LANDSCAPE
MOUND
PARKING
DINING TABLE BBQ
DINING TABLE BBQ SIDEWALK
TURF
BUS SHELTER
CAPE PLAN
NORTH 30'60'90'0'
PLANTING LEGEND
TREES BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY
Lophostemon confertus Brisbane Box 36" BOX M 26
Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle 36" BOX M 25
Magnolia grandiflora
'Little Gem'
Little Gem Southern
Magnolia 36" BOX M 17
Platanus racemosa California Sycamore 36" BOX M 4
Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree 36" BOX M 14
Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree 36" BOX L 6
Koelreuteria paniculata Golden Flame Tree 36" BOX L 6
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
38
This page intentionally left blank.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
39
4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
4.1. BACKGROUND
Project Title:
Citrus Walk Residential
Lead Agency:
City of Fontana
Lead Agency Contact:
Cecily Session-Goins, Associate Planner
CSGoins@fontanaca.gov
(909) 350-6723
Project Location:
Southwest of the intersection of Baseline Avenue and Lime Avenue (APN 1110-171-02) in the City of
Fontana.
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
NH Orlando LLC
500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 570
Newport Beach, CA 92660
General Plan and Zoning Designation:
The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of Residential Planned Community (R-PC) and is
zoned Rancho Fontana Specific Plan (RFSP). Within the RFSP, the Project site is currently designated as
Low Density Residential (originally designated as Low Medium Density). The Project includes an SPA to
change the site’s RFSP designation from Low Density Residential (6 du/ac) to High Density Residential (12
du/ac).
Project Description:
The Project proposes the development of 54 attached residential units along with parking, landscaping,
and recreational space as shown in Figure 3-1, Conceptual Site Plan. The proposed Project is within the
remaining development capacity of the RFSP. The RFSP allocated 115 dwelling units for Planning Area
18 and 88 units have since been constructed. Thus, of the 54 proposed units, 27 units were previously
assumed to occur on the site and an additional 27 would be transferred from the overall remaining
capacity in the RFSP. Therefore, buildout of the RFSP as modified by the Project is assumed to be 2,414
units. All other Planning Areas of the RFSP have already been fully developed. The Project includes
approval of a Specific Plan Amendment and a Site Plan Review from the City of Fontana.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
North: Baseline Avenue followed by single-family residences.
East: Lime Avenue followed by single-family residences.
South: Single-family residences.
West: Orlando Drive followed by single-family residences.
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:
None.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
40
4.2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The subject areas checked below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or to be
previously identified effects that have a substantial increase in severity either due to a change in project,
change in circumstances or new information of substantial importance, as indicated by the checklist and
discussion on the following pages.
None
Aesthetics Agriculture/Forestry 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 and Service Systems Wildfire
4.3. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the
circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the
previous approved ND or MND or certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects. Also, there is no “new information of substantial importance” as that term is used in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously adopted ND or MND or previously
certified EIR adequately discusses the potential impacts of the project without modification.
The Checklist/Addendum concludes that none of the conditions or circumstances that would require
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166
and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exists in connection with the design of the Project. No
substantial changes have been proposed to the project described in the Final EIR that require major
revisions to Final EIR. No new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified significant environmental effects would occur. The Checklist/Addendum also
indicates that there have not been any substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under
which development of the project site, including the project, would be undertaken that would require
major revisions to the Final EIR. The Checklist/Addendum concludes that no substantial changes with
respect to circumstances under which the project is undertaken have occurred that have not already
been accounted for. The Checklist/Addendum also concludes that no new information of substantial
importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the Final EIR was
certified, shows that the project would cause or substantially worsen significant environmental
impacts discussed in the Final EIR, that mitigation measures or alternatives found infeasible in the
Final EIR would in fact be feasible, or that different mitigation measures or alternatives from those
analyzed in the Final EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant environmental effects
found in the Final EIR.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
41
Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the
circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the
previous ND, MND or EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is “new
information of substantial importance,” as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3).
However, all new potentially significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity
of previously identified significant effects are clearly reduced to below a level of significance
through the incorporation of mitigation measures agreed to by the project applicant. Therefore, a
Subsequent MND is required.
Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the
circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the
previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or
a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is “new
information of substantial importance,” as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3).
However, only minor changes or additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR
adequate for the project in the changed situation. Therefore, a Supplemental EIR is required.
Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the
circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the
previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or
a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new
information of substantial importance" as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3)
such as one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR. Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT
EIR is required.
Signature
Date
Name and Title Lead Agency
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
42
4.4. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The evaluation of environmental impacts in this addendum summarizes conclusions made in the RFSP Final EIR
and compares them to the impacts of the proposed Project. Mitigation measures referenced are from the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted as part of the RFSP Final EIR and are
described as either being previously implemented, applicable to the proposed Project, or not applicable.
This comparative analysis has been undertaken pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA
Guidelines, to provide the factual basis for determining whether the proposed Project, or any new
information that has come to light that permits or requires the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental
EIR.
The analysis herein follows the outline and format, and applies the impact thresholds, of the RFSP Final EIR,
as required by CEQA. (Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788.)
As discussed previously in Section 1.3, Environmental Procedures, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section
15162, when an EIR has been previously certified that includes the scope of development of a site or area,
no subsequent or supplemental EIR shall be prepared for the project unless the Lead Agency determines that
one or more of the following three conditions are met: (1) the project would result in new or substantially
more severe impacts than were disclosed in the previous EIR; (2) changes in the circumstances surrounding
the project result in new or substantially more severe impacts than were disclosed in the previous EIR; or (3)
new information has come to light showing that new or substantially more severe impacts than were disclosed
in the previous EIR will occur.
Terminology Used in the Checklist
For each question listed in the Environmental Checklist, a determination of the level of significance of the
impact is provided. Impacts are categorized in the following categories:
Substantial Change in Project or Circumstances Resulting in New Significant Effects. A Subsequent EIR is
required when (1) substantial project changes are proposed or substantial changes to the circumstances
under which the project is undertaken have occurred, and (2) those changes result in new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.4
New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than Previous EIR. A Subsequent EIR is required if
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 EIR was certified, shows (1) the project will have one or
more significant effects not discussed in the EIR; or (2) significant effects previously examined will be
substantially more severe than shown in the EIR.5
New Information Identifying New Mitigation or Alternative to Reduce Significant Effect is Declined. A
Subsequent EIR is required if 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 EIR was certified, shows mitigation
measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible (or new mitigation
measures or alternatives are considerably different) and would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.6
4 CEQA Guidelines. California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, § 15162, as amended.
5 CEQA Guidelines. § 15162.
6 CEQA Guidelines. § 15162.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
43
With regard to the foregoing three categories, a Supplement to an EIR can be prepared if the criterion for
a Subsequent EIR is met, and only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the EIR adequately
apply to the proposed Project.7
Minor Technical Changes or Additions. An Addendum to the EIR is required if only minor technical changes
or additions are necessary and none of the criteria for a subsequent EIR is met.8
No New Impact/No Impact. A designation of "no impact" (or "no new impact") is applied when the proposed
Project would result in no changes to the environment compared to the original project analyzed in the RFSP
Final EIR. While certain environmental topic areas were not included in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G
checklist at the time the RFSP Final EIR was prepared, these topics have since been evaluated, and none of
the potential impacts associated with them constitute new information that was unknown or could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the EIR’s certification. Therefore, the
previously omitted topic areas do not result in new impacts, and no further analysis is required.
7 CEQA Guidelines. § 15163.
8 CEQA Guidelines. § 15164.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
44
5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section provides evidence to substantiate the conclusions in the environmental checklist.
5.1. AESTHETICS
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact
/No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the RFSP Final EIR
The RFSP Final EIR discussed impacts related to aesthetics under Section 7.3.11, Scenic Resources. The RFSP
Final EIR described that the only visual amenities existing within the Plan area are the red gum eucalyptus
windrows which crisscross the site. Additionally, distant views of the San Bernardino Mountains are available
to the north. The Final EIR stated the flat terrain and lack of vegetation across the Plan area did not provide
a unique or unusual visual perspective. The RFSP Final EIR determined development of the Specific Plan would
cause the area to undergo permanent alteration, replacing the existing, sparsely vegetated, flat terrain with
primarily residential development. However, due to the generally sparse state of the vegetation the
prevalence of refuse which had been deposited, and the site and environs, no adverse impacts were
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
45
anticipated. Nonetheless, the Final EIR described that the RFSP aims to preserve the eucalyptus windrow
habitat and incorporate it into a greenbelt.
RFSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is from page VII-57 from the RFSP Final EIR:
The Rancho Fontana Specific Plan proposes with it a conceptual landscape plan which would be implemented
as buildout occurs. Horticultural shrubbery, greenbelt areas, and theme tree plantings will be installed and
irrigated. Implementation of the landscape concept could result in an increase in the faunal carrying capacity
of the existing setting, or at least provide an equalization factor to mitigate the loss of open space. The
landscape concept plan is described in detail in Chapter IV of this document.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No New Impact.
Scenic vistas consist of expansive, panoramic views of important, unique, or highly valued visual features that
are seen from public viewing areas. This definition combines visual quality with information about view
exposure to describe the level of interest or concern that viewers may have for the quality of a particular
view or visual setting. A scenic vista can be impacted in two ways: a development project can have visual
impacts by either directly diminishing the scenic quality of the vista or by blocking the view corridors or
“vista” of the scenic resource. Important factors in determining whether a proposed project would block scenic
vistas include the project’s proposed height, mass, and location relative to surrounding land uses and travel
corridors.
The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The Project is located in a fully developed area and is
surrounded by existing residential uses and roadways. The Fontana General Plan describes that in addition
to scenic corridors, scenic resources include natural landmarks and prominent or unusual features of the
landscape. Additionally, the General Plan considers views of the San Gabriel Mountains and the Jurupa Hills
important scenic resources within the City. Distant, obstructed views of the San Gabriel Mountains and the
Jurupa Hills are available from public vantage points on Baseline Avenue, Lime Avenue, and Orlando Drive.
Development of the site with residential uses, as previously contemplated in the RFSP Final EIR, could limit
views of the distant mountains available across the vacant site. However, the residential units would be set
back from adjacent streets and would not encroach into the existing public long-distance views. Consistent
with the proposed development standards listed in the 2025 SPA, the proposed single-family and multi-
family units would be set back a minimum of 15 feet from public streets and set back a minimum of 10 feet
from internal street rights-of-way. Further, the residential units would have a maximum height of 27 feet and
one inch, which is consistent with the existing development standards of the RFSP which limit building height
to 35 feet. Thus, the Project would not encroach upon public views of the mountains along the roadways
surrounding the site. Therefore, the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts on views of scenic
resources, consistent with the findings of the RFSP Final EIR.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
46
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No New Impact.
There are no officially designated State Scenic Highways within the City of Fontana (City of Fontana,
2018a). According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State Scenic Highway System
Map, the closest officially designated State Scenic Highway to the Project site is a segment of Route 91 in
Orange County, located approximately 24 miles southwest of the site (Caltrans, 2018). The closest eligible
State Scenic Highway is Route 330 in San Bernardino County, located approximately 15 miles east of the
site (Caltrans, 2018). The Project site is not visible from either of these roadways, therefore, the proposed
Project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway. No impact would
occur.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
c) Would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
No New Impact.
As described previously, the Project site is located within an urbanized area of the City of Fontana and is
surrounded by existing residential uses and roadways. The existing character of the Project site and
surrounding area is neither unique nor of special aesthetic value or quality. The proposed Project would
develop the site with 54 single-family residential units. The Project would be consistent with the goals of the
RFSP to create a well designed community. For instance, RFSP Goal 3.3.1 states “It is a goal of the Specific
Plan to create a sense of place through the design of the community. Community identity and efficiency
should be achieved”. The proposed Project would provide attached for-sale, single-family development at
a slightly higher density than the surrounding low density, single family detached neighborhoods. The
proposed Project is designed to be compatible with the surrounding architecture within the RFSP. The
residences would have a variety of architectural elements, including articulated massing and finish material
palates, and have design characteristics consistent with Spanish style architecture
Impacts to visual resources from buildout of the Project site would be less than significant with compliance
with the RFSP Development Standards, the City’s General Plan, and the Fontana Municipal Code. As detailed
in Table AES-1, the Project would be consistent with the RFSP standards for the High Density Residential
designation. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with an applicable zoning regulation related to scenic
quality, and impacts would be less than significant.
Table AES-1: Consistency with RFSP Development Standards
Development Feature (RFSP
Code Section) RFSP Standard Project Consistency
Fences, Hedges and Walls
(6.5.1.3)
Fences shall be limited to a maximum height
of six (6) feet. Location of fences proposed
within residential front setback areas shall
not exceed 42 inches.
Consistent. From the public right-of-
way, proposed walls along the
northern and southern property lines
would not exceed 6 feet in height.
Off-Street Parking (6.5.1.5)
Parking for High-Density Residential uses
shall require a minimum of two (2) and one-
half (.5) spaces for each dwelling unit. For
High-Density Residential, two (2) bedroom
dwelling units shall provide at least one (1)
covered parking space and three (3) or
more bedroom dwelling units shall provide
at least two (2) covered parking spaces.
Consistent. The Project proposes
143 parking spaces. Of the 143
spaces, 96 would be covered
garage spaces, and 47 would be
uncovered spaces.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
47
All required parking spaces shall be
located off-street. Parking for all other uses
shall be as required by City of Fontana
Zoning Ordinance.
The Project includes a text amendment to
RFSP Section 6.5.1.5 to create a parking
standard for High Density Residential uses.
Building Height (6.5.3.3) Maximum height for all Dwellings shall be
two and one-half (2 1/2) stories not to
exceed thirty-five (35) feet.
Consistent. The proposed residences
would have a maximum height of 27
feet.
Site Coverage (6.5.3.5) Maximum building coverage shall be 50
percent
Consistent. The Project would have
a maximum building coverage of 50
percent.
Setback from Street (6.5.3.6) Street Designation
Major
Primary
Collector
Local
Minimum Setback
25 15 feet
20 15 feet
15 15 feet
15 15 feet
Consistent. The proposed residences
would be setback 15 feet from
Baseline Avenue (Major), other than
adjacent to the new bus turn-out; 19
feet from Orlando Drive (Collector);
and 17 feet from Lime Avenue
(Local). The Project proposes a text amendment to
RFSP Section 6.5.3.6 to reduce the minimum
setback on major streets from 25 feet to 15
feet and on primary streets from 20 feet to
15 feet. Additionally, the Project proposes a
text amendment which substantially
incorporates Fontana Development Code
Section 30-417(f).
As shown in Table AES-1, the Project would be consistent with the RFSP development standards for the High
Density Residential designation (as amended by the proposed SPA) and would not conflict with an applicable
zoning regulation related to scenic quality.
The Project would develop the site with residential uses, which is consistent with the RFSP designation for the
site and would be visually compatible with the surrounding uses. Thus, the Project would not conflict with
applicable RFSP criteria and other regulations governing scenic quality, nor would the Project degrade the
visual character of the site and surrounding area. Impacts would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
No New Impact.
As described above, the Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped and is surrounded by existing
residential uses and roadways. Existing sources of nighttime lighting in the Project vicinity includes illumination
from vehicle headlights along Baseline Avenue, Lime Avenue, and Orlando Drive, and from interior
illumination from nearby residential buildings passing through windows. Sensitive receptors relative to
lighting and glare include motorists, pedestrians, and residential land uses.
The proposed Project would develop the site with 54 single-family residential units which would require the
installation of new on-site lighting sources, which would result in an increase in on-site lighting compared to
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
48
existing conditions. However, light emanating from the proposed Project would be required to abide by
lighting standards contained within the RFSP and Fontana Municipal Code Article V, Residential Zoning
Districts, Division 7, Design Guidelines, Section 30-476(5) which states all exterior lighting shall be
adequately controlled and shielded to prevent glare and undesirable illumination to adjacent properties or
streets. Compliance with the RFSP design standards and Municipal Code standards would be implemented
through the construction permitting and plan check process. Therefore, impacts associated with new lighting
would be less than significant.
Glare can emanate from many different sources, some of which include direct sunlight, sunlight reflecting
from cars or buildings, and bright outdoor or indoor lighting. Glare in the Project vicinity is generated by
the windows of nearby buildings and vehicle windows reflecting light. The building materials for the
proposed Project do not consist of highly reflective materials and proposed lighting would be shielded
consistent with RFSP and Municipal Code requirements as described above. Therefore, while the proposed
Project would create limited new sources of light and glare from security and site lighting, all lighting would
be shielded and would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts related to light and
glare would be less than significant and no new impacts would occur.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental
document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding aesthetics. There have not been
(1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or
a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to
the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of
the previous Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the RFSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
49
5.2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland. In determining whether impacts
to forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state’s inventory of
forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment Project; and the forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board. Would the project:
Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
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?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
50
Summary of Impacts Identified in the RFSP Final EIR
The RFSP Final EIR analyzed impacts related to agricultural resources under Section 7.3.3, Land Resources.
The RFSP EIR identified that the soils within the Specific Plan area reflect only a marginal suitability to support
most crops and the agricultural ratings range from Class III (Tunjunga loamy sand) to Class IV (Tujunga
gravelly loamy sand) to Class VI Soboba gravelly sandy loam). These soils are best suited for dry-farm
crops, irrigated pasture plants, grapes, and some citrus trees. No soils within the Specific Plan area were
identified as "Prime Farmland" which is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical
characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and that is available for these
uses.
The RFSP EIR did not identify existing agricultural uses within the Specific Plan area except an existing egg
production facility within the eastern portion of the Plan area. The RFSP EIR determined development of the
RFSP would result in the loss of approximately 500 acres of Class III, IV, and VI soil; however, no prime
agricultural soils would be impacted. The RFSP EIR also determined that the existing agricultural uses
operating within the RFSP area would continue to operate and would not be affected by development of
the Specific Plan.
The RFSP did not analyze impacts related to forest resources.
RFSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is from page VII-19 from the RFSP Final EIR:
A policy of the City's General Plan calls for the conservation of remaining agricultural production areas
wherever possible and to plan for the orderly transition of agricultural field uses to urban uses where
preservation is not desired. Although none of the site is presently under agricultural productivity, the
Wonderful World of Eggs, an active egg ranch, will be permitted to continue operations. This ranch has
proposed an expansion which would increase the number of chickens to 200,000 (within 5 years). However,
no other such operations should be permitted within the Specific Plan area. Further, adequate landscape
treatment and visual screening should be proposed between the existing poultry ranch and future residential
development which will minimize or eliminate visual impacts. Finally, performance standards which will
protect planned residential areas from agricultural nuisances (e.g., odor, flies, etc.) will be implemented.
These standards are identified below.
*Note: the Wonderful World of Eggs Ranch is no longer active.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No New Impact.
The State of California Department of Conservation’s (CDOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
is charged with producing maps for analyzing impacts on the state’s agricultural resources. California’s
agricultural lands are rated based on soil quality and irrigation status. For CEQA purposes, the following
categories qualify as “agricultural land”: Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique
Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Grazing Land. Per Section 21060.1 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, Farmland of Local Importance, and Grazing Land are not considered Farmland.
According to the CDOC Important Farmland Finder, the Project site is identified as Urban and Built-Up Land
and is not identified as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland (CDOC,
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
51
2022). The Project site has a land use designation of Residential Planned Community (R-PC) and an RFSP
designation of Low Density Residential. The Project site does not includes agricultural uses. Therefore, the
proposed Project would result in no new impacts on conversion of Prime, Statewide, or Unique farmland to
non-agricultural use.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No New Impact.
The Williamson Act (California Land Conservation Act of 1965) restricts the use of agricultural and open
space lands to farming and ranching by enabling local governments to contract with private landowners for
indefinite terms in exchange for reduced property tax assessments. The Project site is not zoned for
agricultural use or located within an Agricultural Resource Area. Additionally, the Project site does not have
a Williamson Act contract (CDOC, 2023). As such, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or with an Agricultural Resource Area or Williamson Act contract, and no impacts would
occur.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No New Impact.
“Forest land” is defined as “land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including
hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources,
including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public
benefits.” “Timberland” is defined as “land, other than land owned by the federal government and land
designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a
crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas
trees.” “Timberland Production Zone” (TPZ) is defined as “an area which has been zoned pursuant to Section
51112 or 51113 and is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and
harvesting timber and compatible uses, as defined in subdivision (h).”
The site does not contain forest land and there are no forestland resources in the vicinity of the Project site.
Additionally, the Project site is not designated or zoned as forest land or timberland or used for timberland
production. As a result, the Project would not result in impacts on timberland resources.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No New Impact.
As discussed previously, there are no forest or timberland resources on or in the vicinity of the Project site.
The proposed Project would not convert forest land to a non-forest use. Therefore, there would be no impacts
related to the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest uses.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
52
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
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?
No New Impact.
As described in the responses above, the Project site is not used for or designated for agricultural purposes
and is not used for or designated for forest land. Thus, the proposed Project would not convert farmland to
a nonagricultural use or convert forest land to a non-forest use. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and the
Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental
document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding agriculture and forestry
resources. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2)
substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is
undertaken that require major revisions of the previous Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the
availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures
or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the RFSP Final EIR was certified
as completed.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
53
5.3. AIR QUALITY
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non- attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard)?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the RFSP Final EIR
The RFSP Final EIR described impacts related to air quality under Section 7.3.9, Climate and Air Quality. The
Final EIR determined impacts to the ambient air environment would occur from three sources: during
construction, from automobile emissions created by project-generated vehicular traffic, and from demand
(both residential and commercial) for energy sources for heating, lighting, and cooling. The RFSP Final EIR
determined construction related emissions would be temporary and less than significant. Operational
emissions were also determined to be negligible.
The RFSP Final EIR determined the RFSP would be inconsistent with the growth projections included in the Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP) that was in place at the time the EIR was written because the growth in
the San Bernardino Valley had been greater than previously anticipated by the AQMP. The EIR noted an
updated AQMP (SCAG-82) was scheduled to be adopted in 1982. Thus, the RFSP’s consistency with the
revised AQMP was contingent upon the SCAG-82 population forecast being at or above the City’s and San
Bernardino Association of Government’s estimates.
RFSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are from pages VII-50 through VII-51 from the RFSP Final EIR:
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
54
The air quality impacts of the proposed project were not planned for under the present Air Quality
Management Plan, and thus, complete mitigation of project impacts cannot be accomplished. Whether or
not the Project's population is accommodated in the upcoming revised AQMP can be better determined when
the draft AQMP is completed in early 1982.
In order to reduce short-term air pollution impacts which will result from grading and construction activities,
the following measures are recommended:
• Keep the site and area traversed by vehicles, including trucks and other construction equipment, sprayed
and watered sufficiently to suppress dust.
• Restrict travel of all construction vehicles and equipment to established and properly watered roadways.
• Require that all vehicles hauling dirt or other particulate material be sprayed and moistened prior to
their leaving the construction site.
• Require that operations which tend to create dust be suspended when the wind velocity is sufficient to
cause such problems.
• The project has been designed to implement the following objectives:
• Reduce vehicle miles traveled by locating neighborhood commercial facilities within the project.
• Locate school and recreational facilities within walking/bicycling distance of residential neighborhoods.
Stationary source emissions can be lessened by enforcing the State energy conservation standards for new
residential and non-residential buildings.
Implementation of additional mitigation measures aimed at reducing stationary and mobile source emissions
are beyond the control of the project developers and lie within the realm of other governmental agencies.
As a part of the South Coast AQMD's efforts to attain federal and state pollution standards, the present
AQMP includes the following strategies which may be applicable to the proposed project: improved emission
controls for motor vehicles, future improvement of technological controls for stationary sources, energy
conservation applied to street lighting, improved design of residential space and water heating systems,
traffic signal synchronization, and improved public transportation.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the following reports:
• Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for Citrus Walk Residential Fontana Project.
Prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., April 18, 2025 (Appendix A).
• Citrus Walk Residential Health Risk Assessment. Prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., February 21, 2025
(Appendix B).
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No New Impact.
The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) are responsible for preparing the AQMP, which addresses federal and State Clean
Air Act (CAA) requirements. The AQMP details goals, policies, and programs for improving air quality in the
Basin. The RFSP Final EIR used the 1978 AQMP which has since been updated. The current AQMP is the 2022
AQMP, adopted in December 2022. For purposes of analyzing consistency with the AQMP, if a proposed
project would result in growth that is substantially greater than what was anticipated, then the proposed
project would conflict with the AQMP. On the other hand, if a project’s resulting growth is within the
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
55
anticipated growth of a jurisdiction, its emissions would be consistent with the assumptions in the AQMP, and
the project would not conflict with SCAQMD’s attainment plans (Consistency Criterion No. 1). In addition, the
SCAQMD considers a project consistent with the AQMP if the project would not result in an increase in the
frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause a new violation (Consistency Criterion No. 2).
The SCAB is in a non-attainment status for federal ozone standards, federal carbon monoxide standards,
and State and federal particulate matter standards. Any development in the SCAB, including the proposed
Project, could cumulatively contribute to these pollutant violations. Should construction or operation of the
proposed Project exceed these thresholds a significant impact could occur; however, if estimated emissions
are less than the thresholds, impacts would be considered less than significant.
The current 2022 AQMP (adopted in December 2022) is based on buildout of the land use designations
including those in the City of Fontana General Plan. The Project site has a General Plan land use designation
of Residential Planned Community (R-PC) and is zoned as RFSP. The RFSP Final EIR and subsequent
Addendums analyzed development of up to 2,445 residential units within the Plan area. To date, 2,360
units have been constructed within the RFSP area, leaving 85 units remaining for development. The proposed
Project would develop the site with 54 units, which would bring total buildout in the RFSP to 2,414 units. Thus,
although the Project includes an SPA to change the site’s RFSP designation from Low Density Residential to
High Density Residential, the total unit count remains within the previously anticipated and analyzed capacity
in the RFSP. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the growth assumptions assumed in the RFSP and
in the General Plan. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with Consistency Criterion No. 1.
As discussed below, the emissions generated by the construction and operation of the proposed Project would
not exceed thresholds, and the Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing
air quality violations or cause a new violation. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with
Consistency Criterion No. 2. Therefore, the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to
implementation of an AQMP, and no new impacts related to conflict with implementation of an AQMP would
occur.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
No New Impact.
The SCAB is in non-attainment status for federal ozone standards, and State and federal particulate matter
standards. The SCAB is designated as a maintenance area for federal PM10 standards. Any development in
the SCAB, including the proposed Project could cumulatively contribute to these pollutant violations.
Evaluation of the cumulative air quality impacts of the proposed Project has been completed pursuant to
SCAQMD’s cumulative air quality impact methodology. SCAQMD states that if an individual project results
in air emissions of criteria pollutants (reactive organic gases [ROG], carbon monoxide [CO], nitrogen oxides
[NOx], sulfur dioxide [SO2], particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less [PM10], and
particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less [PM2.5]) that exceed the SCAQMD’s
recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of the criteria pollutant(s) for which the Project region is in non-attainment under
an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. SCAQMD has established daily mass thresholds
for regional pollutant emissions, which are shown in Table AQ-1.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
56
Table AQ-1: SCAQMD Regional Daily Emissions Thresholds
Air Pollutant
Maximum Daily Emissions
(pounds/day)
Construction Operation
NOx 100 55
ROG 75 55
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SO2 150 150
CO 550 550
Lead 3 3
Source: Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A)
Construction
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate pollutant emissions from the
following: (1) site preparation, (2) grading, (3) building construction, (4) paving, and (5) architectural coating.
The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of
construction activities occurring.
It is mandatory for all construction projects to comply with several SCAQMD Rules, including Rule 403 for
controlling fugitive dust, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. Rule 403 requirements include,
but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes,
applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a
wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit
the Project site, covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a minimum freeboard
height of 12 inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas.
Compliance with Rule 403 was accounted for in the construction emissions modeling. In addition,
implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1113, which governs the volatile organic compound (VOC) content in
architectural coating, paint, thinners, and solvents was accounted for in construction emissions modeling. As
shown in Table AQ-2, the CalEEMod results indicate that construction emissions generated by the proposed
Project would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Therefore, construction activities would not result in
a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant.
Therefore, no new impact related to construction emissions would occur.
Table AQ-2: Regional Project Construction Emission Estimates
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2025
Site Prep 4.1 37.5 33.8 0.1 7.8 4.5
Grading 2.4 20.7 20.8 <0.1 3.6 2.0
Building Construction 1.4 11.7 17.3 <0.1 1.0 0.6
Maximum Daily Emissions 2025 4.1 37.5 33.8 0.1 7.8 4.5
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
57
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2026
Building Construction 1.3 11.0 17.0 <0.1 1.0 0.5
Paving 1.0 7.5 10.4 <0.1 0.3 0.3
Architectural Coating 24.6 1.2 2.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1
Maximum Daily Emissions 2026 24.6 37.5 33.8 0.1 7.8 4.5
Maximum Daily Emission 2025-2026 24.6 37.5 33.8 0.1 7.8 4.5
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, SO2 = sulfur dioxide, PM10 =
particulate matter 10 microns in diameter, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A)
Operation
Occupancy of the 54 residential units would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants
and ozone precursors associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping,
applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products. However, operational vehicular emissions
would generate a majority of the emissions generated from the Project. It is worth noting that air quality has
improved dramatically in the SCAB since the certification of the RFSP Final EIR in 1982 as a result of
increasingly stringent air quality standards. Thus, the emissions associated with projects built today are less
than they would have been at the time the RFSP Final EIR was certified.
Operational emissions associated with the proposed Project was modeled using the CalEEMod Version
2022.1 land use emission model and compared to the SCAQMD operational emissions thresholds. Emissions
associated with the operation of the proposed Project are presented in Table AQ-3. As shown, operational
emissions would be below SCAQMD’s thresholds. Additionally, as discussed previously, the Project would
result in development of a total of 54 single-family residences on the Project site but would result in a total
RFSP unit count of 2,414 or 31 fewer units than analyzed for the overall area in the RFSP Final EIR. Therefore,
the Project would result in no new impacts related to operational air quality emissions. As such, the proposed
Project is consistent with the findings contained in the RFSP Final EIR impacts, and the Project would result in
no new impact or in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.
Table AQ-3: Regional Operational Emissions Estimates
Operational Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 1.3 1.1 9.4 <0.1 2.0 0.5
Area 2.0 <0.1 3.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy <0.1 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Total Project
Operational Emissions 3.3 1.3 12.6 <0.1 2.0 0.6
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A)
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
58
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No New Impact.
The SCAQMD’s 2008 Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology recommends the evaluation of
localized NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 construction-related impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate
vicinity of the Project site. Such an evaluation is referred to as a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis.
According to the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, off-site mobile emissions
from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to the LSTs. SCAQMD has developed LSTs
that represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an
exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards, and thus would
not cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts. LSTs are developed based on the ambient
concentrations of NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 pollutants for each of the 38 source receptor areas (SRAs) in
the Basin. The City of Fontana is located within SRA 34 (Central San Bernardino Valley).
The localized thresholds for development projects were derived using the SCAQMD Fact Sheet for Applying
CalEEMod to Localized Significance Threshold and Appendix C of the SCAQMD 2008 Final Localized
Significance Threshold Methodology. The thresholds from SCAQMD are for 1-, 2-, or 5-acre sites, and
distances of sensitive receptors for 25 to 500 meters (82 feet to 1,640 feet). Sensitive receptors can include
residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities. The nearest sensitive receptors to the
Project site consist of a residential home located approximately 1.52 meters (5 feet) south of the southern
boundary of the Project site, with additional residential homes located at a distance of approximately 6.79
meters (22.28 feet) to the south. Therefore, the distance for sensitive receptors in the assessment was set at
the lowest distance of 25 meters (82 feet). The construction phase with the most ground disturbance would
be the grading phase, with 3.5 acres per day of grading, thus the SCAQMD thresholds for a 2-acre and 5-
acre site were interpolated to calculate thresholds for a 3.5-acre site.
Construction
Construction of the proposed Project may expose nearby residential sensitive receptors to airborne
particulates as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel-fueled vehicles
and equipment). However, construction contractors would be required to implement measures to reduce or
eliminate emissions by following SCAQMD’s standard construction practices. Rule 402 requires
implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. Rule
403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of
such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. As shown
in Table AQ-4, Project construction-source emissions would not exceed SCAQMD LSTs and impacts would be
less than significant.
Table AQ-4: Localized Construction Emission Estimates
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Localized Emissions
(pounds/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
2025
Site Preparation 37.5 32.4 7.6 4.5
Grading 20.6 19.6 3.4 2.0
Building Construction 11.3 14.1 0.5 0.4
Maximum Daily Emissions 2025 37.5 32.4 7.6 4.5
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
59
2026
Building Construction 10.7 14.1 0.4 0.4
Paving 6.2 8.8 0.3 0.3
Architectural Coating 1.1 1.5 <0.1 <0.1
Maximum Daily Emissions 2026 10.7 14.1 0.4 0.4
Maximum Daily Emission 2025-2026 37.5 32.4 7.6 4.5
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 220 1359.0 10.5 6
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Notes: NOx = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter, PM2.5 = particulate
matter 2.5 microns in diameter
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A)
Operation
According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs apply to project-related stationary mobile sources.
Projects that involve mobile sources that spend long periods queuing and idling at a site, such as transfer
facilities or warehousing and distribution buildings, have the potential to exceed the operational LSTs. The
Project would operate as a residential development which does not typically involve diesel vehicles regularly
idling or queueing for long periods. Therefore, due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions or
idling diesel-powered vehicles, impacts related to operational LSTs are presumed to be less than significant.
Health Risk Assessment
A Health Risk Assessment (HRA), included as Appendix B, was prepared to evaluate the potential health
impacts to sensitive receptors from the construction of the proposed Project. The HRA focuses on the emissions
of diesel particulate matter (DPM) from the construction and operation of the heavy-duty diesel vehicles and
off-road construction equipment that would be utilized for the construction and operational purposes of the
proposed Project on a day-to-day basis. DPM has been identified by the California Air Resources Board as
a carcinogenic substance responsible for nearly 70 percent of the airborne cancer risk in California. The
estimated health risk impacts were compared to the health risk significance thresholds recommended by the
SCAQMD for use in CEQA assessments. The City of Fontana has not adopted a numerical significance
threshold for cancer risk or non-cancer hazards. Therefore, the significance thresholds recommended by the
SCAQMD were utilized for this analysis. The relevant significance thresholds are provided below:
• Cancer Risk: ten (10) persons per million population as the maximum acceptable incremental cancer risk
due to exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC)
• Non-cancer Hazard Index: 1.0
The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site consist of a residential home located approximately 1.52
meters (5 feet) south of the southern boundary of the Project site, with additional residential homes located
at a distance of approximately 6.79 meters (22.28 feet) to the south. The nearest worker receptor was
determined to be 243.21 meters (798 feet) west of the Project boundary line, at a commercial shopping
center on the corner of Baseline Avenue and Sultana Avenue.
Tables AQ-5 presents a summary of the cancer risks and chronic non-cancer hazards resulting from the
proposed Project's construction DPM emissions along with the SCAQMD health risk significance thresholds. As
shown, the estimated maximum cancer risk for construction is 6.24 in one million for sensitive/residential
receptors. The estimated maximum cancer risk for worker receptors during construction is <0.01 in one million.
In addition, the Project’s maximum estimated construction results for non-cancer health risk are 0.01, for the
maximum impacted sensitive receptor, which is below the significance threshold of 1.0. The construction
maximum cancer risk would not exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million, nor would
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
60
the construction maximum non-cancer risk exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 1.0. Thus, the Project would have
a less-than-significant impact related to both cancer and non-cancer health risks.
Table AQ-5: Project Construction Health Risk
Receptor
Cancer Risk (per million) Exceeds
Significant
Threshold? Maximum Lifetime
Proposed Project Risk Significance Threshold
Maximum Impacted Sensitive
Receptor – Infant to Adult (30
years)
6.24 10 No
Maximum Impacted Sensitive
Receptor – Adult 0.16 10 No
Maximum Impacted Worker
Receptor <0.01 10 No
Receptor
Chronic Non-Cancer Hazard Index Exceeds
Significant
Threshold? Maximum Lifetime
Proposed Project Risk Significance Threshold
Maximum Impacted Sensitive
Receptor – Infant to Adult (30
years)
0.01 1.0 No
Maximum Impacted Sensitive
Receptor – Adult 0.01 1.0 No
Maximum Impacted Worker
Receptor <0.01 1.0 No
Source: Health Risk Assessment (Appendix B)
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number
of people?
No New Impact.
The proposed Project would not generate other emissions, not described previously. According to the
SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor issues include agricultural uses,
wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting activities, refineries,
landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding operations. The proposed Project would develop and operate a
residential community, which would not involve the types of uses that lead to odors.
Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust
and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary
storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project’s operational uses. The
construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon
completion of construction.
The proposed Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of
public nuisance odors. Therefore, other emissions (such as those leading to odors) that could adversely affect
a substantial number of people would not occur from the proposed Project. No new impact would occur.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
61
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental
document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding air quality. There have not
been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect
to the circumstances under which development of the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the
RFSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance
relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have
been known when the RFSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP AQ-1: Rule 402. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402. The Project shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such
quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any
considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of
any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to
business or property.
PPP AQ-2: Rule 403. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which includes the following:
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per
SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions.
• The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project are
watered, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, at least 3 times daily during dry weather;
preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day.
• The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are reduced to
15 miles per hour or less.
PPP AQ-3: Rule 1113. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality
Management District Rule (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more
than 50 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
62
5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
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?
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?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
63
Summary of Impacts Identified in the RFSP Final EIR
The RFSP Final EIR discussed impacts related to biological resources under Section 7.3.7, Biological Resources.
The RFSP Final EIR describes that existing vegetation cover over the Plan area consists of three general
communities, including nonnative grassland, alluvial fan scrub, and eucalyptus. Additionally, the RFSP Final
EIR discussed that wildlife species diversity is poor due to the lack of suitable habitat in the Plan area. No
rare, endangered or otherwise sensitive plant or wildlife species are known or expected to occur within the
Plan area. The RFSP Final EIR determined development of the RFSP would result in the loss of 500 acres of
mostly sparse nonnative grassland, eucalyptus windrows, and impacted California buckwheat scrub.
However, with buildout of the RFSP, irrigation would be available within planned greenbelts which would
improve conditions for the eucalyptus trees. Additionally, future developments would include irrigated
landscaping which could increase the faunal carrying capacity of the Plan area and provide an equalization
factor to mitigate the loss of open space.
RFSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
None.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the following report:
• General Biological Assessment for Newbridge Homes Assessor’s Parcel Number 1110-171-02. Prepared
by Hernandez Environmental Services, September 2024 (Appendix C).
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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No New Impact.
A General Biological Assessment (GBA) was prepared for the proposed Project, which included a field
survey conducted on July 26, 2024, and is included as Appendix C. The GBA described that the Project site
consists of disturbed ruderal habitat dominated by nonnative plant species. The literature review conducted
as part of the GBA identified a total of 55 sensitive species of plants and 61 sensitive species of animals
that have the potential to occur on or within the vicinity of the Project site. These include those species listed
or candidates for listing by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS). During the field survey, all habitats
with the potential to be used by sensitive species were evaluated during the field survey for their presence
or potential presence.
Sensitive Plant Species
A total of 19 plant species are either listed as State and/or federal Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate
species; are 1B.1 listed plants on the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory; or have been found to have a potential to
exist within the Project region. None of the 19 plant species were observed on the Project site during the
field survey. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of on-site
habitats, it was determined no special-status plant species would be impacted by implementation of the
proposed Project (Appendix C).
Sensitive Animal Species
A total of 19 animal species that are listed as State or federally Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate
have the potential to occur within the Project region. None of the 19 sensitive animal species were identified
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
64
on the site during the field survey. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability
and quality of on-site habitats, it was determined no special-status animal species would be impacted by
implementation of the proposed Project (Appendix C).
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No New Impact.
Riparian habitats are those occurring along the banks of rivers and streams. Sensitive natural communities
are natural communities that are considered rare in the region by regulatory agencies, known to provide
habitat for sensitive animal or plant species, or known to be important wildlife corridors.
As described above, the Project site consists of disturbed ruderal habitat. No riparian habitat or sensitive
natural communities exist within the site (Appendix C). Therefore, no significant impacts related to riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans would result from proposed
Project implementation, and no mitigation is required.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
No New Impact.
As described previously, the Project site consists of disturbed ruderal habitat. The Project site does not contain
any streams or drainages or riparian habitat. There are no CDFW, United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdictional waters within the Project
boundaries. Further, the Project area does not contain any wetlands or vernal pools (Appendix C). Therefore,
no direct removal, filling, or hydrological interruption of a wetland area would occur with development of
the Project site.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
No New Impact.
The Project site is not located within a designated wildlife corridor and no wildlife movement corridors were
found to occur on site (Appendix C). However, there is existing ornamental landscaping and trees on the site
that have the potential to provide habitat for nesting migratory birds. During Project construction, existing
ornamental landscaping onsite would be removed; therefore, there is a potential for the proposed Project
to impact nesting birds. However, the proposed Project would adhere to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) which prohibits the take of nesting birds and recommends preconstruction nesting bird surveys to be
conducted if construction occurs during the nesting bird season between February through August (PPP BIO-
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
65
1). Therefore, with adherence to the provisions of the MBTA, potential impacts related to nesting birds would
be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources?
No New Impact.
The City of Fontana’s Municipal Code, Chapter 28, Article III, Preservation of Heritage, Significant and
Specimen Trees, establishes regulations for the preservation of any tree defined by the ordinance as
heritage, significant, or specimen, and endangered species as specified by federal or state stature. Removal
or relocation of any heritage, significant, or specimen tree requires prior authorization from the Community
Development Department of the City through a permit process and planting of a replacement tree
designated by the designated staff. The City of Fontana municipal code also requires that any other living
tree that is not classified as heritage, significant, or specimen tree must be replaced.
Tree species observed on-site include a collection of Lemon-scented gum trees (Eucalyptus citriodora) in the
northeast corner and Chinaberry trees (Melia azedarach) along the western edge of the site (Appendix C).
None of the trees observed on the Project site meet the Municipal Code’s definition of heritage, significant,
or specimen tree. Removal of trees on the Project site would be conducted in compliance with the City’s
ordinance. In addition, the Project will comply with the City’s landscaping requirements regarding the
planting of street trees and onsite trees. Thus, the proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, and impacts
would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
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?
No New Impact.
The GBA prepared for the proposed Project found that the Project site is not located within a Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), and therefore, would not conflict
with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental
document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding biological resources. There
have not been 1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2) substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that
require major revisions of the RFSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3) the availability of new
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
66
information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives
that were not known and could not have been known when the RFSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP BIO-1: MBTA. Migratory non-game native bird species are protected under the federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (MBTA). Additionally, Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code
prohibit the take of all birds and their active nests.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
67
5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the RFSP Final EIR
The RFSP Final EIR discussed impacts related to cultural resources under Section 7.3.6, Cultural/Scientific
Resources. The records search conducted as part of the RFSP EIR preparation did not reveal evidence of
previously recorded archaeological sites within the boundaries of the Plan area or within a 2-mile radius. In
addition, the field survey did not reveal evidence of archaeological resources within the Plan area. No
paleontological resources were identified within the Plan area during the records search or field survey.
According to the historical research conducted, none of the structures within the Plan area were identified as
being of significant historical value. Overall, the RFSP Final EIR did not identify impacts related to
archaeological, paleontological, or historical resources within the Plan area.
RFSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are from pages VII-32 through VII-33 from the RFSP Final EIR:
Archaeological
No mitigation measures are required.
Paleontological
It has been recommended by the San Bernardino County Museum that a paleontologist check the soil
geologist boring logs prior to construction to determine if fine grained sediment might be encountered
during grading. If this deposit exists, the following mitigation measures must be implemented:
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
68
1. A qualified paleontological monitor should be present at the pre-grade meeting to consult with the
grading and excavation contractor(s).
2. The monitor should spot check alluvium and colluvium which may be subject to grading.
3. The paleontologist should be empowered to temporarily direct~ divert, or halt grading to allow
recovery of fossil remains. In areas rich in micro-fossils, removal and washing of soil samples for micro
vertebrates, bones, and teeth remains will be part of the fossil salvaging operation.
4. Remains collected from the subject property will be deposited in an institution such as the San Bernardino
County Museum.
Historic
Prior to grading, the following mitigation measures are recommended:
1. Formulate a test excavation program that would sample at least two of the historic sites within the
project area.
2. Map, photograph, and assemble oral/archival information pertaining to agricultural and land use
activity in the Rancho Fontana area.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the following report:
• Cultural Resources Study for the Baseline Residential Project. Prepared by BFSA Environmental Services,
September 30, 2024 (Appendix D).
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
No New Impact.
CEQA defines a historical resource as any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript
that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the
California Register of Historical Resources; (2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k); (3) identified as significant in a historical resource survey
meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or (4) determined to be a historical resource by a
Project’s Lead Agency (PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a]).
The California Register defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following
criteria: (1) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns or local
or regional history of the cultural heritage of California or the United States; (2) associated with the lives of
persons important to local, California, or national history; (3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic
values; or (4) has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of
the local area, California, or the nation.
The Project site is currently vacant and does not contain any existing structures. A Cultural Resources
Assessment was prepared for the Project, which is included as Appendix D. The Cultural Resources Assessment
conducted a field survey of the entire property on September 23, 2024, which did not identify any historic
or prehistoric cultural resources within the Project site. As a result, the proposed Project would not cause an
adverse effect to a historic resource and no mitigation is necessary. Therefore, the Project would not result
in a new impact related to an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
69
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
No New Impact.
The Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix D) included a search from the South Central Coastal
Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton in order to assess previous archaeological
studies and identify any previously recorded archaeological sites within the Project site boundaries or in the
immediate vicinity. The results of the records search identified 11 previously recorded cultural resource sites
within a one-mile radius of the Project site, none of which are located within the Project boundaries. The
records search also indicated that 22 previous cultural resources studies have been conducted within 1 mile
of the Project boundaries, two of which overlap with the Project site. However, neither study overlapping the
Project site revealed evidence of archaeological resources within the Project site boundaries. In addition to
the records search, a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was requested from the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC). The NAHC responded on August 29, 2024, stating the SLF search was negative for
previously known tribal cultural resources or sacred lands within 1 mile of the Project site.
As described above, on September 23, 2024, a field survey of the Project area was conducted which did
not result in the identification of cultural resources within the Project site (Appendix D). The Cultural Resources
Assessment concluded that the subject property did not historically contain any structures and was primarily
utilized for agriculture. Given the lack of historic development/occupation on the Project site and the previous
agricultural use of the property, there is little to no potential for archaeological resources to be encountered
on the site (Appendix D). As such, no further archaeological study or monitoring is recommended for the site.
Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to adverse changes in the significance of an
archaeological resource.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No New Impact.
The Project site does not contain a cemetery, and no known formal cemeteries are located within the
immediate vicinity of the Project site. Thus, it is not anticipated that implementation of the proposed Project
would result in the disturbance of human remains. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are
encountered during earth removal or disturbance activities, the California Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5 (included as PPP CUL-1) requires that disturbance of the site shall halt until the coroner has conducted
an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning
the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the
excavation or to his or her authorized representative. The Coroner would also be contacted pursuant to
Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native American remains. In the
event the Coroner determines the human remains to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours
to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC would then be required to contact
the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American, who would then serve as a consultant on how
to proceed with the remains. Compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., California Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98) would reduce potential
impacts involving disturbance to human remains would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
70
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental
document to evaluate proposed Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding cultural resources.
There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that
require major revisions of the RFSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new
information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives
that were not known and could not have been known when the RFSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP CUL-1: Should human remains be discovered during Project construction, the Project would be required
to comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which states that no further disturbance may
occur in the vicinity of the body until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find
immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American
Heritage Commission, which will determine the identity of and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With
the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the
discovery. The MLD must complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
71
5.6. ENERGY
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the RFSP Final EIR
The RFSP Final EIR discussed impacts related to energy under Section 7.3.13, Energy
Consumption/Conservation. The Final EIR determined energy use by the project would have long-term and
irreversible impacts upon energy resources; however, the amount used for development and operation of
the RFSP would be an incremental increase contributing to a cumulative impact. Development and operation
of the RFSP would not use excessive amounts of energy in comparison to other similar projects.
RFSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are from page VII-64 from the RFSP Final EIR:
An efficient traffic circulation system has been implemented which can minimize total vehicle miles traveled
thus reducing gasoline consumption. Pedestrian and bicycle trails have been proposed to direct residents to
schools and parks, commercial areas, and other focal points within the community to further reduce
dependency on the automobile.
Building design and construction features can contribute to energy conservation through insulation, reduced
glass area, efficient heating and cooling system, weather stripping, lighting and nonmechanical ventilation.
In addition, energy conserving home appliances would also be useful. The applicant will implement many of
these features, those that are required by the State and the City as well as those which are not economically
prohibitive. Once energy conserving features are provided, residents would be responsible for using them
in an energy efficient manner.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the following report:
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
72
• Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for Citrus Walk Residential Fontana Project.
Prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., April 18, 2025 (Appendix A).
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
No New Impact.
Construction
During construction of the proposed Project would consume energy in two general forms:
1. Petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the Project site,
construction worker travel to and from the Project site, as well as delivery truck trips; and
2. Electricity associated with providing temporary power for lighting and electric equipment.
Construction activities related to the proposed residences and the associated infrastructure are not expected
to result in demand for fuel greater on a per-development basis than other development projects in Southern
California. Due to the Project size and the fact that construction is temporary, the electricity used during
construction of the proposed Project would be substantially less than that required for Project operation and
would have a negligible contribution to the Project’s overall energy consumption. The electric power used
would be for as-necessary lighting and electronic equipment such as computers inside temporary construction
trailers. Natural gas is not anticipated to be needed for construction activities. Any consumption of natural
gas would be minor and negligible in comparison to the usage during the operation of the proposed Project.
Table E-1 details the construction fuel usage over the Project’s construction period, as shown in Table E-1
below.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan EIR
73
Table E-1: Construction Equipment Fuel Usage
Activity Equipment Number
Hours
per
day
Horse-
power
Load
Factor
Days of
Construction
Total
Horsepower-
hours
Fuel Rate
(gal/hp-hr)
Fuel Use
(gallons)
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 367 0.4 10 35,232 0.046957715 1,654
Crawler Tractors 4 8 87 0.37 10 10,301 0.05036589 519
Grading
Excavators 1 8 36 0.38 30 3,283 0.05110175 168
Graders 1 8 148 0.41 30 14,563 0.05205489 758
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4 30 35,232 0.04695772 1,654
Crawler Tractors 3 8 87 0.43 30 26,935 0.05036589 1,357
Building Construction
Cranes 1 8 367 0.29 230 195,831 0.05427386 10,629
Forklifts 3 8 82 0.2 230 90,528 0.05346958 4,840
Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74 230 19,062 0.08050323 1,535
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 84 0.37 230 171,562 0.05349335 9,177
Welders 1 8 46 0.45 230 38,088 0.03211507 1,223
Paving
Pavers 1 8 81 0.42 20 5,443 0.05163856 281
Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.36 20 10,253 0.05129285 526
Rollers 2 8 36 0.38 20 4,378 0.053604335 235
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.37 20 4,973 0.05349335 266
Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 8 10 0.56 20 1,792 0.048501212 87
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8 37 0.48 20 2,842 0.030167966 86
Total 34,995
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Analysis (Appendix A)
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
74
The equipment associated with construction activities (off-road/heavy duty vehicles) would rely on diesel
fuel as would vendor and haul trucks involved in delivering building materials and removing soil material
from the Project site. Construction workers would travel to and from the Project site throughout the duration
of construction, and for a conservative analysis, it is assumed that construction workers would travel in
gasoline-powered passenger vehicles. Table E-2 summarizes the Project’s construction vehicle fuel usage and
off-road construction equipment usage based on vehicle miles traveled and fuel usage factors contained in
the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) EMFAC2021 model. As shown, it is estimated that Project
construction would result in the use of 41,102 gallons of diesel fuel and 12,585 gallons of gasoline during
Project construction.
Table E-2: Total Fuel Usage During Construction
Construction Source Gallons of Diesel Fuel Gallons of Gasoline Fuel
Construction Vehicles 6,107 12,585
Off-Road Construction Equipment 34,995 <0.1
Total 41,102 12,585
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Analysis (Appendix A)
Construction activities related to development of the site would require compliance with existing fuel
standards, machinery efficiency standards, and CARB requirements that limit idling of trucks, such as CARB
Rule 2485 regulations that limit idling to 5 minutes (13 California Code of Regulations [CCR], Chapter 10
Section 2485). Through compliance with existing standards the Project would not result in demand for fuel
greater on a per-development basis than other development projects in Southern California. There are no
unusual Project characteristics that would cause the use of construction equipment that would be less energy
efficient compared with other similar construction sites in other parts of the State. Therefore, construction-
related fuel consumption by the Project would not be anticipated to result in inefficient, wasteful, or
unnecessary energy use and impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
Once operational, the Project would generate demand for electricity, natural gas, as well as gasoline for
fuel tanks. Operational use of energy includes the heating, cooling, and lighting of the residences, water
heating, operation of electrical systems and plug-in appliances, parking lot and outdoor lighting, and the
transport of electricity, natural gas, and water to the areas where they would be consumed. This use of
energy is typical for urban development, and no operational activities or land uses would occur that would
result in extraordinary energy consumption. As detailed in Table E-3, operation of the proposed Project
would use approximately 270,583 kilowatt-hour (kWh) per year of electricity, approximately 899,454
thousand British thermal units (kBTU) per year of natural gas, and 31,253 gallons of gasoline annually. The
proposed Project would remain consistent with that of similar sized projects and would thus not constitute an
inefficient use of energy. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less-than-significant energy impacts.
Table E-3: Project Annual Operational Energy Requirements
Electricity (Kilowatt-Hours)
Proposed Project 270,583
Natural Gas (Thousands British Thermal Units)
Proposed Project 899,454
Petroleum (Gasoline) Consumption
Annual VMT Gallons of Gasoline Fuel
Proposed Project 933,543 31,253
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Analysis (Appendix A)
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
75
Further, the State of California provides a minimum standard for building design and construction standards
through Title 24 of the CCR. Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are
issued by the City. The City’s administration of the Title 24 requirements includes review of design components
and energy conservation measures that occurs during the permitting process, which ensures that all
requirements are met. In complying with the Title 24 standards, Project impacts related to peak energy
usage periods would be minimized and impacts on statewide and regional energy needs would be reduced.
Title 24 standards have been modified to be more stringent since approval of the RFSP Final EIR, further
reducing energy consumption of proposed land uses. Typical Title 24 measures include insulation; use of
energy-efficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment (HVAC); energy-efficient indoor and
outdoor lighting systems; and requirements to install solar and be electric storage system (ESS) ready, etc.
Regarding solar power, building roofs would include solar panels, consistent with the requirements of Title
24 standards. The exact size of the photovoltaic system will be based on the available roof area and the
condition floor area per Title 24 standards. Thus, operation of the Project would not use large amounts of
energy or fuel in a wasteful manner, and no operational energy impacts would occur.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No New Impact.
The California Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are designed to ensure new and existing
buildings achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality. These measures
are listed in Part 6, California Energy Code, and Part 11, California Green Building Standards, of Title 24.
The California Energy Commission is responsible for adopting, implementing and updating building energy
efficiency. Local city and county enforcement agencies have the authority to verify compliance with
applicable building codes, including energy efficiency. As previously stated, the Project would be consistent
with Title 24 standards, which have been modified to be more stringent since adoption of the RFSP Final EIR.
In addition, construction equipment and trucks are required to comply with CARB regulations regarding
heavy-duty truck idling limits of five minutes at a location and the phase-in of off-road emission standards
that result in an increase in energy savings in the form of reduced fuel consumption from more fuel-efficient
engines. Although these regulations are intended to reduce criteria pollutant emissions, compliance with the
anti-idling and emissions regulations would also result in the efficient use of construction-related energy.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental
document to evaluate proposed Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding energy. There have
not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with
respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major
revisions of the RFSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of
substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not
known and could not have been known when the RFSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
76
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP E‐1: Title 24 Standards. The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy
Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations [CCR],
Title 24, Part 6). These standards are updated, nominally every three years, to incorporate improved energy
efficiency technologies and methods.
PPP E-2: California Air Resources Board (CARB) Rule 2485. Project construction shall comply with CARB
Rule 2485, which minimizes truck engine idling to 5 minutes and requires 2008 and newer model year heavy-
duty diesel engines to be fitted with automatic engine shutdown systems or to meet other specified idling
emission standards.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
77
5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
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?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
78
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?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the RFSP Final EIR
The RFSP Final EIR discussed impacts related to geology and soils under Section 7.3.1, Topography, and
7.3.2, Geology. The RFSP Final EIR described that the topography of the Plan area is characterized by a
very uniform slope ranging from approximately 2.2 to 2.5 percent, descending generally southwest-ward.
Ground elevations within the Plan area range from approximately 1,290 feet at the southwest corner to
1,440 feet at the northeast corner. The RFSP Final EIR determined no adverse impacts related to grading
for site improvements are expected.
The RFSP Final EIR also determined that the nearest Alquist-Priolo zone, delineated for the Cucamonga fault,
is approximately three miles north of the Plan area. Due to the proximity to the Cucamonga fault zone, the
Plan area would likely be subject to strong seismic shaking during an earthquake. However, the RFSP Final
EIR determined that because of the Plan area’s low topographic relief, slope instability as well as erosion
impacts are negligible. Additionally, no evidence of landslides or other types of ground instability were
observed.
Since no major active faults are known to cross the Plan area, the fault displacement potential is very low.
The possibility of secondary earthquake hazards, such as liquefaction, flow landsliding, seismically induced
settlement, and ground lurching are anticipated to be slight to moderate throughout most of the Plan area.
The RFSP Final EIR discussed impacts related to paleontological resources under Section 7.3.6,
Cultural/Scientific Resources. The RFSP Final EIR described that the site is underlain by alluvial sediments from
the Lytle Creek Alluvial fan, which originated at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains. The deposits are
Lake Pleistocene to Holocene in age. No paleontological resources were identified within the Plan area or
within several miles of the Plan area during the records search or field survey conducted as part of the RFSP
Final EIR. The Final EIR described that the likelihood for vertebrate fossils to exist in the Plan area is low due
to the coarseness of underlying sediments. However, the Final EIR noted that future grading activities could
uncover unknown fossils. The RFSP Final EIR included mitigation to reduce potential impacts related to
paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level.
RFSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
Geotechnical Mitigation
The following mitigation measure is from page VII-12 from the RFSP Final EIR:
Detailed grading plans will be required for each tentative tract map submitted and will be reviewed by the
City. All grading plans shall comply with local codes and ordinances.
The following mitigation measure is from page VII-16 from the RFSP Final EIR:
Conformance with the latest (1979) Uniform Building Code, the Fontana Building Code, and state-of-the-
art recommendations of the Structural Engineers Association of California for seismic considerations in the
design of structures is expected to satisfactorily mitigate the more serious consequences of future earthquake
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
79
shaking, but not entirely preclude the possibility of some structural damage. The appropriate seismic design
criteria will depend upon the type and use of the proposed structure and the underlying soil conditions. Mid-
or high-rise buildings and critical structures would probably require special design analysis because of their
potential susceptibility to seismic amplification effects, the varied response of such structures (depending on
the type of construction involved), and the need to provide a greater degree of safety than for ordinary
structures.
The following mitigation measure is from page VII-32 from the RFSP Final EIR:
Paleontology Mitigation
It has been recommended by the San Bernardino County Museum that a paleontologist check the soil
geologist boring logs prior to construction to determine if fine grained sediment might be encountered
during grading. If this deposit exists, the following mitigation measures must be implemented:
1. A qualified paleontological monitor should be present at the pre-grade meeting to consult with the
grading and excavation contractor(s).
2. The monitor should spot check alluvium and colluvium which may be subject to grading.
3. The paleontologist should be empowered to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery
of fossil remains. In areas rich in micro-fossils, removal and washing of soil samples for micro
vertebrates, bones, and teeth remains will be part of the fossil salvaging operation.
4. Remains collected from the subject property will be deposited in an institution such as the San Bernardino
County Museum.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the following reports:
• Due Diligence Feasibility Geotechnical Assessment: 3-acre Vacant Property at 15547 Baseline Avenue, APN
1110-171-02-0000, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared by Petra Geosciences, May
20, 2024 (Appendix E).
• Paleontological Assessment for the Baseline Residential Project. Prepared by BFSA Environmental Services,
September 30, 2024 (Appendix F).
a) Directly or indirectly cause 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?
No New Impact.
In 1972, the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act was signed into law. In 1994, it was renamed the
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (A-P Act). The primary purpose of the Act is to mitigate the
hazard of fault rupture by prohibiting the location of structures for human occupancy across the trace of
an active fault. The A-P Act requires the State Geologist (Chief of the California Geology Survey) to
delineate “Earthquake Fault Zones” along with faults that are “sufficiently active” and “well-defined.”
The boundary of an “Earthquake Fault Zone” is generally about 500 feet from major active faults and
200 to 300 feet from well-defined minor faults. The A-P Act dictates that cities and counties withhold
development permits for sites within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone until geologic investigations
demonstrate that the site zones are not threatened by surface displacements from future faulting.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
80
As described above, there are no known faults within the RFSP area, including within the proposed
Project site. The closest active faults to the Project site are the Cucamonga Fault, located approximately
2.84 miles north, and the San Jacinto Fault, located approximately 6.74 miles east (CDOC, 2021). As
the Project site does not contain an earthquake fault, it is not affected by a State-designated Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
No New Impact.
The Project site is located within a seismically active region of Southern California which means occasional
seismic ground shaking is likely to occur within the lifetime of the proposed Project. As described above,
the closest faults to the site are located approximately 2.84 miles north and 6.74 miles east of the site.
Thus, due to the proximity, strong seismic ground shaking has a high likelihood of occurring at the site.
The amount of motion can vary depending upon the distance to the fault, the magnitude of the
earthquake, and the local geology. Greater movement can be expected at sites located closer to an
earthquake epicenter, which consist of poorly consolidated material such as alluvium, and in response to
an earthquake of great magnitude.
Structures built in the city are required to be built in compliance with the California Building Code (CBC
[California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2]), included in the Municipal Code as Chapter 5, Article
III (PPP GEO-1). Compliance with the CBC would ensure earthquake safety based on factors including
occupancy type, the types of soils on-site, and the probable strength of the ground motion. Compliance
with the CBC would include the incorporation of (1) seismic safety features to minimize the potential for
significant effects as a result of earthquakes; (2) proper building footings and foundations; and (3)
construction of the building structures so that it would withstand the effects of strong ground shaking.
Also, consistent with the CBC and Municipal Code, construction of the Project would implement the
recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project to ensure no geologic risks.
Therefore, with CBC compliance, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to
potentially substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic
ground shaking more than other developments in Southern California. Impacts would be less than
significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
No New Impact.
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated, cohesionless soils layers, located within
approximately 50 feet of the ground surface, lose strength due to cyclic pore water pressure generation
from seismic shaking or other large cyclic loading. During the loss of stress, the soil acquires “mobility”
sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soil properties and soil conditions such as
type, age, texture, color, and consistency, along with historical depths to ground water are used to
identify, characterize, and correlate liquefaction susceptible soils.
Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, and uniformly graded fine-
grained sands that lie below the groundwater table within approximately 50 feet below ground surface.
Lateral spreading is a form of seismic ground failure due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
81
The Geotechnical Assessment (Appendix E) prepared for the proposed Project determined that the
Project site is not located within an area susceptible to liquefaction. The Geotechnical Assessment did not
encounter groundwater in any of their test pits, excavated to a maximum depth of 13 feet below the
ground surface. Additionally, the Geotechnical Assessment noted historical groundwater at the site was
report at depths between 201 to 372 feet below ground surface. Therefore, liquefaction is not
considered to be a major geotechnical concern for site development.
Further, the Project would be designed consistent with CBC standards (PPP GEO-1), as required by the
City’s Municipal Code, which would require the removal and/or replacement and recompaction of
incompatible soils and the implementation of stable foundational soil conditions with low potential for
ground failure or liquefaction, suitable to support proposed land uses. Impacts related to liquefaction
would be further reduced with compliance with the CBC. Compliance with the CBC would reduce impacts
related to liquefaction to less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR
iv. Landslides?
No New Impact.
Landslides and other slope failures are secondary seismic effects that are common during or soon after
earthquakes. Areas that are most susceptible to earthquake induced landslides are steep slopes
underlain by loose, weak soils, and areas on or adjacent to existing landslide deposits.
The Project site is flat and is not located near substantial slopes or hillsides. There are no known landslides
near the site, nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides. Therefore, the Project would
not expose people or structures to slope instability or seismically induced landslides, and the Project
would result in no new impacts related to landslides. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the
findings contained in the RFSP Final EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new or increased
impact.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
b) Result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No New Impact.
The Project would involve excavation, grading, and construction activities that would disturb soil and leave
exposed soil on the ground surface. As such, the proposed Project would be required to comply with the
City’s grading standards and erosion control measures, as verified through the permitting and plan check
process. Additionally, the Construction General Permit (CGP; Order 2022-0057-DWQ) issued by the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), regulates construction activities to minimize water pollution,
including sediment. The proposed Project would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permitting regulations, including implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP), and associated best management practices (BMPs) during grading and construction, which would
be required during construction permitting of the Project (PPP HWQ-1).
Adherence to the BMPs in the SWPPP would reduce, prevent, or minimize soil erosion from Project-related
grading and construction activities. After completion of construction, the Project site would be developed with
residential buildings, roadways and parking areas, and landscape improvements, and would not contain
exposed soil. Thus, the potential for soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be low. In addition, the City of
Fontana requires new development projects to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
82
including Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs to reduce the potential of erosion and/or sedimentation
through site design and structural treatment control street sweeping private streets and parking lots, storm
drain signage, and use of efficient irrigation systems and landscape design. Implementation of the WQMP
and BMPs is verified through the City’s permitting process (PPP HWQ-2). Therefore, the proposed Project
would have a less-than-significant impact related to soil erosion.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
No New Impact.
Landslides and other forms of mass wasting, including mud flows, debris flows, and soil slips, occur as soil
moves downslope under the influence of gravity. Landslides are frequently triggered by intense rainfall or
seismic shaking. As described above, the Project site is flat and does not contain any slopes nor is it located
in proximity of slopes or hillside area. Therefore, development of the site would not result in on- or off-site
landslides.
Lateral spreading is a type of liquefaction‐induced ground failure associated with the lateral displacement
of surficial blocks of sediment resulting from liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Once liquefaction transforms
the subsurface layer into a fluid mass, gravity plus the earthquake inertial forces may cause the mass to
move downslope towards a free face (such as a river channel or an embankment). Lateral spreading may
cause large horizontal displacements and such movement typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and
structures. As described above, the groundwater depth at the Project site is expected to be greater than
201 feet below ground surface. Therefore, the Project is not susceptible to liquefaction due to the depth of
groundwater (Appendix E).
Subsidence is a general lowering of the ground surface over a large area that is generally attributed to
lowering of the ground water levels within a groundwater basin. Localized or focal subsidence or settlement
of the ground can occur as a result of an earthquake motion in an area where groundwater in basin is
lowered. It is estimated that subsidence from re-compaction of fill is expected to vary from negligible to
approximately 0.1 foot (Appendix E).
Collapse of soils is generally caused by the introduction of water. As described above, the groundwater
depth at the Project site is expected to be greater than 201 feet below ground surface. Therefore, the
Project is not susceptible to collapse due to the depth of groundwater
Compliance with the CBC (PPP GEO-1), as ensured by the City through the permitting process, would ensure
any potential impacts related to lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse would be reduced
to less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
No New Impact.
Expansive soils contain certain types of clay minerals that shrink or swell as the moisture content changes; the
shrinking or swelling can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. Arid or semiarid areas with
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
83
seasonal changes of soil moisture experience, such as southern California, have a higher potential of
expansive soils than areas with higher rainfall and more constant soil moisture.
The Geotechnical Assessment conducted soils testing, which determined that site soils generally have a “very
low” expansion index (Appendix E).
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No New Impact.
The Project would install on-site sewer lines that would connect to the existing wastewater infrastructure in
Baseline Avenue. As such, the proposed Project would not result in impacts related to septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
No New Impact.
Earthmoving activities, including grading and trenching activities, would have the potential to disturb
previously unknown paleontological resources if earthmoving activities occur at depths below previously
disturbed soils. A Paleontological Assessment was prepared for the Project site that included a records
search, a literature search, a review of geological maps, and impact analyses (Appendix F). A prior
paleontological records search from the San Bernardino County Museum for a nearby project was used to
assess the proximity of established fossil localities. The prior records search included the entire Project site
and found that the closest fossil locality is situated about five miles to the south and consists of Pleistocene
bones from a saber-tooth cat (Appendix F). Additionally, seven localities consisting of large and small
Pleistocene-age mammals, terrestrial snails, and freshwater clams were recovered from sites approximately
six miles southwest of the Project site. Geologic mapping shows that the surface of the Project site is mapped
as Holocene young alluvial fan sediments, consisting mostly of sand. According to the Geotechnical
Investigation (Appendix E), the surface of the Project site is covered with one to three feet of artificial fill
composed of silt, sand, gravel, and cobbles. The underlying Holocene young alluvial soils consist of fine- to
coarse-grained sand with silt and silty sand with increasing percentages of gravel and cobbles with depth.
According to the Paleontological Assessment, these geologic units are assigned low to no paleontological
sensitivity (Appendix F). However, in compliance with RFSP Final EIR mitigation for paleontological resources,
a qualified paleontologist shall be present at the pre-grade meeting to consult with the grading and
excavation contractors. If paleontological resources are inadvertently discovered during grading,
construction shall halted around the find until the qualified paleontologist can determine treatment of the
discovery. With implementation of the RFSP Final EIR mitigation, potential impacts related to paleontological
resources would be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-
significant impact related to paleontological resources and unique geologic features.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
84
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental
document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding geology and soils. There have
not been (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the RFSP Final EIR due to the involvement
of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that
require major revisions of the RFSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new
information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives
that were not known and could not have been known when the RFSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP GEO-1: California Building Code. The Project shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the
2022 California Building Code (CBC) Design Parameters, or the most current CBC adopted in the City’s
Municipal Code.
PPP HWQ‐1: NPDES/SWPPP. Prior to issuance of any grading or construction permits, the applicant shall
provide the Building and Safety Department evidence of submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI), develop and
implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a monitoring program and reporting plan
for the construction site.
PPP HWQ‐2: Water Quality Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits,
the Project Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City’s Public Works Department, a final
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that address
Pollutants of Concern in accordance with the City’s Water Quality Management Plan Handbook.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
Paleontology Mitigation
It has been recommended by the San Bernardino County Museum that a paleontologist check the soil
geologist boring logs prior to construction to determine if fine grained sediment might be encountered during
grading. If this deposit exists, the following mitigation measures must be implemented:
1. A qualified paleontological monitor should be present at the pre-grade meeting to consult with the
grading and excavation contractor(s).
2. The monitor should spot check alluvium and colluvium which may be subject to grading.
3. The paleontologist should be empowered to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery
of fossil remains. In areas rich in micro-fossils, removal and washing of soil samples for micro vertebrates,
bones, and teeth remains will be part of the fossil salvaging operation.
4. Remains collected from the subject property will be deposited in an institution such as the San Bernardino
County Museum.
Status: Applicable to the Project.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
85
5.8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the RFSP Final EIR
The RFSP Final EIR did not evaluate impacts related to greenhouse gases as the topic area was not included
in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G at the time the RFSP Final EIR was prepared. Thus, this addendum does not
need to include a GHG analysis because the Final EIR was certified before GHG emissions analyses were
required to be prepared (A Local & Regional Monitor v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1773,
1801). Although the CEQA Guidelines did not expressly address evaluation of GHG impacts until 2010,
information regarding the potential impacts of GHGs has been widely known since the late 1970s. (See,
e.g., Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (2011) 196
Cal.App.4th 515, 531 [discussing events including 1978 adoption of National Climate Program Act].)
Because GHG impacts were known or should have been known at the time the RFSP Final EIR was certified,
adoption of the requirement to analyze GHG does not constitute significant new information, requiring
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR (Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214
Cal.App.4th 1301, 1320). Nonetheless, the following analyzes the Project’s GHG impacts for informational
purposes.
RFSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
None.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the following report:
• Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for Citrus Walk Residential Fontana Project.
Prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., April 18, 2025 (Appendix A).
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
86
GHG Thresholds
In 2008, the SCAQMD formed a working group to identify greenhouse gas emissions thresholds for land use
projects that could be used by local lead agencies in the SCAB. The working group developed several
different options that are contained in the SCAQMD Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse
Gas Significance Threshold (2008), that could be applied by lead agencies, which includes the following
tiered approach:
• Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under
CEQA.
• Tier 2 consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan. If a project is
consistent with a qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it does not have significant GHG emissions.
• Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose, but must be consistent with all
projects within its jurisdiction. A project’s construction emissions are averaged over 30 years and are
added to the project’s operational emissions. If a project’s emissions are below one of the following
screening thresholds, then the project is less than significant:
o Option 1: All land use types: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
o Option 2: Based on land use type: residential: 3,500 MTCO2e per year; commercial: 1,400 MTCO2e
per year; or mixed use: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
• Tier 4 has the following options:
o Option 1: Reduce business as usual emissions by a certain percentage; this percentage is currently
undefined.
o Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures
o Option 3, 2020 target for service populations (SP), which includes residents and employee: 4.8
MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 6.6 MTCO2e/SP/year for plans;
o Option 3, 2035 target: 3.0 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 4.1 MTCO2e/SP/year
o Tier 5 involves mitigation offsets to achieve target significance threshold.
The City understands that the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold was proposed by SCAQMD a decade
ago and was adopted as an interim policy; however, no permanent, superseding policy or threshold has
since been adopted. The 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold was developed and recommended by
SCAQMD, an expert agency, based on substantial evidence as provided in the Draft Guidance Document –
Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold (2008) document and subsequent Working Group
meetings (latest of which occurred in 2010). SCAQMD has not withdrawn its support of the interim threshold
and all documentation supporting the interim threshold remains on the SCAQMD website on a page that
provides guidance to CEQA practitioners for air quality analysis (and where all SCAQMD significance
thresholds for regional and local criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants also are listed). Further, as
stated by SCAQMD, this threshold “uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal [80% below 1990 levels by 2050]
as the basis for deriving the screening level” and, thus, remains valid for use in 2022. Lastly, this threshold
has been used for hundreds, if not thousands of GHG analyses performed for projects located within the
SCAQMD jurisdiction.
Based on the foregoing guidance, the City of Fontana has elected to rely on compliance with a local air
district threshold in the determination of significance of Project-related GHG emissions. Specifically, the City
has selected the interim 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold recommended by SCAQMD staff for which to
compare Project-related GHG emissions.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
87
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact
on the environment?
No New Impact.
Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area. A typical project does not generate
enough greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence,
the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact. GHGs are produced
by both direct and indirect emissions sources. Direct emissions include consumption of natural gas, heating
and cooling of buildings, landscaping activities and other equipment used directly by land uses. Indirect
emissions include the consumption of fossil fuels for vehicle trips, electricity generation, water usage, and
solid waste disposal.
As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to occur
over approximately 14 months. During construction, temporary sources of GHG emissions include construction
equipment and workers’ commutes to and from the site. The combustion of fossil-based fuels from vehicles
and construction equipment creates GHGs such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide
(N2O). Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels
change.
As discussed above, the SCAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction
related GHG emissions. However, lead agencies are required to quantify and disclose GHG emissions that
would occur during construction. Total estimated GHG emissions from construction of the proposed Project
were amortized over 30 years per SCAQMD methodology. As shown in Table GHG-1, it is estimated that
the proposed Project would generate a total of approximately 439 metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalents (MTCO2e) during construction. When amortized over the 30-year life of the proposed Project,
annual emissions would be 15 MTCO2e.
Table GHG-1: Project Construction GHG Emissions
Activity Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2025 309
2026 131
Total Emissions 439
Total Emissions Amortized Over 30 Years 15
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A)
During operations, the proposed Project would generate long-term GHG emissions from mobile sources (e.g.,
vehicle trips), area sources (e.g., maintenance activities and landscaping), indirect emissions from sources
associated with energy consumption, waste sources (land filling and waste disposal), and water sources
(water supply and conveyance, treatment, and distribution).
As discussed previously, the Project would result in development of a total of 54 single-family residences on
the Project site but would result in a total RFSP unit count of 2,414 or 31 fewer units than analyzed for the
overall area in the RFSP Final EIR. Thus, the Project would not increase the total approved unit count under
the RFSP. The estimated operational GHG emissions that would be generated from implementation of the
proposed Project are shown in Table GHG-2. In accordance with SCAQMD recommendations, the proposed
Project’s amortized construction related GHG emissions are added to the operational emissions estimate in
order to determine the proposed Project’s total annual GHG emissions. As shown in Table GHG-2, the
proposed Project would generate a total 447 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, based upon the City’s chosen
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
88
screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year, impacts related to operational GHG emissions would be
less than significant.
Table GHG-2: Project Total GHG Emissions
Activity Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Mobile 337
Area 1
Energy 91
Water 6
Waste 12
Refrigerant <0.1
Total Project Operational Emissions 447
Project Construction Emissions 15
Total Project Emissions 462
Significance Threshold 3,000
Threshold Exceeded No
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A)
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
No New Impact.
In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve GHG
emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020 through an enforceable statewide emission cap,
which was phased in starting in 2012. In 2022, CARB updated their Scoping Plan to reflect a State GHG
reduction target for 2045 at 85 percent below 1990 levels. The proposed Project meets the current interim
emissions targets/thresholds established by SCAQMD, therefore, the Project would also be on track to meet
the reduction target of 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045, as mandated by the State. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with existing plans, policies, and regulations
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gas. Table GHG-3 below shows the
Project’s consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan.
Table GHG-3: Project Consistency with 2022 Scoping Plan
Action Consistency
GHG Emissions Reductions Relative to the SB 32 Target
40% Below 1990 levels by 2030. Consistent. The Project would comply with the 2022 Title
24 Part 6 building energy requirements and part 11
CALGreen requirements, along with other local and State
initiatives that aim to achieve the 40% below 1990 levels
by 2030 goal.
Smart Growth/Vehicle Miles Traveled VMT
VMT per capita reduced 25% below 2019 levels by
2030, and 30% below 2019 levels by 2045.
Consistent. The proposed Project includes the installation
of sidewalks along the Project’s frontage on Orlando Drive
and Lime Avenue to encourage alternative modes of
transportation. The Project is consistent with the growth and
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
89
Action Consistency
land use assumptions in the Southern California Association
of Governments’ 2022 Connect SoCal Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, so
the Project would not interfere with the analysis completed
for the Connect SoCal report outlining VMT reduction
targets and measures.
Light-Duty Vehicle (LDV) Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs)
100% of LDV sales are ZEV by 2035. Not Applicable. The proposed Project is a residential
project and does not propose the sale of vehicles.
Truck ZEVs
100% of medium-duty (MDV)/HDC sales are ZEV by
2040 (AB 74 University of California Institute of
Transportation Studies [ITS] report).
Not Applicable. The proposed Project is a residential
project and does not propose the sale of trucks.
Aviation
20% of aviation fuel demand is met by electricity
(batteries) or hydrogen (fuel cells) in 2045.
Sustainable aviation fuel meets most or the rest of the
aviation fuel demand that has not already transitioned
to hydrogen or batteries.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project is a residential
project and would not utilize aviation fuel.
Ocean-Going Vessels (OGV)
2020 OGV At-Berth regulation fully implemented,
with most OGVs utilizing shore power by 2027.
25% of OGVs utilize hydrogen fuel cell electric
technology by 2045.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project is a residential
project and would not utilize any OGVs.
Port Operations
100% of cargo handling equipment is zero-emission
by 2037.
100% of drayage trucks are zero emission by 2035.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project is a residential
project and would not impact any operations at any ports.
Freight and Passenger Rail
100% of passenger and other locomotive sales are
ZEV by 2030.
100% of line haul locomotive sales are ZEV by 2035.
Line haul and passenger rail rely primarily on
hydrogen fuel cell technology, and others primarily
utilize electricity.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project is a residential
project and would not involve any freight or passenger rail
operations.
Oil and Gas Extraction
Reduce oil and gas extraction operations in line with
petroleum demand by 2045.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project is a residential
project and would not involve oil and gas extraction
operations.
Petroleum Refining
CCS on majority of operations by 2030, beginning in
2028. Production reduced in line with petroleum
demand.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project is a residential
project and would not involve any petroleum refining.
Electricity Generation
Sector GHG target of 38 million metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) in 2030 and 30
MMTCO2e in 2035.
Consistent. The proposed Project would install solar
energy systems in compliance with Title 24 requirements to
meet the demand for electrification without relying on new
fossil gas-fired resources.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
90
Action Consistency
Retail sales load coverage13420 gigawatts (GW) of
offshore wind by 2045. Meet increased demand for
electrification without new fossil gas-fired resources.
New Residential and Commercial Buildings
All electric appliances beginning 2026 (residential)
and 2029 (commercial), contributing to 6 million heat
pumps installed statewide by 2030.
Consistent. The proposed Project would comply with the
2022 Title 24 Part 6 building energy standards by
providing electric and Energy Star certified appliances in-
unit.
Existing Residential Buildings
80% of appliance sales are electric by 2030 and
100% of appliance sales are electric by 2035.
Appliances are replaced at end of life such that by
2030 there are 3 million all-electric and electric-ready
homes—and by 2035, 7 million homes—as well as
contributing to 6 million heat pumps installed statewide
by 2030.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project is a construction of
a new residential project and would not involve any
existing residential buildings.
Existing Commercial Buildings
80% of appliance sales are electric by 2030, and
100% of appliance sales are electric by 2045.
Appliances are replaced at end of life, contributing to
6 million heat pumps installed statewide by 2030.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project is a residential
project and would not involve any existing Commercial
buildings.
Food Products
7.5% of energy demand electrified directly and/or
indirectly by 2030; 75% by 2045.
Not Applicable, the proposed Project is a residential
project and does not involve the storage of food products.
Construction Equipment
25% of energy demand electrified by 2030 and 75%
electrified by 2045.
Consistent. The proposed Project would be required to use
construction equipment that is registered by CARB and meet
CARB’s standards. CARB sets its standards to be in line with
the goal of reducing energy demand by 25% in 2030 and
75% in 2045.
Chemicals and Allied Products; Pulp and Paper
Electrify 0% of boilers by 2030 and 100% of boilers
by 2045.
Hydrogen for 25% of process heat by 2035 and
100% by 2045.
Electrify 100% of other energy demand by 2045.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project is a residential
project and would not be utilized for pulp and/or paper
products.
Stone, Clay, Glass, and Cement
CCS on 40% of operations by 2035 and on all
facilities by 2045.
Process emissions reduced through alternative
materials and CCS.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project is a residential
project and would not be utilized for stone, clay, glass, and
cement.
Other Industrial Manufacturing
0% energy demand electrified by 2030 and 50% by
2045.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project is a residential
project and would not involve the construction of new
industrial manufacturing buildings.
Combined Heat and Power
Facilities retire by 2040.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project is a residential
project and would not involve any existing combined heat
and power facilities.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
91
Action Consistency
Agriculture Energy Use
25% energy demand electrified by 2030 and 75%
by 2045.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project is a residential
project and would not involve any agricultural uses.
Low Carbon Fuels for Transportation
Biomass supply is used to produce conventional and
advanced biofuels, as well as hydrogen.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project is a residential
project and would not involve any production of biofuels.
Low Carbon Fuels for Buildings and Industry
In 2030s, biomethane135 blended in pipeline
Renewable hydrogen blended in fossil gas pipeline at
7% energy (~20% by volume), ramping up between
2030 and 2040.
In 2030s, dedicated hydrogen pipelines constructed to
serve certain industrial clusters.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project is a residential
project and would not involve any production of energy
fuels for buildings and industry, nor would it impede in the
development and adoption of utilizing low carbon fuels for
buildings and industry.
Non-Combustion Methane Emissions
Increase landfill and dairy digester methane capture.
Some alternative manure management deployed for
smaller dairies.
Moderate adoption of enteric strategies by 2030.
Divert 75% of organic waste from landfills by 2025.
Oil and gas fugitive methane emissions reduced 50%
by 2030 and further reductions as infrastructure
components retire in line with reduced fossil gas
demand
Not Applicable. The proposed Project is a residential
project and would not involve any production of non-
combustion methane emissions or organic waste.
High GWP Potential Emissions
Low GWP refrigerants introduced as building
electrification increases, mitigating HFC emissions.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project is a residential
project and does not include large scale refrigeration uses.
Source: Source: CARB. (2022). California’s 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan Table 2-1: Actions for the Scoping Plan Scenario: AB
32 GHG Inventory Sectors. Referenced at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf
Table GHG-4 provides a consistency summary between City of Fontana General Plan policies related to
reducing GHG emissions and the proposed Project. As shown in Table GHG-4, the Project would comply
with applicable plans and programs of the Fontana General Plan intended to reduce GHG emissions.
Table GHG-4: Project Consistency with City of Fontana General Plan
Goals Consistency
Community Mobility and Circulation
Goal 5: Fontana’s commercial and mixed-use areas
include a multi-functional street network that ensures a
safe, comfortable, and efficient movement of people,
goods, and services to support a high quality of life
and economic vitality.
Consistent. The Project would install a 6-foot wide
sidewalk along the Project frontage on Orlando Drive and
a 5 foot wide sidewalk along the Project frontage on Lime
Avenue. The existing sidewalk along the Project frontage
on Baseline Avenue would be protected in place and would
not be changed through the implementation of the
Project. Fontana is served by Omnitrans, with bus route 367
located along the Project’s frontage on Baseline Avenue.
As such, the Project would support alternate modes of
transportation.
Goal 6: The city has attractive and convenient parking
facilities, including electric charging stations, for both
Consistent. The proposed Project would provide a total of
143 passenger vehicle stalls, including 96 garage space
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
92
Goals Consistency
motorized and non-motorized vehicles that meet needs
that fit the context.
stalls and 47 head-in stalls, with electric charging hookups
as required by Title 24 Part 6.
Infrastructure and Green Systems
Goal 7: Fontana is becoming an energy-efficient
community.
Consistent. The proposed Project would be designed to
meet the 2022 Title 24 Part 6 building energy
requirements, which would minimize the energy utilized
through installation of enhanced insulation and use of
energy efficient lights and appliances. This ensures the
Project would be designed in a manner that would facilitate
the reduction of GHG emissions from on-site sources.
Sustainability and Resilience
Goal 3: Renewable sources of energy, including solar
and wind, and other energy-conservation strategies
are available to city households and businesses.
Consistent. Consistent with the 2022 Title 24 Part 6
requirements, the proposed project would install solar
panels as part of the development. This would contribute to
renewable resources to the households proposed by the
Project.
Goal 5: Green building techniques are used in new
development and retrofits.
Consistent. The proposed Project would be designed to
meet the 2022 Title 24 Part 6 and Part 11 building energy
and CALGreen requirements, which would minimize the
energy utilized and promote environmental resilience. This
ensures the Project would be designed in a manner that
would facilitate the reduction of GHG emissions from on-
site sources and address the changing climate.
Goal 6: Green building techniques are used in new
development and retrofits.
Source: Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gase Impact Analysis (Appendix A)
Further, the proposed Project would not interfere with the SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s GHG
reduction target of 19 percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2035 under the 2024-2050
SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). In addition, the proposed
Project is not regionally significant per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 and as such, it would not
conflict with the SCAG RTP/SCS targets since those targets were established and are applicable on a
regional level.
Overall, the proposed Project would comply with existing State regulations adopted to achieve the overall
GHG emissions reduction goals identified in the 2022 Scoping Plan and would be consistent with applicable
plans and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions, such as the City’s General Plan and SCAG's
RTP/SCS. The regulations, plans, and polices adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions that are
directly applicable to the Project include the latest Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and
Nonresidential Buildings and the Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). The Project
would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 Standards at the time of building permit issuance.
In addition, as described above, GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed
Project would not exceed the City’s GHG threshold. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would
not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of GHGs and impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental
document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding greenhouse gas emissions.
There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
93
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that
require major revisions of the RFSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new
information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives
that were not known and could not have been known when the RFSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP E-1. Title 24 Standards. As listed previously under Section 5.6, Energy.
PPP GHG-1: CALGreen Standards. Projects shall be designed in accordance with the applicable California
Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR 11).
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
94
5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
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?
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?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
95
Summary of Impacts Identified in the RFSP Final EIR
Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials were not discussed within the RFSP Final EIR because
the Initial Study prepared for the EIR determined the RFSP would not result in impacts related to hazards
and hazardous materials.
RFSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
None.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the following report:
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 3-acre Vacant Property at 15547 Baseline Avenue, Southwest Corner
of Lime Avenue and Baseline Avenue APN 1110-171-02-0000, Fontana, San Bernardino County,
California 92336. Prepared by Petra Geosciences, May 14, 2024 (Appendix G).
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
No New Impact.
A hazardous material is defined as any material that, due to its quantity, concentration, or physical or
chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the
environment if released into the workplace or environment. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited
to, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and any material that a business or the local implementing
agency has a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful
to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. Hazardous wastes require special
handling and disposal because of their potential to damage public health and the environment.
Construction
Construction activities for the proposed Project would involve routine transport, use, and disposal of
hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, oils, grease, and calking. In addition, routine hazardous
materials would be used for fueling and serving construction equipment on-site. These types of hazardous
materials routinely used during construction are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and
disposal of these materials are regulated by existing State and federal laws that the Project is required to
strictly adhere to. As a result, the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials during construction
activities for the proposed Project would be less than significant.
Operation
The Project involves the operation of 54 new residential units, which involve routinely using hazardous
materials including solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, fertilizers, and aerosol cans. These
types of materials are not acutely hazardous and would only be used and stored in limited quantities. The
normal routine use of these hazardous materials products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in
a significant hazard to people or the environment in the vicinity of the Project. Therefore, operation of the
Project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste, and impacts would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
96
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?
No New Impact.
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the proposed Project site and is included
as Appendix G. The purpose of the Phase I ESA is to determine the presence or absence of hazardous
materials pertaining to the release of hazardous materials into the soil, surface water, and/or groundwater
by identifying recognized environmental conditions (RECs), including historical recognized environmental
conditions (“HRECs”), and controlled recognized environmental conditions (“CRECs”) that may exist at a
property. The Phase I ESA did not identify evidence of any recognized environmental conditions (RECs),
CRECs, or HRECs associated with the Project site (Appendix G).
Construction
As described previously, construction of the proposed Project would involve the limited use and disposal of
hazardous materials. Equipment that would be used in construction of the Project has the potential to release
gas, oils, greases, and solvents, and spills of paint and other finishing substances. However, the amount of
hazardous materials on-site would be limited, and construction activities would be required to adhere to all
applicable regulations regarding hazardous materials storage and handling, as well as to implement
construction BMPs (through implementation of a required SWPPP implemented by PPP HWQ-1) to prevent
a hazardous materials release and to promptly contain and clean up any spills, which would minimize the
potential for harmful exposures. With compliance to existing laws and regulations, which is mandated by
the City through construction permitting, the Project’s construction-related impacts would be less than
significant.
Operation
As described previously, operation of the proposed 54 residential units includes use of limited hazardous
materials, such as solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, fertilizers, and aerosol cans. Normal
routine use of typical residential products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant
hazard to the environment, residents, or workers in the vicinity of the Project. As a result, operation of the
proposed Project would not create a reasonably foreseeable upset and accident condition involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment, and impacts would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
No New Impact.
The closest schools to the Project site are Dorothy Grant Elementary School, located approximately 0.30
miles to the north, Almeria Middle School, located approximately 0.57 miles to the southeast, and Hemlock
Elementary School, located approximately 0.82 miles to the southwest. As described previously, construction
and operation of the Project would involve the use, storage, and disposal of small amounts of hazardous
materials on the Project site. These hazardous materials would be limited and used and disposed of in
compliance with federal, State, and local regulations, which would reduce the potential for accidental
release into the environment near a school. Further, emissions that would be generated from construction and
operation of the proposed Project were evaluated in the air quality analysis in Section 5.3, Air Quality,
herein, which determined that emissions generated from the proposed Project would not cause or contribute
to an exceedance of the federal or State air quality standards. Thus, the Project would not emit hazardous
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
97
or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of a school, and impacts would
be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
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?
No New Impact.
The Phase I ESA prepared for the Project site included a database search to determine if the Project site or
any nearby properties were identified as having hazardous materials. The Phase I ESA record search
determined that the Project site is not identified on a list of hazardous materials sites (Appendix G). As a
result, impacts related to hazards from being located on or adjacent to a hazardous materials site compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, would not occur from implementation of the proposed
Project.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
No New Impact.
The closest airport to the Project site is Ontario Internation Airport, which is located approximately 8 miles
to the southwest. According to Policy Map 2-1 of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan, the Project site is not within the airport influence area for the Ontario International Airport (Ontario
Internation Airport, 2018). Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in an airport-related safety
hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. The Project would have no impact on safety
hazards related to airports.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
f) Impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No New Impact.
Construction
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within
the Project site, and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. The
installation of the new driveway and connections to existing and proposed infrastructure systems that would
be implemented during construction of the proposed Project would not require closure of Baseline Avenue,
Lime Avenue or Orlando Drive. Any temporary lane closures needed for utility connections or driveway
construction would be required to implement appropriate measures to facilitate vehicle circulation, as
included within construction permits. Thus, implementation of the Project through the City’s permitting process
would ensure existing regulations are adhered to and would reduce potential construction related emergency
access or evacuation impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Operation
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
98
Direct access to the Project site would be provided via two driveways, one on Lime Avenue and one on
Orlando Drive. The Project driveways and internal circulation would be required through the City’s permitting
procedures to meet the City’s design standards to ensure adequate emergency access and evacuation. The
Project is also required to provide fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers). The Fire
Department and Public Works Department would review the development plans as part of the permitting
procedures to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the
California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), included as Municipal Code Chapter
5, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article XV, California Fire Code, Section 5-425. Therefore, operation
of the proposed Project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires?
No New Impact.
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Map, the Project site is not within an area identified a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) (CAL
FIRE, 2024). Additionally, the Project site is located in a developed area and is not adjacent to wildlands.
Implementation of the proposed Project would be required to adhere to the California Fire Code and would
be reviewed by the City’s Building and Safety Division during the permitting process to ensure that the
Project plans meet the general applicable adopted fire protection requirements. As a result, the proposed
Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental
document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding hazards and hazardous
materials. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2)
substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is
undertaken that require major revisions of the RFSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the
availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures
or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the RFSP Final EIR was certified
as completed.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP HWQ-1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
99
5.10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater
quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
100
Summary of Impacts Identified in the RFSP Final EIR
Impacts related to hydrology and water quality were discussed under Section 7.3.8, Hydrology/Flood
Control. The RFSP Final EIR determined buildout of the RFSP would alter the natural drainage patterns and
topography of the Plan area. Additionally, development would also introduce new impervious surfaces which
will increase the amount of surface runoff. The hydrological analysis prepared for the EIR determined
development of the Specific Plan area would result in a 4 percent increase in runoff between undeveloped
and developed site characteristics.
RFSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is from pages VII-40 through VII-41 from the RFSP Final EIR:
Because of the inadequate storm drain facilities now existing within the study area, storm detention basins
will be required for reducing the peak runoff from any new development to a flow rate equal to or less than
the present peak runoff which now exists from the undeveloped area. This is recommended in order to
prevent the aggravation of the present flooding that now exists in the areas along the West Fontana
Channel, Foothill Boulevard, and Banana Street.
A proposed Conceptual Flood Control Plan (EIR Exhibit 13) was developed to provide storm drain facilities
for the specific plan and for properties approved for development south and east of the Specific Plan area.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the following report:
• Baseline & Lime Ave. Townhomes APN: 1110-171-02 Preliminary Drainage Report. Prepared by Allard
Engineering, February 14, 2025 (Appendix H).
• Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan APN No. 1110-171-02 Baseline & Lime Townhomes,
Fontana. Prepared by Allard Engineering, February 2, 2025 (Appendix I).
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
No New Impact.
Construction
Construction of the Project would require grading and excavation of soils, which would loosen sediment, and
then have the potential to mix with surface water runoff and degrade water quality. Pollutants of concern
during Project construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet),
sanitary waste, and chemicals. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there
would be an increased potential for soil erosion and transport of sediment downstream compared to existing
conditions. During a storm event, soil erosion could occur at an accelerated rate. In addition, construction-
related pollutants, such as chemicals, liquid and petroleum products (e.g., paints, solvents, and fuels), and
concrete-related waste, could be spilled, leaked, or transported via stormwater runoff into adjacent
drainages and into downstream receiving waters.
Pursuant to City of Fontana Municipal Code, Section 5-14, Compliance with the NPDES Permit, the Project
Applicant would be required to implement the requirements of the Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer
System (MS4) NPDES. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with the NPDES Construction
General Permit. Under the Construction General Permit, the Project would be required to prepare a SWPPP,
which would include the use of BMPs to prevent potentially polluted stormwater from leaving the construction
site (PPP HWQ-1). The SWPPP would incorporate erosion control practices, to prevent sedimentation from
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
101
occurring, as well as nonstructural BMPs to minimize the potential for spills or other pollutant sources from
entering stormwater runoff. The use of BMPs during construction implemented as part of a SWPPP as
required by the Construction General Permit, San Bernardino County Stormwater Program, and the MS4
NPDES permit would serve to ensure that Project impacts related to construction activities resulting in a
degradation of water quality would be less than significant.
Operation
The proposed Project would operate residential uses, which would introduce the potential for pollutants such
as chemicals from cleaners, pesticides and sediment from landscaping, trash and debris, and oil and grease
from vehicles. These pollutants could potentially discharge into surface waters and result in degradation of
water quality. However, in accordance with State Water Resources Board Order R8-2010-0036, NPDES
No. CAS618036, the proposed Project would be required to incorporate a WQMP with post-construction
(or permanent) Low Impact Development (LID) site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs (PPP
HWQ-2). The source control BMPs would minimize the introduction of pollutants that may result in water
quality impacts; and treatment control BMPs that would treat stormwater runoff. For the purposes of
stormwater quality, two underground infiltration chamber systems are proposed. All runoff would be
collected in a series of inlets and piped to the infiltration chambers for treatment. This system would remove
coarse sediment, trash, and pollutants (i.e., sediments, nutrients, heavy metals, oxygen demanding substances,
oil and grease, bacteria, and pesticides). Once the designed captured volume has been achieved and
retained, the excess storm runoff would overflow the chamber system and exit out of the center driveways
on the surface and drain out into the existing curb and gutter in Orlando Drive and be conveyed by the
existing drainage facilities to the Miller Avenue Detention Basin where such drainage volumes will be
mitigated prior to continuing downstream into the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Channel..
With implementation of the operational source and treatment control BMPs that are outlined in the
preliminary WQMP (Appendix I) that would be reviewed and approved by the City during the permitting
and approval process, potential pollutants would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible, and
implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No New Impact.
Groundwater recharge is facilitated by percolation of stormwater through pervious surface areas to
groundwater resources. Increasing the imperviousness of an area could interfere with groundwater recharge
capabilities of an area. The Project site is currently undeveloped and largely pervious. The Project would
result in a greater area of impervious surface from the introduction of new building coverage and pavement.
However, the Project would install drainage infrastructure that would convey runoff to two underground
infiltration chambers, which would percolate runoff into the groundwater basin and provide basin recharge.
In addition, the proposed Project includes approximately 23,680 SF of landscaping that would also provide
stormwater infiltration on-site. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR
and would result in no new or increased impact on groundwater supplies or recharge.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
102
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?
No New Impact.
Construction
Construction of the proposed Project would require grading and excavation of soils, which would loosen
sediment and could result in erosion or siltation. However, Project construction would be permitted under
the NPDES Construction General Permit, which requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP
by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) for construction activities that disturb 1-acre or more of soils
(PPP HWQ-1). The SWPPP would include construction BMPs to reduce erosion or siltation and is required
for plan check and approval by the City prior to issuance of grading permits for the Project. Typical
BMPs for erosion or siltation, include use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, gravel bags, stabilized construction
driveway, and stockpile management. Adherence to the existing requirements and implementation of
the required BMPs per the permitting process would ensure that erosion and siltation associated with
construction activities would be minimized, and impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
As described previously, proposed development would result in an increase in impervious areas. As a
result, the Project would increase surface flows compared to existing conditions. However, the stormwater
runoff from the addition of impervious surfaces on-site from development of the Project would be
conveyed into an infiltration basin per the Project’s WQMP (Appendix I) (PPP HWQ-2).. The onsite 100-
yr storm runoff would be captured by drain inlets and storm drain and conveyed to two underground
infiltration chamber systems. Once the designed captured volume has been achieved and retained, the
excess storm runoff would overflow the chamber system and exit out of the center driveways on the
surface and drain out into the existing curb and gutter in Orlando Drive and be conveyed by the existing
drainage facilities to the Miller Avenue Detention Basin where such drainage volumes will be mitigated
prior to continuing downstream into the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Channel. Further, the BMPs identified in
the WQMP would reduce the potential for erosion and siltation. As part of the permitting approval
process, the proposed drainage, water quality design, and engineering plans would be reviewed by
the City’s Engineering Department to ensure it meets the City’s NPDES Permit and limits the potential for
erosion and siltation. Overall, adherence to the existing regulation would ensure that Project impacts
related to erosion and siltation from operational impacts would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
No New Impact.
Construction
Construction of the proposed Project would include activities that could temporarily alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site and could result in flooding on- or off-site if drainage is not properly
controlled. However, as described previously, implementation of the Project requires a SWPPP (PPP
HWQ-1) that would address site specific drainage issues related to construction of the Project and
include BMPs to eliminate the potential for flooding or alteration of the drainage pattern during
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
103
construction activities. This includes regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities
by a QSD. Compliance with the City’s NPDES Permit and a SWPPP, as verified by the City through the
construction permitting process, would prevent construction-related impacts related to potential increase
in runoff or flooding on or off-site from development activities. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
Operation
As described previously, proposed development would result in an increase in impervious areas on-site.
As a result, the Project would increase surface flows compared to existing conditions. However, new
stormwater drainage facilities, including infiltration basins, and pervious landscaped area would be
installed by the Project. The onsite 100-yr storm runoff would be captured by drain inlets and storm
drain and conveyed to two underground infiltration chamber systems. Once the designed captured
volume has been achieved and retained, the excess storm runoff would overflow the chamber system
and exit out of the center driveways on the surface and drain out into the existing curb and gutter in
Orlando Drive and be conveyed by the existing drainage facilities to the Miller Avenue Detention Basin
where such drainage volumes will be mitigated prior to continuing downstream into the Etiwanda/San
Sevaine Channel (Appendix H). In addition, landscaped areas would accept runoff water from
impervious surfaces and regulate the rate and velocity of stormwater flows and would control the amount
of discharge into the off-site drainage system. Overall, the proposed drainage facilities proposed for
the Project have been sized to be consistent with the County MS4 permit requirements and the City’s
WQMP requirements (PPP HWQ-2). Thus, implementation of the Project would not substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff, such that flooding would occur, and impacts would be less than
significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
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?
No New Impact.
As described in the previous responses, the proposed Project would be required to implement a SWPPP
during construction that would implement BMPs, such as the use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, and gravel
bags, that would ensure that runoff would not substantially increase during construction, and that
pollutants would not discharge from the Project site, which would reduce potential impacts to drainage
systems and water quality to a less-than-significant level.
During operation, the runoff generated by the proposed Project would be conveyed to a
detention/infiltration basin. The basin has been sized to accommodate the anticipated flows, and would
control drainage, such that it would not exceed the capacity of the stormwater drainage system (PPP
HWQ-2). Therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact on the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems and/or additional sources of polluted runoff.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
No New Impact.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for
the Project area (Map No. 06071C8652H), the Project site is classified as “Zone X” flood plain area,
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
104
which includes areas with a minimal or 0.2 percent annual chance of flood hazard and is classified as a
non-special flood hazard area with moderate-to-low risk (FEMA, 2008). As described previously, the
drainage facilities proposed for the Project have been sized to adequately accommodate the
stormwater flows from the proposed development and are consistent with the County and City drainage
plans and MS4 permit requirements as part of the required WQMP (PPP HWQ-2). Thus, although the
proposed Project would result in a substantial increase in impervious surfaces on the site, the proposed
drainage infrastructure would maintain the existing drainage pattern and accommodate flows, such that
storm flows would not be impeded or redirected. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No New Impact.
As discussed in Response 5.10(c)(iv), the Project site is not within a flood hazard area. Additionally, proper
storage requirements for hazardous materials, such as fuels and oils, would be followed in order to limit the
risk of release of pollutants due to site inundation. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not risk
the release of pollutants due to inundation in a flood hazard zone. Also, the Project site is located over 35
miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and is not located within a tsunami zone. Thus, impacts related to tsunamis
would not occur.
A seiche is the sloshing of a closed body of water from earthquake shaking. Seiches are of concern relative
to water storage facilities because inundation from a seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment
wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank, dam, or other artificial body of water. There are
no major reservoirs or bodies of water located up-gradient within the near vicinity of the site. Therefore, the
potential for seiche is considered very low and impacts would not occur. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant, and the Project would result in no new impact related to release of pollutants due to flood
hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
No New Impact.
The One Water One Watershed (OWOW) program was developed in effort by the Santa Ana Watershed
Project Authority, a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) mandated to manage water quality within the Santa Ana
River Watershed for multiple beneficial purposes. The OWOW program integrates water resources
management with various disciplines such as land use planning, flood control, and natural resource
management. Through compliance with the applicable NPDES permits, the Project would be consistent with
the OWOW program developed for the region. The Project applicant would be required to prepare and
implement a SWPPP during Project construction to avoid potential construction-related water quality impacts
(PPP HWQ-1) per the Construction General Permit. The Project applicant would also be required to prepare
and implement a WQMP to treat and capture post-construction stormwater runoff as part of Project
operation per the County’s MS4 NPDES permit (PPP HWQ-2). Through implementation of the applicable
construction and post-construction permitting requirements, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality control plan.
Pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), each high and medium priority basin,
as identified by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), is required to have a Groundwater
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
105
Sustainability Agency (GSA) that will be responsible for groundwater management and development of a
Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). The Project site overlays the Chino Basin, which is an adjudicated
groundwater basin. Adjudicated basins are exempt from the SGMA because they already operate under
court-ordered management plan to ensure the long term sustainability of the basin. Therefore, the Project
would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a groundwater management plan. Thus, impacts
related to water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would be less than
significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental
document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding hydrology and water quality.
There have not been (1) changes related to the development of the Project site that involve new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that
require major revisions of the RFSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new
information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives
that were not known and could not have been known when the RFSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP HWQ‐1: NPDES/SWPPP. As listed in Section 5.7, Geology and Soils.
PPP HWQ‐2: Water Quality Management Plan. As listed in Section 5.7, Geology and Soils.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
106
5.11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due
to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the RFSP Final EIR
The RFSP Final EIR discussed impacts related to land use and planning under Section 7.3.4, Land Use/Relevant
Planning. The RFSP Final EIR determined adoption of the RFSP would allow development of the previously
primarily undeveloped portion of Fontana to be developed with primarily residential uses. The RFSP was
determined to be consistent with its General Plan designation of (S-RES 4.5). Additionally, it was determined
that the RFSP would become the land use plan and regulatory control for the site. Therefore, the RFSP Final
EIR determined adoption of the RFSP would not result in a conflict with the General Plan or Zoning for the
site.
The RFSP Final EIR described potential nuisance that could occur from incompatibility between residential
uses and the existing chicken ranches, particularly as it related to the nuisance of flies. Additionally, the EIR
noted potential land use conflicts could arise is the Gillfillan Airport/Regional Emergency Center –
Operations, Planning and Education (RECOPE) proposal is implemented by the County.
RFSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are from pages VII-24 through VII-25 from the RFSP Final EIR:
The major land use impacts which will occur will be nuisances caused by flies and odors emanating from the
existing chicken ranches, particularly that located within the 520-acre property. Measures which will be
required to reduce these impacts are described below. A buffer zone will be established between the egg
farm and the proposed residential development which abuts the ranch. Landscaping will be required on both
sides of the common property line. The egg farm will plant high, fast-growing oleander bushes on its
property. Good shading evergreen trees will also be planted on both properties. Although species have not
been identified to date, consultation with the UC Agricultural Extension Service will be undertaken to
determine the most effective plantings. Approved Tentative Tract Map 10800 has been conditioned to
ensure implementation of such a buffer zone.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
107
The Sunshine Foods operation has already implemented an "internal biological control" program which
employs physical, chemical, and biological means by which to kill flies and eliminate odor. These means
include spreading and drying manure in 8- to 12-inch pads (physical control); setting out bait stations and
employing residual spraying (chemical control); and buying natural predators (fly parasites) which live on
fly eggs and larvae (biological control).
A final measure which should also be implemented is that the appropriate real estate documents should
identify the potential nuisances emanating from the chicken ranch, thereby advising the potential homebuyers
of the fly and odor problems. Although this measure will not "mitigate" the impacts, it will make the buyer
aware of the existing nuisances prior to purchasing the home.
Prior to the approval of the RECOPE [Regional Emergency Center – Operations, Planning and Education]
facility proposed by the County, the lead agency should prepare or have prepared an EIR and/or EIS and
supplemented by detailed acoustical analysis. Specific impacts should be identified and appropriate
mitigation recommended in that document.
*Note: The chicken ranch is no longer active.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Physically divide an established community?
No New Impact.
The Project site is currently undeveloped and vacant. The Project would be consistent with the land use and
zoning designations for the site and adjacent areas, which are designated and consist of residential uses.
The proposed residential uses would add to the existing community and would not physically divide the
community. In addition, the Project does not involve development of off-site roadways or other infrastructure
that could divide a community. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not physically divide
an established community.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the RFSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the RFSP Final
EIR.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No New Impact.
As described throughout this document, the Project site is within the RFSP, which was adopted for the purpose
of ensuring responsible development of the Rancho Fontana property. Within the RFSP, the Project site is in
Planning Area 18 and is currently designated for Low Density Residential. The Project proposes a SPA to
reinstate the High Density Residential category into the RFSP and subsequently change the site’s RFSP
designation from Low Density Residential (6 du/ac) to High Density Residential (12 du/ac). The proposed
Project is within the remaining development capacity of RFSP. The RFSP, as amended, allows for 2,445 total
residential units over the 520-acre Specific Plan area. Since adopted of the RFSP in 1982, a total of 2,360
residential units have been built. The RFSP allocated 115 dwelling units for Planning Area 18 and 88 units
have since been constructed within Planning Area 18. Thus, of the 54 proposed units, 27 units were assumed
to occur on the site and 27 would be transferred from the overall remaining capacity in the RFSP. Therefore,
buildout of the RFSP as modified by the Project is assumed to be 2,414 units.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
108
The proposed Project’s consistency with the RFSP is described below in Table LU-1. As shown, the Project
would remain consistent with the RFSP.
Table LU-1: Project Consistency with RFSP Goals and Policies
Goal Project Consistency
Goal 3.3.1 Community Design: It is a goal of the
Specific Plan to create a sense of place through the
design of the community. Community identity and
efficiency should be achieved.
Consistent. The proposed Project would provide
attached for-sale, single-family development at a
slightly higher density than the surrounding low density,
single family detached neighborhoods. The proposed
Project is designed to be compatible with the surrounding
architecture within the RFSP. The residences would have
a variety of architectural elements, including articulated
massing and finish material palates, and have design
characteristics consistent with Spanish style architecture
Goal 3.3.2 Transportation: It is a goal of the Specific
Plan to promote an efficient transportation system which
is environmentally acceptable.
Consistent. As described in Section 5.17, Transportation,
the proposed Project would not conflict with the existing
transportation system.
Goal 3.3.3 Housing: It is a goal of the Rancho Fontana
Specific Plan to promote the development approaches
and techniques which provide a broad range of housing
types and opportunities, architectural variation and a
pleasant living environment.
Consistent. The proposed Project would develop the site
with 54 attached residential units, providing a higher
density for-sale housing option amongst an area of
Fontana primarily comprised of single-family detached
residences.
Goal 3.3.4 Public Facilities: It is a goal of the Specific
Plan to locate basic public facilities in such a way as to
make them convenient to the community, efficient and
inexpensive and to promote the health, safety and
welfare of the residents of the City.
Not Applicable. The Project does not propose the
installation of public facilities; however, implementation
of the Project would not conflict with existing public
facilities within the RFSP area.
Source: RFSP Section 3.3, Goals & Objectives (RFSP, 2000)
City of Fontana General Plan. The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of Residential
Planned Community (R-PC) which is used for master-planned communities with specific plans. As shown in
Table LU-2 below, the Project is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies.
Table LU-2: Project Consistency with General Plan Policies
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Community and Neighborhoods
Goal 1: The integrity and character of historic structures,
and cultural resources sites within the City of Fontana are
preserved.
Consistent. As described in Section 5.5, Cultural
Resources, there are no structures or historic resources on
the site. Therefore, the Project would not result in an
adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource. Additionally, the Project included an
archaeological and historical records search at the South
Central Information Center which did not identify any
historic or archaeological resources on the Project site.
The Cultural Resources Assessment concluded that the
subject property did not historically contain any
structures and was primarily utilized for agriculture.
Given the lack of historic development/occupation on the
Project site and the previous agricultural use of the
property, there is little to no potential for archaeological
resources to be encountered on the site (Appendix D). As
such, the Project would not impact historic or cultural
resources.
Goal 3: Cultural and archaeological resources are
protected and preserved.
Policy 3.1: Collaborate with state archaeological
agencies to protect resources.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
109
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Goal 4: Traditional and master-planned neighborhoods
of predominantly single-family houses continue to thrive
and attract family households.
Consistent. The Project proposes a single-family
residential for-sale community, as intended by the RFSP
and the General Plan.
Policy 4.1: Continue to support existing traditional and
masterplanned neighborhoods with excellent city
services.
Policy 4.2: Connect master-planned neighborhoods to
each other and city destinations with safe, comfortable,
and convenient pedestrian and bicycle routes.
Goal 5: New housing developments promote walkable
neighborhoods with mixed-use amenities and connections
to city destinations.
Consistent. The Project would install a 6 foot wide
sidewalk along Project frontage on Orlando Drive and
a 5 foot wide sidewalk along Project frontage on Lime
Avenue. The existing sidewalk along Project frontage on
Baseline Avenue would be protected in place and would
not be changed through implementation of the Project.
The existing sidewalk system within the Project vicinity
provides direct connectivity to the adjacent existing
residential communities, recreational amenities, and to
public transit (i.e., Route 367 which serves Fontana and
Chaffey College Rancho Cucamonga via Baseline).
Additionally, the Project includes meandering walkways
within the site to provide connectivity between the
residential units.
Policy 5.1: Support regulations that promote creation of
compact and walkable urban village-style design in new
developments.
Goal 7: A diverse stock of quality housing serves Fontana
residents across the range of incomes, household types,
and age groups.
Consistent. The proposed Project would provide for-
sale, attached single-family development at a slightly
higher density than the surrounding low density, single
family detached neighborhoods. Goal 7.1: Support a diversified housing stock that
includes new options ranging from larger-lot single
family housing to “missing middle” housing types such as
cottage developments, small-scale apartments and
condos, and courtyard housing, as well as larger
multifamily developments.
Goal 8: All housing and businesses in Fontana are well-
managed and code-compliant.
Consistent. The Project would be developed to comply
with applicable City Municipal Code requirements.
Policy 8.1: Continue to enforce and publicize code-
compliance programs for all housing and businesses.
Building a Healthier Fontana
Goal 1: The average lifespan in Fontana consistently
ranks within the top ten of all Southern California cities.
Consistent. As detailed in the Air Quality, Energy, and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report (Appendix A), the
Health Risk Assessment (Appendix B) and in Section 5.2,
Air Quality, the Project would not result in a significant
construction or operational health risk impact.
Policy 1.3: Support local and regional initiatives to
improve air quality in order to reduce asthma while
actively discouraging development that may exacerbate
asthma rates.
Consistent. As described in Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, the Project would comply with the CALGreen
standards that are applicable to the proposed Project.
Goal 2: Fontana has healthy and safe development
patterns.
Consistent. As detailed in the Air Quality, Energy, and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report (Appendix A), the
Health Risk Assessment (Appendix B) and in Section 5.3,
Air Quality, the Project would not result in a significant
health risk in either the construction or operation of the
Project.
Goal 3: The City of Fontana considers health at all levels
of decision making.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
110
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails
Goal 3: Fontana has a healthy, drought-resistant urban
forest.
Consistent. The proposed Project includes installation of
23,680 SF of drought tolerant landscaping, inclusive of
trees, throughout the site. Policy 3.1: Support tree conservation and planting that
enhances shade and drought resistance.
Goal 5: All Fontana residents live within walking or
biking distance of a public park and there are sufficient
public parks to serve all areas of the city.
Consistent. The City currently has 1,621 acres of park
facilities, including two parks within 1 mile of the Project
site. Additionally, the Project would include 6,400 SF of
common open space on site for use by the residents. Policy 5.2: Continue to use a minimum standard of 5
acres of public parkland per 1,000 persons.
Community Mobility and Circulation
Goal 4: The neighborhood streets of Fontana maintain a
residential character and support a range of
transportation options.
Consistent. The Project would install a 6 foot wide
sidewalk along Project frontage on Orlando Drive and
a 5 foot wide sidewalk along Project frontage on Lime
Avenue. The existing sidewalk along Project frontage on
Baseline Avenue would be protected in place and would
not be changed through implementation of the Project.
The existing sidewalk system within the Project vicinity
provides direct connectivity to the adjacent existing
residential communities, recreational amenities, and to
public transit (i.e., Route 367 which serves Fontana and
Chaffey College Rancho Cucamonga via Baseline).
Additionally, a bike lane exists along Project frontage
on Baseline Avenue but not along Lime Avenue or
Orlando Drive. The proposed Project would not conflict
with the existing bike lane along Baseline Avenue.
Policy 4.1: Balance neighborhood traffic circulation
needs with the goal of creating walkable and bike-
friendly neighborhoods.
Infrastructure and Green Systems
Goal 3: The City continues to have an effective water
conservation program.
Consistent. The Project would incorporate water
efficient landscaping in compliance with the
Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance into the
proposed Project.
Policy 3.1: Support landscaping in public and private
spaces with drought-resistant plants.
Consistent. As shown in Figure 3-4, Landscape Plan, the
Project would include planting of shade trees and
drought resistant vegetation throughout the site.
Goal 6: Fontana has a stormwater drainage system that
is environmentally and economically sustainable and
compatible with regional One Water One Watershed
standards.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.10, Hydrology and
Water Quality, the proposed Project would construct on-
site stormwater drainage facilities necessary to prevent
on-site stormwater flows from impacting off-site
properties. Development pursuant to the proposed
Project would construct a stormwater drainage system to
convey runoff from the site in a manner consistent with
City requirements. Additionally, the Project would
adhere to the City’s WQMP as well as develop a site-
specific WQMP (Appendix I). With adherence to the
WQMP, BMPs would be implemented to ensure
stormwater runoff would be treated prior to discharge
from the site.
Policy 6.1: Continue to implement the water-quality
management plan for stormwater management that
incorporates low-impact and green infrastructure
standards.
Goal 7: Fontana is becoming an energy-efficient
community.
Consistent. As described in Section 5.6, Energy, the
proposed Project would comply with Title 24 energy
efficiency requirements and would not result in wasteful
energy use. Policy 7.1: Promote renewable energy and distributed
energy systems in new development and retrofits of
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
111
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
existing development to work toward becoming a zero
net energy city.
Goal 8: All residences and businesses have a
dependable, environmentally safe means of disposing of
solid waste.
Consistent. As described in Section 5.19, Utilities and
Service Systems, the Project would comply with State law
requiring a reduction of solid waste that enters the
landfills. Additionally, the landfills serving the site would
have sufficient capacity to manage the solid waste
generated by the proposed Project.
Policy 8.1: Continue providing city waste-management
services.
Policy 8.2: Continue to maximize diversion opportunities
and landfill capacity by supporting recycling innovations,
such as E-waste, commercial, multifamily and organic
waste recycling programs.
Noise and Safety
Goal 3: The City of Fontana is a community that
implements proactive fire hazard abatement strategies,
and as a result, is minimally impact by wildland and
urban fires.
Consistent. The proposed Project would be constructed
in compliance with the California Fire Code (CFC) and
CBC, and final Project design would be subject to plan
check by the Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD) to
verify compliance with applicable fire prevention and
protection requirements.
Access to the residences would be provided via a 35 foot
wide driveway on Orlando Drive and a 35 foot wide
driveway on Lime Avenue. Internal circulation would be
provided via a main 26-feet-wide drive aisle and 26-
feet-wide drive aisles which would provide access to the
individual units. The drive aisles would double as fire
department access lanes. All access ways would be free
and clear of any and all structures including, but not
limited to, utility devices. The fire access roads would
meet the California Fire Code Section 503.1.1 and
Fontana Fire Protection District’s development standards
for location, width, and turning radii.
Action B: Require residential, commercial, and industrial
structures to adhere to applicable fire codes for
buildings and structures, fire access, and other standards
in accordance with Fire Hazard Overlay District,
California Fire Code, and City of Fontana Municipal
Code, encourage of retrofit of non-conforming land uses.
Action E: Ensure compliance with the Subdivision Map
Act requirements for structural fire protection and
suppression services, subdivision requirements for on/off-
site improvements, ingress and egress, street standards,
and other concerns.
Goal 4: The City shall monitor development or
redevelopment in areas where faults have been mapped
through the city.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.7, Geology and
Soils, the site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Act Zone.
The Project includes a geotechnical investigation that
includes recommendations for site design as it pertains to
geotechnical safety. Action B: Enforce development requirements, such as
seismic study analyses, project siting, and project design
features for proposed development near active faults
pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Act.
Goal 5: The City shall continue to ensure that current
geologic knowledge and peer (third party) review are
incorporated into the design, planning, and construction
stages of a project and that site-specific data are
applied to each project.
Consistent. The proposed Project would be constructed
in compliance with the CBC, and final Project design
would be subject to plan check by the City’s Engineer to
verify compliance with applicable building code
requirements.
Additionally, as discussed in Section 5.7, Geology and
Soils, the Project includes a geotechnical investigation
that includes recommendations for site design as it
pertains to geotechnical safety.
Action A: Require adherence to the latest California
Building Code regulations; update codes and ordinances
periodically for latest advances.
Action B: The Building Official shall require development
proposals to include geotechnical hazard analysis as
applicable.
Goal 8: The City of Fontana protects sensitive land uses
from excessive noise by diligent planning through 2035.
Consistent. The proposed storage facility would not be
a substantial source of noise and would be compatible
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
112
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Policy 8.4: Noise spillover or encroachment from
commercial, industrial and educational land uses shall be
minimized into adjoining residential neighborhoods or
noise-sensitive uses.
with surrounding uses. The proposed Project would be
compatible with the surrounding existing development.
As detailed in Section 5.13, Noise, all construction and
operational noise was determined to be less than
significant (Appendix J).
Goal 9: The City of Fontana provides a diverse and
efficiently operated ground transportation system that
generates the minimum feasible noise on its residents
through 2035.
Consistent. As described in Section 5.13, Noise, the
Noise Impact Analysis calculated the change in noise
level that would occur with the addition of Project-
generated trips and found that the traffic noise increase
in the vicinity of the Project site resulting from the
proposed Project would be less than significant
(Appendix J).
Action B: Development that generates increased traffic
and subsequent increases in the ambient noise level
adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses shall provide
appropriate mitigation measures.
Goal 10: Fontana’s residents are protected from the
negative effects of “spillover” noise.
Consistent. The Project would result in noise associated
with construction activities; however, as discussed in
Section 5.13, Noise, all construction noise impacts would
be temporary and less than significant. Additionally,
operational noise was determined to be less than
significant and would not impact surrounding sensitive
uses.
Policy 10.1: Residential land uses and areas identified
as noise-sensitive shall be protected from excessive noise
from non-transportation sources including industrial,
commercial, and residential activities and equipment.
Action A: Projects located in commercial areas shall not
exceed stationary-source noise standards at the
property line of proximate residential or commercial
uses.
Action D: Construction shall be performed as quietly as
feasible when performed in proximity to residential or
other noise sensitive land uses.
Sustainability and Resilience
Goal 6: Green building techniques are used in new
development and retrofits.
Consistent. The Project would incorporate various
measures related to building design, landscaping, and
energy systems to promote the efficient use of energy,
pursuant to the Title 24 CALGreen Code and Building
Energy Efficiency Standards.
Policy 6.1: Promote green building through guidelines,
awards and nonfinancial incentives.
Goal 7: Conservation of water resources with best
practices such as drought-tolerant plant species, recycled
water, greywater systems, has become a way of life in
Fontana.
Consistent. As described in Section 5.10, Hydrology and
Water Quality, the proposed Project includes a Project
specific Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix I)
which would be the guiding document to ensure BMPs are
incorporated to promote water conservation.
Additionally, the Project includes 23,680 SF of drought-
tolerant landscaping.
Policy 7.1: Continue to promote and implement best
practices to conserve water
Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design
Goal 7: Public and private development meets high
standards of design.
Consistent. The proposed Project is designed to be
compatible with the surrounding architecture within the
RFSP. The proposed office would be visible from public
vantage points along Baseline Avenue, Orlando Drive,
and Lime Avenue. The residences would have a variety
of architectural elements, including articulated massing
and finish material palates, and have design
characteristics consistent with Spanish style architecture.
Policy 7.1: Support high-quality development in design
standards and in land use decisions.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
113
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the RFSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the RFSP Final
EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental
document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding land use and planning. There
have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that
require major revisions of the RFSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new
information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives
that were not known and could not have been known when the RFSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
114
5.12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
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?
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the RFSP Final EIR
The RFSP EIR discussed impacts to mineral resources under Section 7.3.3, Land Resources. The RFSP EIR
discussed that the Specific Plan area is likely underlain by sand and gravel (concrete aggregate) derived
from the alluvial fan deposits of Lytle Creek. However, no sand and gravel producers are located within the
Specific Plan area. Instead, they are located south of the Specific Plan area with the closest located
approximately 1 mile south. The RFSP EIR determined that potential sand and gravel resources within the
Specific Plan area are not unique for the general regional and their loss resulting from land development
would not likely constitute a significant impact. According to the RFSP EIR, the Specific Plan area is not within
a region designated as regionally significant for mineral resources by the State Mining and Geology Board
(under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act). Therefore, impacts related to the loss of availability of
sand and gravel resources would not be significant.
RFSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is from page VII-19 from the RFSP Final EIR:
The loss of the subject site for future sand and gravel extraction could be offset by the development of other
areas identified by the State Division of Mines and Geology for similar mining operations. This can be
accomplished by the City monitoring the State study program and maintaining close liaison with the division
of Mines and Geology.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
No New Impact.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
115
According to the CDOC, the Project site is located within Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2), specifically an
area where significant plain cement concrete (PCC) grade aggregate resources are present (CDOC, 2008).
The Project site is not currently being used for sand and gravel extraction nor has it been used for extraction
in the past. Additionally, extraction of mineral resources is not permitted under the Project site's land use
designation or RFSP designation. Consistent with the findings of the RFSP Final EIR, the sand and gravel
resources that underly the Project site are not considered regionally significant, therefore, development of
the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be
of value to the region and the residents of the state. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the RFSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the RFSP Final
EIR.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on
the general plan, specific plan. or other land use plan?
No New Impact.
As described previously, the Project site is identified within MRZ-2 by the CDOC. The site has an existing
RFSP designation of Low Density Residential. The Project site is currently undeveloped and no portion of the
Project would be used for extraction of mineral resources, nor would extraction be consistent with the
adjacent residential uses. Additionally, the Project site is not delineated on the Fontana General Plan or
within the RFSP as a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery
site as delineated on a local plan, and no impacts would occur.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the RFSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the RFSP Final
EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental
document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding mineral resources. There have
not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with
respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major
revisions of the previous Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information
of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not
known and could not have been known when the RFSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
116
5.13. NOISE
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project result in: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the RFSP Final EIR
The RFSP Final EIR discussed impacts related to noise under section 7.3.5, Noise. There are multiple airports
in the vicinity of Fontana, including Ontario International Airport which is located approximately 3 miles west
of the Fontana City limits, the Rialto Municipal Airport which is located approximately 2.75 miles from the
RFSP area and the Gillfillan Airport which is located adjacent to the northerly RFSP boundary. Other existing
sources of noise in the RFSP vicinity are the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks which are located tangent to the
southwestern corner of the site and automobile and truck traffic on roadways throughout the area. The RFSP
Final EIR determined implementation of the RFSP would not be affected by the current railroad and airport
facilities. However, buildout of the RFSP would increase roadway noise throughout the project area through
the addition of new vehicular traffic. The EIR described that the City’s General Plan Noise Element suggests
60 CNEL as a maximum ambient noise level for single family residences and 65 CNEL for multifamily
residences, and allows up to the 70 CNEL contour for any residential use with adequate noise insulation.
Businesses, commercial and professional uses are normally acceptable in areas up to the 70 CNEL contour
without special noise insulation.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
117
RFSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is from page VII-29 from the RFSP Final EIR:
Where the anticipated noise level is anticipated to exceed that normally acceptable under State Guidelines
for the adjacent land use, a detailed acoustical analysis should be undertaken to determine the specific
impacts and mitigation measures required, prior to finalization of the tract map in question. Mitigation
measures available include special design and construction features in the buildings themselves or the
construction of barriers, e.g., walls and/or earthen berms, between structures and the noise source.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section was prepared using the following report:
• Nosie and Vibration Impact Analysis Citrus Walk Residential Project Fontana, California. Prepared by LSA,
May 2025 (Appendix J).
Existing Ambient Noise Environment
To assess the existing noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site, 24‐hour noise level measurements were
taken at two locations near the Project site. The noise level measurements listed in Table N-1 show that the
hourly noise levels at surrounding sensitive uses are as low as 51.2 dBA Leq during nighttime hours and 58.0
dBA Leq during daytime hours. Noise levels in the Project area are dominated by vehicle-related noise from
Baseline Avenue, Orlando Drive, and Lime Avenue. Figure 5-1 illustrates the location of each noise
measurement.
Table N-1: Long Term 24-Hour Ambient Noise Monitoring Results
Location
Daytime Noise
Levels1
(dBA Leq)
Evening Noise
Levels2
(dBA Leq)
Nighttime Noise
Levels3
(dBA Leq)
Daily Noise
Levels
(dBA CNEL)
LT-1
Near the northeast corner of
the project site, in the first
tree south of Baseline
Avenue. Approximately 110
feet from the Baseline
Avenue centerline and 30
feet from the Lime Avenue
centerline.
65.8–69.7 65.5–66.6 59.5–65.3 70.8
LT-2
Near the southwest corner of
the project site, on a tree
approximately 35 feet from
the Orlando Drive centerline
and approximately 320 feet
from the Baseline Avenue
centerline.
58.0–62.3 55.7–59.3 51.2–58.9 62.8
Note: Noise measurements were conducted from January 28 to January 29, 2025, starting at 11:00 AM.
1 Daytime Noise Levels = Noise levels during the hours from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
2 Evening Noise Levels = Noise levels during the hours from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM.
2 Nighttime Noise Levels = Noise levels during the hours from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level; dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix J).
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
118
This page intentionally left blank.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana
Noise Measurement Locations
Figure 5-1
BBe
e
c
h
A
e
e
c
h
A
v
v
e
e
Or
l
a
n
d
o
D
r
O
r
l
a
n
d
o
D
r
JackJackson Drson Dr
BaBaseline Aseline Avvee
LiLi
m
e
A
m
e
A
v
v
e
e
LTLT--22
LTLT--11
FEET
4002000
LEGEND
Project Site Boundary LLTT-1-1 Long-term Noise Monitoring Location
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
120
This page intentionally left blank.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
121
Noise and Vibration Regulatory Setting
City of Fontana Municipal Code
Operational Noise Standards. Municipal Code Section 30-469 lists the City’s noise control guidelines for
determining and mitigating non-transportation or stationary noise source impacts from operations in
neighboring residential areas. For residential zoning districts, Section 30-469 indicates that “no use shall
create or cause to be created any sound that exceeds the ambient noise standards outlined in Table 30-
469” (Table N-2 below; City of Fontana, 2025). The performance standards found in Section 30-469 limit
the exterior noise level to 65 dBA Leq during the daytime and nighttime hours, and the interior noise level
to 45 dBA Leq during the daytime and nighttime hours at sensitive receiver locations.
Table N-2: Operational Noise Standards
Noise Location Maximum Allowable Noise
All zoning districts Daytime (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) Nighttime (10:00 PM – 7:00 AM)
Interior 45 dBA Leq 45 dBA Leq
Exterior 65 dBA Leq 65 dBA Leq
Source: City of Fontana Municipal Code, Section 30-469
dBA = A-weighted decibels
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Construction Noise Standards. Municipal Code Section 18-63(b)(7) states that construction shall occur only
between the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday to Friday, and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00
PM on Saturdays, except in the case of urgent necessity.
Federal Transit Administration
The City does not have daytime construction noise level limits for activities that occur within the allowed
construction hours specified in Municipal Code Section 18-63(b)(7), therefore, to determine potential CEQA
noise impacts, the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis used criteria from the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) 2018 Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA, 2018). Table N-3 lists the FTA’s Detailed
Assessment Construction Noise Criteria based on the composite noise levels per construction phase.
Table N-3: Detailed Assessment Daytime Construction Noise Criteria
Land Use Daytime 1-hour Leq (dBA)
Residential 80
Commercial 85
Industrial 90
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA, 2018)P
Vibration standards included in the FTA Manual are used in this analysis for ground-borne vibration impacts
on human annoyance (FTA, 2018). The criteria for environmental impact from ground-borne vibration and
noise are based on the maximum levels for a single event. Table N-4 provides the criteria for assessing the
potential for interference or annoyance from vibration levels in a building.
Table N-4: Interpretation of Vibration Criteria for Detailed Analysis
Land Use Max Lv
(VdB)1 Description of Use
Workshop 90 Vibration that is distinctly felt. Appropriate for workshops and similar areas
not as sensitive to vibration
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
122
Office 84 Vibration that can be felt. Appropriate for offices and similar areas not as
sensitive to vibration
Residential Day 78 Vibration that is barely felt. Adequate for computer equipment and low-
power optical microscopes (up to 20×).
Residential Night and
Operating Rooms 72
Vibration is not felt, but ground-borne noise may be audible inside quiet
rooms. Suitable for medium-power microscopes (100×) and other
equipment of low sensitivity.
1 As measured in 1/3-Octave bands of frequency over the frequency range 8 to 80 Hertz.
Max = maximum; Lv = velocity in decibels; VdB = vibration velocity decibels
Source: FTA, 2018
Table N-5 lists the potential vibration building damage criteria associated with construction activities, as
suggested in the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Transportation and Construction
Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans, 2020) (Caltrans Manual). Caltrans guidelines show that a vibration
level of up to 0.5 in/sec in PPV is considered safe for newer residential structures and modern industrial or
commercial buildings and would not result in any construction vibration damage.
Table N-5: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Building Category PPV (in/sec)
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.08
Fragile buildings 0.10
Historic and some old buildings 0.25
Older residential structures 0.30
New residential structures 0.50
Modern industrial / commercial buildings 0.50
PPV = peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second
Source: Caltrans, 2020
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity
of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
No New Impact.
Construction
During construction, noise levels on access roads leading to the site would incrementally increase due to
construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site. According
to the City’s Community Mobility Circulation Element of the General Plan, the traffic volume on Baseline
Avenue, which would be the main road used to access the Project site during construction, is 13,200 vehicles
(as of 2016) (City of Fontana, 2023a). The results of the CalEEMod (Appendix A) for the proposed Project
indicate that, during the building construction phase, the acoustical equivalent traffic volume would be 185
passenger car equivalent (PCE) trips. When combining the existing 13,200 average daily trips (ADT) on
Baseline Avenue with the 185 PCE trips expected to result from Project construction, the increase in roadway
noise would be 0.1 dBA (see Appendix B of Appendix J for calculations). A noise level increase of less than
3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment (Appendix J). Therefore, short-
term construction-related impacts associated with worker commutes and equipment transport to the project
site would be less than significant.
Noise generated by construction equipment would include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete
mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. Construction is expected to occur
in the following stages: site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
123
The Project construction noise would be temporary in nature as the operation of each piece of construction
equipment would not be constant throughout the construction day, and equipment would be turned off when
not in use.
The applicable criteria for assessing potential construction noise impacts is an hourly (Leq) noise level
standard. Because the criteria assessment is for an average noise hour, the assessment of construction
equipment operation should also represent an average condition, thus the center of the Project site is the
appropriate assessment location of on-site construction equipment. For the purposes of the Noise Impact
Analysis, the nearest sensitive receptors are the existing single-family residences immediately south of the
Project site as close a five feet away from the southern Project boundary line. Table N-6 below shows the
nearest uses to the Project site, their distance from the center of construction activities, as recommended by
FTA guidance in order to provide a conservative estimate of noise as concentrated at the center of the site
for all surrounding areas, and composite noise levels expected during construction. As shown, construction
noise at the nearby receiver locations would reach an average noise level of 78 dBA Leq during daytime
hours. Thus, construction noise would not exceed the 80 dBA 1-hour construction noise level criteria for
daytime construction noise level criteria as established by the FTA for residential land uses for the average
daily condition as modeled from the center of the Project site. Additionally, these noise levels would only
occur when all construction equipment is operating simultaneously, therefore, these predicted levels are
assumed to be conservative. Therefore, impacts related to construction noise would be less than significant
and no new impact would occur.
Table N-6: Potential Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptors
Receptor Composite Noise Level
(dBA Leq) at 50 feet1 Distance (feet)2 Composite Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Residences (South)
88
150 78
Residences (North) 290 72
Residences (East) 345 71
Residences (West) 360 71
1 The composite construction noise level represents the site preparation/paving phases which is expected to result in the greatest
noise level as compared to other phases
2 Measured from the center of construction activities
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix J).
Additionally, as described above, Municipal Code Section 18-63(b)(7) states that construction shall occur
only between the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday to Friday, and between the hours of 8:00 AM and
5:00 PM on Saturdays. The Project would comply with the City’s construction hours regulations.
Offsite Operational Noise
Operational noise generated by the Project would primarily occur from Project-generated traffic on nearby
roadways. Implementation of the Project has the potential to increase off-site traffic volumes on surrounding
roadways. The Project is anticipated to result in 364 daily trips (Appendix K). According to the City’s
Community Mobility Circulation Element of the General Plan, the existing (2016) ADT on Baseline Avenue
adjacent to the Project site is 13,200 (City of Fontana, 2023a). Although the current traffic volume on
Baseline Avenue is likely higher, using the 2016 volumes would be considered conservative. The Noise Impact
Analysis calculated the change in noise level that would occur with the addition of Project-generated trips.
The results of the calculations show that an increase of approximately 0.1 dBA CNEL is expected along
Baseline Avenue. A noise level increase of less than 1 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear;
therefore, the traffic noise increase in the vicinity of the Project site resulting from the proposed Project would
be less than significant (Appendix J).
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
124
During Project operation, adjacent off-site land uses would be potentially exposed to stationary-source noise
levels from heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. Proposed HVAC equipment would
be installed at each home and would comply with the City’s noise standards presented in Table N-2.
Additionally, the Project also proposes the construction of a recreational space. Typical activities at a
recreational space are not expected to generate excessive noise levels and would occur during daytime
hours. Therefore, noise impacts associated with onsite sources (HVAC and recreation space activities) would
be less than significant.
Onsite Operational Noise
As shown in Table N-1, daily noise levels show that noise levels at the Project site approach 70.8 dBA CNEL
at the proposed buildings closest to Baseline Avenue. As specified in Table N-2, an exterior noise level of
65 dBA CNEL or less is acceptable for residential uses. The closest outdoor amenities to Baseline Avenue
where humans will spend time are the private open space areas and common recreational area located in
the north portion of the Project site. However, the Project includes a six-foot-tall split block wall along the
northern property line. With the block wall, noise levels in the private residential yards would be reduced
to the acceptable exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL (Appendix J). Noise levels at the common recreation
space in the southeast portion of the Project site would be below 65 dBA CNEL due to distance attenuation
and shielding from the proposed buildings.
As specified in Table N-2, an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL or less is acceptable for residential uses.
Based on exterior noise levels shown in Table N-1, noise levels at the Project site would reach 71 dBA CNEL,
requiring a minimum noise reduction of 26 dBA to achieve an acceptable interior noise level. The Noise and
Vibration Analysis estimates that with windows and doors open, interior noise levels at the residences would
be 59 dBA, which would still exceed the 45 dBA CNEL standard (Appendix J). The proposed Project includes
an HVAC system that would allow windows to remain closed. According to the Noise and Vibration Analysis,
standard construction with upgraded windows in the range of Sound Transmission Class 36 would yield an
estimated interior noise level of 44–45 dBA CNEL (Appendix J). Consistent with the noise mitigation measure
in the RFSP Final EIR, once final architectural plans are available, a review of the floor plans along with wall
details and windows chosen should be completed and summarized in a final acoustical memorandum.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the RFSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the RFSP Final
EIR.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
No New Impact.
Construction
Construction activity can cause varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and
methods used, the distance to receptors, and soil type. Construction vibrations are intermittent, localized
intrusions. The use of heavy construction equipment, particularly large bulldozers, and large loaded trucks
hauling materials to or from the site generate construction-period vibration impacts.
The Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix J) uses vibration standards from the FTA Manual to
analyze ground-borne vibration impacts on human annoyance and vibration standards from Caltrans to
analyze vibration impacts to existing structures near the Project. The analysis discusses the level of human
annoyance using vibration levels in VdB (vibration velocity decibels) and assesses the potential for building
damages using vibration levels in PPV (peak particle velocity) (in/sec). The FTA guidelines indicate that the
threshold at which vibration levels would result in annoyance would be 78 VdB for daytime residential uses.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
125
Caltrans indicates that for a new residential building, the construction vibration damage criterion is 0.5 in/sec
in PPV. Table N-7 shows the VdB and PPV values at 25 feet from the construction vibration source.
Table N-7: Construction Vibration Reference Levels
Equipment Reference PPV/Lv at 25 feet
PPV (in/sec) Lv (VdB)1
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
1 RMS vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) is 1 μin/sec
Lv = velocity in decibels; VdB = vibration velocity decibels; RMS = root-mean-square
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix J).
Table N-8 shows the summary of vibration annoyance levels due to construction equipment at each of the
closest receptors. Because vibration annoyance assesses an average condition, the distance from the center
of construction activities to surrounding land uses was utilized. As shown in Table N-8, vibration levels are
expected to approach 64 VdB at the closest residential use to the south and range between 52 VdB to 55
VdB at the closest residential uses to the north, east, and west which is below the 78 VdB annoyance threshold
for daytime residential uses.
Table N-8: Potential Construction Vibration Annoyance Levels at Nearest Receptors
Receptor (Location) Reference Vibration
Level (VdB) at 25 feet1 Distance (feet)2 Vibration Level (VdB)
Residences (South)
870
150 64
Residences (North) 290 55
Residences (East) 345 53
Residences (West) 360 52
1 The reference vibration level is associated with a large bulldozer, which is expected to be representative of the heavy
equipment used during construction.
2 The reference distance is associated with the average condition, identified by the distance from the center of construction
activities to surrounding uses.
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix J).
Table N-9 shows the summary of vibration damage levels due to construction equipment at each of the
closest receptors. The construction vibration damage criteria is a peak or maximum scenario to assess the
potential for effects such as the cracking of building façade. Thus, when assessing potential vibration
damage, the appropriate distance to assess a peak or maximum vibration condition is perimeter of
construction to surrounding buildings. As shown in Table N-9, vibration levels are expected to approach
0.428 PPV in/sec at the closest residential use to the south and range between 0.005 PPV in/sec and 0.019
PPV in/sec at the closest residential uses to the north, east, and west, which are below the 0.5 PPV in/sec
damage threshold considered safe for new residential buildings.
Table N-9: Potential Construction Vibration Damage Levels at Nearest Receptors
Receptor (Location) Reference Vibration
Level (PPV) at 25 feet1 Distance (feet)2 Vibration Level (PPV)
Residences (South)
0.089
6 0.428
Residences (North) 160 0.005
Residences (East) 70 0.019
Residences (West) 90 0.013
1 The reference vibration level is associated with a large bulldozer, which is expected to be representative of the heavy equipment
used during construction.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
126
2 The reference distance is associated with the peak condition, identified by the distance from the perimeter of construction
activities to surrounding structures.
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix J).
As such, construction related vibration would remain below thresholds and impacts would be less than
significant. Additionally, as described above, the Project would adhere to the construction hours permitted
by Municipal Code Section 18-63(b)(7) which states that construction shall occur only between the hours of
7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday to Friday, and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturdays.
Thus, construction related vibration would not occur during sensitive evening hours. No new impact would
occur.
Operation
Once operational, the Project would not be a significant source of ground-borne vibration. Ground-borne
vibration surrounding the Project currently results from traffic on Baseline Avenue, Orlando Drive, and Lime
Avenue. Operations of the Project would include passenger cars traveling to and from the residences.
Vibration levels generated from Project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways are unusual for on-road
vehicles because the rubber tires and suspension systems of on-road vehicles provide vibration isolation.
Based on a reference vibration level of 0.089 in/sec PPV, structures greater than 20 feet from the roadways
that contain Project trips would experience vibration levels below the most conservative standard of 0.12
in/sec PPV; therefore, vibration levels generated from Project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways
would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the RFSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the RFSP Final
EIR.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No New Impact.
The nearest airport to the Project site is Ontario International Airport (ONT), located approximately eight
miles southwest of the Project site. According to the ONT Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the Project site
is located well outside of the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contours of Ontario International Airport (Ontario
International Airport, 2018). Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working
in the Project area to excessive noise levels from airports. Impacts would be less than significant. No new
impact would occur.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the RFSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the RFSP Final
EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental
document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding noise. There have not been (1)
changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the
circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
127
RFSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance
relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have
been known when the RFSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP N-1: Construction Noise. Pursuant to Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 18, Article II Noise, Section 18-
63(7) (Scope, enumeration of prohibited noises), the erection (including excavating), demolition, alteration
or repair of any building or structure shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM on
weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturdays.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
Where the anticipated noise level is anticipated to exceed that normally acceptable under State Guidelines
for the adjacent land use, a detailed acoustical analysis should be undertaken to determine the specific
impacts and mitigation measures required, prior to finalization of the tract map in question. Mitigation
measures available include special design and construction features in the buildings themselves or the
construction of barriers, e.g., walls and/or earthen berms, between structures and the noise source.
Status: Satisfied through the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis prepared by LSA in May 2025 (Appendix J).
In compliance with the requirements of the RFSP Mitigation Measure listed above, the Noise and Vibration
Impact Analysis developed the following recommendations which will be included as a conditions of approval
for the proposed Project. These include:
• The Project construction contractor shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly
operating and maintained noise mufflers consistent with manufacturer’s standards.
• The Project construction contractor shall locate staging areas away from off-site sensitive uses during the
later phases of project development.
• The Project construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is
directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the Project site whenever feasible.
• Once final architectural plans are available, consistent with the mitigation measure in the RFSP EIR, a review
of the floor plans along with wall details and windows chosen should be completed and summarized in a
final acoustical memorandum.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
128
5.14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the RFSP Final EIR
The RFSP Final EIR discussed impacts related to population and housing under Section 7.3.12,
Population/Socioeconomic Characteristics. The RFSP Final EIR assumed an average household size of 2.75
persons and estimated the Specific Plan would total 6,311 persons at total buildout. The population increase
from buildout of the Specific Plan was anticipated by the City in its population estimate of 145,000 for the
City in the year 2000. However, earlier estimates made by SCAG showed the forecasted projections for
the West Valley region of San Bernardino County to be 85,000 in the year 2000. The RFSP Final EIR
described that the growth in the West Valley Region, including the City of Fontana, had grown more rapidly
than previously projected. The RFSP Final EIR noted SCAG was in the process of revising population estimates
for the entire region and were expected to adopt new forecasts in early 1982.
RFSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is from page VII-61 from the RFSP Final EIR:
Implementation of the policies outlined in the General Plan elements will mitigate the impacts of growth in
the study area. Through implementation of goals outlined in the Housing Element, the City of Fontana will
strive to maintain a high proportion of affordable housing to meet local and regional needs.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
129
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?
No New Impact.
The RFSP Final EIR and subsequent Addendums analyzed development of up to 2,445 residential units within
the Plan area. As discussed previously, the Project would result in development of a total of 54 single-family
residences on the Project site but would result in a total RFSP buildout of 2,414 units, 31 fewer units than
analyzed in the RFSP Final EIR and subsequent Addendums. The RFSP Final EIR used an average household
size of 2.75 persons; however, in order to provide a conservative estimate, this document uses the average
household size of 3.70 from the California Department of Finance (California Department of Finance, 2024).
Using the 3.70 average household size, the Project would generate approximately 200 new residents. The
Project is within the planned buildout that was analyzed for the RFSP area, therefore, the Project would not
induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly.
Furthermore, the proposed Project is located in an urbanized area of Fontana and is surrounded by
residential uses. The proposed Project does not propose to expand surrounding utility infrastructure (e.g.,
water, electricity, cell tower, gas, sanitary sewer, and stormwater drains) in the Project vicinity. All on-site
systems would be provided and maintained by the property owner, as well as connect to existing and
planned infrastructure within adjacent roadways.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the RFSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the RFSP Final
EIR.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No New Impact.
The existing Project site consists of undeveloped land. Therefore, the proposed Project would not displace
any existing people or housing. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to the displacement of
substantial numbers of existing people or housing, and impacts would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the RFSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the RFSP Final
EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental
document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding population and housing. There
have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that
require major revisions of the previous Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new
information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives
that were not known and could not have been known when the RFSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
130
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
131
5.15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the RFSP Final EIR
The RFSP Final EIR discussed impacts related to public services under Section 7.3.14, Community Services.
Fire Protection
At the time the EIR was written, the Central Valley Fire Protection District served the Plan area out of two
fire stations within 2.5 miles of the Plan area. The RFSP Final EIR discussed that a third fire station was
projected at the Gilfillan Airport; however, no funds were in reserve to construct the station so it was
undetermined whether the station would be constructed. The RFSP Final EIR determined the Central Valley
Fire Protection District was understaffed and underfunded. Therefore, buildout of the RFSP would further
exacerbate the existing inadequate level of fire protection in the area. The RFSP Final EIR determined
additional staffing would be needed to adequately serve the Plan area.
Police Protection
Police services within the City of Fontana is provided by the Fontana Police Department. At the time the RFSP
Final EIR was written, the Fontana Police Department had 1.16 sworn officers per 1,000 persons. However,
the Police Department had a goal ratio of 1.4 sworn officers per 1,000 persons. Therefore, the Police
Department indicated its present staffing was not adequate to serve the City’s police protection needs. The
RFSP Final EIR determined buildout of the RFSP would require an additional seven sworn officers in order to
maintain the present staffing level 1.16:1000 and an additional nine sworn officers to meet the desired
staffing ratio of 1.4:1000. The RFSP Final EIR determined additional staffing would be needed to
adequately serve the Plan area.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
132
Schools
The RFSP Final EIR describes that the Plan area is located within the jurisdiction of three school districts:
Fontana Unified School District, Etiwanda School District, and Chaffey Joint Union School District. Buildout of
the RFSP would result in the generation of approximately 1,700 students in the three school districts.
Buildout of the RFSP was determined to result in the generation of 1,413 students within the Fontana School
District. Within the Fontana Unified School District, Redwood Elementary School, Sequoia Junior High, and
Fontana High School serve the Plan area. At the time the Final EIR was written, all three schools were
operating at or beyond their extended capacities with no plans to permanently enlarge the schools.
However, due to the capacity deficiency, the City of Fontana required builders pay a fee (in accordance
with California Government Code Section 65791 et. seq. which required the payment of school fees.
Additionally, the Fontana Unified School District would construct a nine-classroom modular Tokay Elementary
School which would absorb excessive enrollment from the Redwood and Juniper Elementary Schools. The
RFSP Final EIR determined the additional students from the RFSP would require one and one-half large
elementary schools, one-third of a small junior high school, and a seven room addition to the high school.
Buildout of the RFSP was determined to result in the generation of 241 students within the Etiwanda School
District. According to district officials, sound planning, the use of builders fees (SB 201), and Leroy Greene
State loan money would be employed to offset the impacts of new development.
Buildout of the RFSP was determined to result in the generation of 54 students within the Chaffey Joint Union
High School District. The existing and planned schools in the district would not have adequate capacity to
serve the additional students from buildout of the Plan.
Parks
The RFSP Final EIR describes that the City of Fontana maintains a recommended service standard of 5 acres
of park land per 1,000 persons. Additionally, the City adopted the Park Development Ordinance which
requires every residential developer to dedicate a portion of the site, pay a fee (one percent of building
valuation) or both, at the City’s option to provide new park and recreational facilities. Additionally, large
new developments are expected to include a maintenance district to provide all necessary funds for upkeep
of facilities serving the development. The RFSP Final EIR determined buildout of the RFSP would require the
addition of 31.56 acres of parkland or recreational facilities to meet the City’s park requirement. The RFSP
proposed 29.5 acres of parks and recreational facilities. The remainder of the park requirement would be
made up by private recreational facilities and/or fees in lieu of park dedication.
Other Public Facilities
The RFSP Final EIR described that the Plan area lies between the Fontana and the Rancho Cucamonga Branch
Libraries. The RFSP Final EIR determined the existing library facilities in the Plan area would not be adequate
to accommodate the entire project area because the existing book stock volumes was below the County
standard of 1.8 books per capita. However, buildout of the Plan area was estimated to result in 6,300
persons, which when combined with other proposed residential development in the area could support a new
library branch. The RFSP Final EIR determined that in the present state, the existing library facilities would
be insufficient to serve buildout of the Plan area, but a new branch would mitigate this.
RFSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is from page VII-68 from the RFSP Final EIR:
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
133
Fire Protection
As indicated previously, the proposed fire station at Gilfillan Airport is not likely to be constructed and
manned in the near future due to budgetary constraints. In the interim, fire fighting equipment and manpower
could be housed in one of the homes constructed in the first development phase of Rancho Fontana. This
temporary facility could serve the area until such time as the Gilfillan station or other site is developed to
provide permanent fire protection service to the environs. (It is possible that a fire station could be
constructed in the future in one of the areas designated for mixed uses on the land use development plan.)
Fire protection equipment and manpower al locations for the temporary fire station could be derived from
incremental tax increases as development occurs in Rancho Fontana.
The following mitigation measure is from pages VII-70 through VII-71 from the RFSP Final EIR:
Police Protection
Police protection is a cost which is borne through property tax revenues and then allocated through the
general fund. The City has projected future manpower needs through the year 2000. As with fire protection
service, a portion of the incremental tax revenues generated by the proposed development would be
allocated to police protection service; however, the amount generated by the project may not be adequate
to provide the necessary level of protection presently afforded the residents of Fontana.
Several policies of the City's newly adopted General Plan deal with the provisions of adequate public
facilities (e.g., to maintain liaison with the agencies providing public services within the study area, to
encourage joint use of facilities, etc.). For this reason, the project proponents should work closely with police
department officials to meet the protection needs of the City.
The following mitigation measure is from pages VII-83 through VII-86 from the RFSP Final EIR:
Schools
As is evident from the information provided in the preceding text of this document, each of the affected
schools in the school districts having jurisdiction over the 520-acre project are either presently operating or
are expected to be operating at or beyond their design capacities. The following discussion recommends
mitigation measures which could be implemented in an effort to provide a temporary means of alleviating
overcrowded conditions. The provision of ultimate/permanent school facilities will require the combined
effort of the State, local school districts, and these and other developers/project sponsors in Fontana.
1. The intent of attendance area boundary changes is to redistribute students from impacted areas to those
where overcrowding does not exist to seek enrollment balances. The affected schools should undertake
a study which would identify potential boundary changes which would provide temporary capacity for
students.
2. In order to accommodate pupils in excess of existing capacity, the district can continue to add portable
classrooms on those existing school sites where utilities and space are available. Classrooms could be
relocated to sites as the needs in the district change.
3. Students may also be bussed (to achieve equilibrium) from overcrowded schools to schools where
capacity is available.
4. From time to time, school districts have been forced to establish two daily sessions as a means of
accommodating surplus enrollment. Considering time only, the primary grades could better adapt to
double sessions than could upper grades which must meet longer daily requirements.
5. Staggered school sessions involve the starting of groups of students at different times so that all students
are present only during the three or four midday periods. This system can be used to increase school
capacity if there exists a number of large classes that can be bunched during the middle of the day or,
if physical education facilities permit, physical education can be missed during these critical periods.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
134
6. Implementation of year-round programs can increase the capacity of schools by as much as 25 percent.
7. Each of the affected school districts has caused developer donation fee ordinances (in accordance with
SB 201) to be enacted. Assessment of these fees on subsequent project sponsors would provide money
to each district for interim (portable) facilities.
Implementation of one or a combination of the aforementioned measures could increase capacity in the
affected school districts. In addition to these short-term, temporary solutions, long-term facilities will also
be required. The California State Constitution mandates that, "The legislature is directed... to provide for 'a
system of common schools;' and ... 'the public school system shall include primary and grammar schools, and
such other (of certain designated) schools as may be established by the legislature, or by municipal or district
authority." Further, financial support requirements are stipulated in the Education Code. However, since
passage of Proposition 13, the ability of the State to finance educational facilities has been limited by the
availability of funds derived from property tax. Because it is incumbent upon the State to provide an
adequate level of education, several bills have been introduced in the State legislature which, if adopted,
would make funds available to school districts for the construction of permanent facilities. These bills are
discussed below.
1. AB 3564 – Assemblyman Roos has authored a bill which will provide a major new scheme for financing
public improvements related to housing development. Specifically, AB 3564 provides a new assessment
bond improvement act, entitled "The Local Agency Public Improvement Act of 1982." It would allow
benefit assessments to be used not only for an expanded list of public improvement construction, but
also for operation and maintenance of public services. It would permit local agencies to levy a special
benefit assessment for needed neighborhood public improvements and services for both new and
existing residential development. This measure would provide local government with an additional tool
to finance needed public improvements (e.g., school facilities) associated with major residential findings.
2. AB 3005 (as amended) Torres – School Building Lease-Purchase Bonds: tideland revenues. Under
existing law, the revenues from certain state lands are applied to specified obligations. This bill would
provide that of those (tidelands) revenues there shall also be applied to the General Fund for fiscal year
1982-83, and for each fiscal year thereafter, the amount necessary to pay the principal and interest
on the bonds issued and sold pursuant to the provisions of the State School Building Lease-Purchase
Bond Law of 1982. This bill would become operative only if the electorate approve the State School
Building Lease-Purchase Bond Law of 1982 (AB 3006) at the November 1982 General Election.
3. AB 3006 (as amended) Torres – School building lease-purchase bonds.
1) The State School Building Lease-Purchase Law of 1976 provides for the acquisition and construction
of facilities by the State and the lease-purchase of those facilities by school district.
This bill would enact the State School Building Lease-Purchase Bond Law of 1982 which, upon
approval by the state electorate, would provide for the issuance of state general obligation bonds
in an amount not to exceed $500,000,000 and the expenditure of the revenues therefrom to
provide aid to school districts in accordance with the State School Lease-Purchase Law of 1976.
The bill would provide for the submission of the proposed bond act to the electorate as the first
proposition on the ballot of the General Election to be held in November 1982.
This bill would provide that not more than $150,000,000 of the monies authorized under the State
School Building Lease-Purchase Bond Law of 1982 shall be reserved for the reconstruction or
modernization of facilities.
2) This bill would take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
4. 1982-83 Budget – The Governor's budget for fiscal year 1982-83 proposes $100 million for the
State School Building Lease-Purchase Fund and $116 million for the Capital Outlay Fund for Public
Higher Education (COFPHE); however, existing law would allow $247.2 million and $125 million,
respectively, for each fund. These appropriations would come from tidelands oil revenue.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
135
The following mitigation measure is from page VII-76 from the RFSP Final EIR:
Parks
As previously discussed, the land Use Development Plan (Exhibit 5) proposes several recreation/open space
amenities which would serve residents of Ranch Fontana. These facilities are described below.
Table 17: Proposed Recreation/Open Space
Facility Percent of Credit Possible Maximum Allowable
Dedication
School/Park Sites
2 School/Park sites at 29
acres total.
100 17.0 acres
Village Parkway
11,750 linear feet of
parkway on both sides at 25
feet/side average and 1,200
linear feet of parkway on one
side totals 14.2 acres
(includes bicycle and
pedestrian trails).
50 7.1 acres
Windrows
13,400 lineal feet at 35 feet
wide equals 10.8 acres.
50 5.4 acres
The facilities proposed above total 29.5 acres if the maximum credit possible were allowed by the Parks
and Recreation Department. The remainder of the park requirement stipulated by the City (approximately
2 acres) would be made up by private recreational facilities and/or fees in lieu of park dedication as
described in a previous section. The implementation program for parks is fully described and outlines in
Chapter IV of this document.
Long-term impacts created by subsequent development will also be required to provide recreational facilities
commensurate with the intensity of development as it occurs. The City will be responsible for ensuring that
these facilities are adequate to meet development needs.
The following mitigation measure is from page VII-73 from the RFSP Final EIR:
Other Public Facilities
In order to meet the standards for library service to the project and the north Fontana area, a new branch
library should be constructed. Since Proposition 13, however, funds for land acquisition and library
construction have been severely diminished. Presently, there are no funds set aside for land purchase and
construction of a new branch library in north Fontana.
As an initial step to fulfilling the projected need, the County Librarian has suggested that a portion of the
land designated for community use in the Specific Plan be set aside for the construction of a 7,000 square
foot library. Without a special library fund, money for land purchase and construction must come from the
County's on-going capital improvement program. However, because there are many needs County-wide that
are competing for capital improvement funding, the timing of future library construction in the Fontana area
is highly uncertain.
One alternative to County funding for additional library facilities is for the City of Fontana to· finance the
land acquisition and facility construction. The building then could be leased to the County, which would
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
136
furnish, stock, and operate the branch library. Such an agreement has already been carried out already in
the cities of Rialto and Montclair.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for:
i. Fire Protection and Emergency Services
No New Impact.
The Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD) contracts with the San Bernardino County Fire Department
(SBCFD) to provide fire protection, fire prevention, and emergency services for the City of Fontana,
including the Project site. The FFPD operates seven stations within the City and has a response time goal
of six minutes or less to allow personnel time to control a fire or mitigate a medical emergency before it
has reached its maximum intensity (City of Fontana, 2023b). There are currently five SBCFD stations
located within 3 miles of the Project site. Fire Station 78, which is located at 7110 Citrus Avenue,
approximately 0.87 roadway miles northeast of the Project site, is the closest station to the site.
The proposed Project would redevelop the site with 54 new residences and is expected to result in 200
residents at full buildout (see Section 5.14, Population and Housing). Due to the increase in resident people
that would occur from implementation of the Project, an incremental increase in demand for fire protection
and emergency medical services would occur. However, because the Project site is located within the
vicinity of five existing fire stations and is within a residential area that is already served, the Project
would not require expansion of the existing fire station or construction of a new fire station.
The Project would comply with the California Fire Code, adopted as Chapter 5-425 of the Fontana
Municipal Code. In addition, development impact fees included as PPP PS-1 would be paid for fire
suppression facilities, as required by Chapter 11-2 of the Fontana Municipal Code.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
ii. Police Protection
No New Impact.
Police protection services are provided by the Fontana Police Department (FPD). The FPD headquarters
is located at 17005 Upland Ave, approximately 3.1 roadway miles southeast from the Project site.
The proposed Project would generate a typical demand for police services during construction and
operation of the proposed Project. Although response time to service calls may vary, the FPD’s actual
response time to Priority One calls between 2021 and 2022 was 4 minutes and 42 seconds, while the
target response time for Priority One calls between 2024 and 2025 is 4 minutes and 20 sections (City
of Fontana, 2023b). The FPD also operate the Southridge Contact Station at 11500 Live Oak Avenue.
The contact station is used by officers for reporting but is not staffed. The FPD currently has 188 sworn
staff (City of Fontana, 2018a). The Project would result in 200 new residents on site. The incremental
demand for the new on-site residents is not anticipated to increase FPD response times to the Project site
or surrounding area. Thus, the Project would not require any additional officers at the FPD. In addition,
the Project would comply with Section 5-8 of the City’s Municipal Code, included as PPP PS-2, which
requires the payment of development impact fees for police facilities. Therefore, with existing personnel
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
137
at the FPD, law enforcement personnel are anticipated to be able to respond in a timely manner, and
within set standard response times, to emergency calls in the Project area.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
iii. School Services
No New Impact.
The Project site is located within the Fontana Unified School District (FUSD). The following schools would
serve the Project site:
• Hemlock Elementary School (TK-5), located at 15080 Miller Ave, approximately 1.2 roadway miles
from the Project site.
• Almeria Middle School (6-8), located at 7723 Almeria Avenue, approximately 1.0 roadway mile
from the Project site.
• Summit High School (9-12), located at 15551 Summit Avenue, approximately 2.4 roadway miles
from the Project site.
The Project would develop the site with 54 residential units. The FUSD utilizes the student generation
factors listed in Table PS-2. Using these student generation factors, the proposed 54 residences could
result in approximately 21 new students that would range in age from elementary through high school.
Table PS-2: Student Generation Factor
School Student Generation Factor
Elementary School (TK-5) 0.1905 students/du
Middle School (6-8) 0.0704 students/du
High School (9-12) 0.1303 students/du
du = dwelling unit
Source: Fontana Unified School District, Developer Fee Justification Study (March 19, 2024)
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq., the need for additional school facilities is addressed
through compliance with school impact fee assessment. Senate Bill 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of 1998)
sets forth a State school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction’s
ability to condition a project on mitigation of a project’s impacts on school facilities in excess of fees set
forth in the Government Code. These fees are collected by school districts at the time of issuance of
building permits for development projects. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 applicants shall
pay developer fees to the appropriate school districts at the time building permits are issued; and
payment of the adopted fees provides full and complete mitigation of school impacts (included as PPP
PS-3). The school impact fee for new residential developments within the FUSD boundary is $5.17 per SF
(FUSD, n.d.-a). The Project applicant would be required to pay school impact fees prior to issuance of a
building permit to offset the cost of providing school services and facilities. As a result, there would be no
impacts related to school facilities with the Government Code required fee payments.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
138
iv. Parks
No New Impact.
The City of Fontana currently has approximately 1,621 acres of parks and land for public use (City of
Fontana, 2018a). The closest parks to the Project site include the following:
• Almeria Park located at 7250 Almeria Avenue, approximately 760 feet east from the Project site.
• Koehler Park located at 15353 Walnut Street, approximately 0.6-mile from the Project site.
The Project would develop 54 new residential units and 6,400 SF of common open space recreation
area on the site for use by residents. As described previously, the Project would result in approximately
200 residents. The City has adopted a standard of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Based on
this standard, the Project would require one acre or approximately 43,560 SF of parkland dedication.
Therefore, the Project’s park demand would not be fully met by the provision of the on-site recreation
areas. However, as described previously, the City currently has 1,621 acres of park facilities, including
two parks within 1 mile of the Project site. Additionally, the Fontana General Plan EIR describes that the
existing 1,621 acres of park facilities in the City meets the performance standard for the projected City
population through 2035 (City of Fontana, 2018a). The Project would not alter the City’s ability to meet
their park standard. Further, Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 21, Planning and Development, Article IV,
Fee or Dedication of Land for Park and Recreation Facilities, specifies fees that park development fees
must be paid to the City when development occurs. These fees would be used towards the future
expansion or maintenance parks and recreational facilities and would offset the additional park need
of the Project. Therefore, impacts related to the need to provide new or altered park and recreation
facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios would be less than significant with the payment
of parkland fees.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
v. Other Public Facilities
No New Impact.
The proposed Project would redevelop the Project site with 54 residential units within an area that
already contains residential land uses. The additional residences would result in a limited incremental
increase in the need for additional services, such as public libraries and post offices, etc. Because the
Project area is already served by other services and the Project would result in a limited increase in
population, the Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered facilities to provide
other services, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Additionally, the
payment of applicable development impact fees and taxes are anticipated to offset the Project’s
incrementally increased demand for other public services. In compliance with Chapter 5-9 of the Fontana
Municipal Code and PPP PS-5, the proposed Project would contribute development impact fees that
would ensure adequate library services are provided. As such, impacts related to other public facilities
would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
139
document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding public services. There have not
been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect
to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions
of the RFSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the RFSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP PS-1: Fire Protection Fees. Prior to the issuance of either a certificate of occupancy or final building
approval, the Project Applicant/Developer shall pay the required development impact fees for fire
suppression facilities, as required by Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 11, Fire Prevention, Section 11-2, Fire
protection fees on new development.
PPP PS-2: Police Protection Fees. Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy or final building permit
approval, the Project Applicant/Developer shall pay required development impact fees for police facilities
as required by Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 5, Buildings and Building Regulations, Section 5-8, Police
capital facilities fee on new or expanded development.
PPP PS-3: School Fees. Prior to the issuance of either a certificate of occupancy or prior to building permit
final inspection, the applicant shall provide payment of the appropriate fees set forth by the applicable
school districts related to the funding of school facilities pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq.
PPP PS-4: Park Fees. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the planning commission shall determine
pursuant to Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 21, Planning and Development, Article IV, Fee or Dedication of
Land for Park and Recreation Facilities, the amount of land to be dedicated and/or fees to be paid by the
developer.
PPP PS-5: Library Fees. Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy or final building permit approval,
the Project Applicant/Developer shall pay required library development impact fees as required by Fontana
Municipal Code Chapter 5, Buildings and Building Regulations, Section 5-9, Library capital facilities fee on
new or expanded development.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
140
5.16. RECREATION
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the RFSP Final EIR
The RFSP Final EIR discussed impacts related to recreation under Section 7.3.14.5, Parks/Recreation/Open
Space. The RFSP Final EIR describes that the City of Fontana maintains a recommended service standard of
five acres of park land per 1,000 persons. Additionally, the City adopted the Park Development Ordinance
which requires every residential developer to dedicate a portion of the site, pay a fee (one percent of
building valuation) or both, at the City’s option to provide new park and recreational facilities. Additionally,
large new developments are expected to include a maintenance district to provide all necessary funds for
upkeep of facilities serving the development. The RFSP Final EIR determined buildout of the RFSP would
require the addition of 31.56 acres of parkland or recreational facilities to meet the City’s park requirement.
The RFSP proposed 29.5 acres of parks and recreational facilities. The remainder of the park requirement
would be made up by private recreational facilities and/or fees in lieu of park dedication.
RFSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures is from page VII-76 from the RFSP Final EIR:
As previously discussed, the land Use Development Plan (Exhibit 5) proposes several recreation/open space
amenities which would serve residents of Ranch Fontana. These facilities are described below.
Table 17: Proposed Recreation/Open Space
Facility Percent of Credit Possible Maximum Allowable
Dedication
School/Park Sites 100 17.0 acres
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
141
Facility Percent of Credit Possible Maximum Allowable
Dedication
2 School/Park sites at 29
acres total.
Village Parkway
11,750 linear feet of
parkway on both sides at 25
feet/side average and 1,200
linear feet of parkway on one
side totals 14.2 acres
(includes bicycle and
pedestrian trails).
50 7.1 acres
Windrows
13,400 lineal feet at 35 feet
wide equals 10.8 acres.
50 5.4 acres
The facilities proposed above total 29.5 acres if the maximum credit possible were allowed by the Parks
and Recreation Department. The remainder of the park requirement stipulated by the City (approximately
2 acres) would be made up by private recreational facilities and/or fees in lieu of park dedication as
described in a previous section. The implementation program for parks is fully described and outlines in
Chapter IV of this document.
Long-term impacts created by subsequent development will also be required to provide recreational facilities
commensurate with the intensity of development as it occurs. The City will be responsible for ensuring that
these facilities are adequate to meet development needs.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated?
No New Impact.
As described previously, the City of Fontana maintains a parkland standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents
(0.005 acre per resident). The Project would result in approximately 200 new residents. Based on this
standard, the Project would require one acre or approximately 43,560 SF of parkland dedication. The
Project would include 6,400 SF of common open space recreation area on the site for use by residents.
Therefore, the Project’s park demand would not be fully met by the provision of the on-site recreation areas.
However, as described previously, the City currently has 1,621 acres of park facilities, including two parks
within 1 mile of the Project site. Additionally, the Fontana General Plan EIR describes that the existing 1,621
acres of park facilities in the City meets the performance standard for the projected City population through
2035 (City of Fontana, 2018a). Due to the limited increase in population from implementation of the Project,
provision of on-site community open space, and the amount of existing open space areas near the site,
impacts related to the increase in the use of existing parks and recreational facilities, such that physical
deterioration of the facility would be accelerated would be less than significant.
Additionally, Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 21, Planning and Development, Article IV, Fee or Dedication
of Land for Park and Recreation Facilities, specifies fees that park development fees must be paid to the City
when development occurs. These fees would be used towards the future expansion or maintenance parks
and recreational facilities and would offset the additional park need of the Project. Therefore, the Project
would result in no new or increased impacts related to physical deterioration of recreation and park facility.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
142
b) Require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
No New Impact.
As described above, the Project includes 6,400 SF of open space recreation area. The impacts related to
development of the open space recreation area are considered part of the impacts of the proposed Project
as a whole and are analyzed throughout the various sections of this document. For example, activities such
as excavation, grading, and construction as required for the recreation area are analyzed in the Air Quality,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation Sections. The Project would also contribute park
development fees pursuant to Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 21, Planning and Development, Article IV,
Fee or Dedication of Land for Park and Recreation Facilities, to be used towards the future expansion or
maintenance parks and recreational facilities, these fees are standard with every residential development.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not require the construction or expansion of other recreational
facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental
document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding recreation. There have not
been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect
to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions
of the RFSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the RFSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP PS-4. Park Fees. As listed in Section 5.15, Public Services.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
143
5.17. TRANSPORTATION
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the RFSP Final EIR
The RFSP Final EIR discussed impacts related to transportation under Section 7.3.10, Traffic and Circulation.
The RFSP Final EIR estimated the RFSP would result in the generation of 40,500 vehicle trips at full buildout.
The RFSP Final EIR determined traffic volumes on Baseline would increase from 4,300 to 10,400 vehicles per
day east of Citrus Avenue and from approximately 4,500 to 13,600 vehicles daily west of Hemlock Avenue.
The RFSP Final EIR determined these average daily trips exceed the design capacity of a two lane roadway
(8,000 to 10,000 vehicles per day).
Additionally, the RFSP Final EIR analyzed future traffic volumes along the circulation network for the
remainder of the 1200-acre undeveloped area around the Rancho Fontana site. By applying a similar land
use pattern over this larger area, an additional 40,000 daily vehicular trips were estimated to be
generated. However, the RFSP Final EIR determined the average daily trip volumes would be well within the
design capacities of the roadways and arterials once those facilities have been improved to their ultimate
cross-sections.
RFSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are from pages VII-54 through VII-56 from the RFSP Final EIR:
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
144
In order to ensure that roadways which serve Rancho Fontana operate within the desired levels of service
(at least “C”), several roadway improvements will be required as development occurs. These roadway
improvements address not only Rancho Fontana needs but also the remaining 700 acres of the adjacent
study area. Table 10 identifies the needed improvements and the date at which time they must be constructed.
Table 10: Roadway Improvement Phasing
Roadway Improvement Date Needed*
Install Traffic Signal at Citrus and Baseline. Prior to 20% of Rancho Fontana.
Install Traffic Signal at Devore Freeway Ramps and
Baseline. Prior to 25% of Rancho Fontana.
Install Traffic Signal at Lime and Baseline. Prior to 25% of Rancho Fontana.
Construct Beech from Highland to Foothill as a two lane
roadway. In conjunction with development of Rancho Fontana.
Install Traffic Signal at Beech and Baseline. In conjunction with development of Rancho Fontana.
Install Traffic Signal at Beech and Foothill. In conjunction with development of Rancho Fontana.
Widen Baseline from Beech to Devore Freeway to a four
lane road. Prior to 92% of Phase II development (250 acres)
Widen Baseline from Sierra to Beech to a four lane
road.
Prior to 44% of remainder of development in 1200-
acre study area.
Install Traffic Signal at Cherry and Foothill. In conjunction with development of remainder of
1200-acre study area.
Widen Baseline from Sierra to Devore Freeway to a six
land roadway.
After development of the remainder of 1200-acre
study area.
*Roadway improvements should occur on or before that portion of the development phase identified. Roadways internal to the
Rancho Fontana project site should be improved in conjunction with development, and as is logically dictated to provide access
to site development areas.
The plan for the Rancho Fontana project proposes to realign Hemlock, Sultana and Lime within the project
site. The roads have been realigned to discourage through traffic on the collector roads. The proposed
realignments do, however, create intersections on a horizontal curve which raises the issue of design speed
on the horizontal curves.
For the proposed realignments, the streets intersect on the outside rather than the inside of the horizontal
curve. However, by intersecting on the outside of the curve, greater visibility of vehicles as they approach
the intersection is possible, some channelization to direct the flow of traffic may be required.
As a 30 mile per hour design speed roadway, excessive speeds on long straight roadway stretches should
be discouraged. Small traffic circles and intermittent stamped concrete surfaces should be considered. In
addition, travel speeds on the curves should be posted to reduce safety hazards.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based in part on the following report:
• Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis. Prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., October 1, 2024
(Appendix K).
• Queuing Analysis Memo. Prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., September 6, 2024 (Appendix L).
• Level of Service (LOS) Screening Analysis. Prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., September 6, 2024 (Appendix
M).
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
145
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
No New Impact.
Construction
The proposed Project involves the construction of 54 residential units. Vehicular access to the proposed Project
would be provided via two driveways, one on Lime Avenue and one on Orlando Drive. Vehicular traffic to
and from the Project site would utilize the existing network of regional and local roadways that currently
serve the Project area. The Project would construct internal roadways that would provide connection to and
from proposed residences to adjacent residential areas. However, final design plans would be subject to
review and approval by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. As such, the Project would not
introduce any new roadways or land uses that would interfere with adopted plans, programs, ordinances,
or policies regarding roadway facilities and, therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant.
Construction activities associated with the Project would generate vehicular trips from construction workers
traveling to and from the Project site, delivery of construction supplies and import materials to, and export
of debris from, the Project site. However, these construction activities would be temporary in nature and only
occur during the anticipated 14-month construction period. The increase of trips during construction activities
would be limited and is not anticipated to exceed the number of operational trips described below. The
short-term vehicle trips from construction of the Project would generate less-than-significant traffic related
impacts.
Operation
The proposed Project involves the construction of 54 residential units, associated parking, recreation space,
landscaping, and utility improvements to serve the site. Operation of the Project would introduce new
vehicular traffic from workers and proposed operations. Vehicular traffic to and from the Project site would
utilize the existing network of regional and local roadways that currently serve the Project site. Overall,
because the Project is within the total unit count of the RFSP, the traffic that would be generated from
operation of the Project is within the assumptions of the RFSP Final EIR.
Alternative Transportation
Sidewalks currently exist along Project frontage on Baseline Avenue but not along Lime Avenue or Orlando
Drive. Additionally, a bike lane exists along Project frontage on Baseline Avenue but not along Lime Avenue
or Orlando Drive. The proposed Project would not conflict with the existing sidewalks or bike lane along
Baseline Avenue. Thus, no impacts to these facilities would result from implementation of the Project.
The closest bus route to the site is Omnitrans Route 367 which serves Fontana and Chaffey College Rancho
Cucamonga via Baseline Avenue. The closest bus stop along Route 367 is located along the Project boundary
on Baseline Avenue. Buildout of the Project site would not disrupt the existing bus route. Therefore, the Project
would not conflict with alternative transportation and Project impacts to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities would be less than significant. As such, there would be no new or increased impacts.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the RFSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the RFSP Final
EIR.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
146
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
No New Impact. The RFSP Final EIR did not evaluate impacts related to conflicts or inconsistencies with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) as the threshold was not included in CEQA Guidelines Appendix
G at the time the RFSP Final EIR was written. CEQA analysis of Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) went into effect
July 1, 2020, and therefore was not a CEQA consideration in 1982, when the RFSP Final EIR was certified.
This addendum does not need to include a VMT analysis because the RFSP Final EIR was certified before
VMT analyses were required to be prepared (A Local & Regional Monitor v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12
Cal.App.4th 1773, 1801). Also, because at the time the RFSP Final EIR was certified, VMT impacts were
known or should have been known, adoption of the requirement to analyze VMT does not constitute
significant new information, requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR (Concerned Dublin
Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1320). Nonetheless, the following discussion
regarding the Project’s potential VMT impacts is included for informational purposes.
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed by Governor Brown in 2013 and required the Governor’s Office of Planning
and Research (OPR) to amend the State CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS for evaluating
transportation impacts. SB743 specified that the new criteria should promote the reduction of GHGs, the
development of multimodal transportation networks and a diversity of land uses. In response, Section
15064.3 was added to the CEQA Guidelines beginning January 1, 2019, with the provisions of the section
applying statewide beginning on July 1, 2020. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Determining the
Significance of Transportation Impacts, states that VMT is the most appropriate measure of transportation
impacts and provides lead agencies with the discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology and
thresholds for evaluating VMT.
Section 12.2 of the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines provides VMT screening thresholds to
identify projects that would be considered to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT and therefore could
be screened out from further analysis. If a project meets one of the following criteria, then the VMT impact
of the project would be considered less-than-significant and no further analysis of VMT would be required:
1. The project is located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA): According to the City’s guidelines, projects
located in a TPA may be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact. The proposed Project is not
located within a TPA; therefore, it would not satisfy the requirements of Screening Criteria 1 – TPA
screening.
2. The project is in a low VMT-generating area: The City’s guidelines include a screening threshold for
projects located in a low VMT generating area. Low VMT generating area is defined as traffic analysis
zones (TAZs) with a total daily VMT/service population (service population = employment + population)
that is 15 percent below the baseline level for the County. The proposed Project’s site was evaluated
using the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) VMT Screening Tool. As shown in
Appendix K, the Countywide VMT/service population is 33.5 and the VMT/service population for the
project zone (TAZ 53716101) is 23.9. The VMT/service population of the Project zone is 28.62 percent
below the County average. Therefore, the proposed Project would meet Screening Criteria 2 – Low-
VMT Area Screening
3. The project type has been identified as low project type: According to the City’s guidelines, projects
which propose local serving retail (retail projects less than 50,000 square feet) or other local serving
uses would have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. The types of projects considered local serving
include supermarkets, hair/nail salons, walk-in medical clinics/urgent care, K-12 schools, day care
centers, and community institutions such as libraries, fire stations, etc. The proposed Project does not
propose a local serving land use and therefore would not satisfy the requirements of Screening Criteria
3.
4. The project net daily trips are less than 500 average daily trips (ADT): According to the City’s guidelines,
projects which would generate fewer than 500 ADT would not cause a substantial increase in the total
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
147
citywide or regional VMT. A Project-specific trip generation analysis was prepared to determine the
estimated change in site trip generation resulting from the Project. The analysis includes the proposed
residential trip generation using trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip
Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Table T-1 shows the trip generation estimate for the proposed Project.
As shown in Table 1, the proposed Project is forecast to generate 364 daily trips including 21 trips
during the AM peak hour and 27 trips during the PM peak hour, which is below the 500 ADT threshold.
Therefore, the proposed Project is presumed to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT under
Screening Criteria 4, and no further analysis is necessary
Table T-1: Project Trip Generation
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Units Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Project Trip Rate
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)1 DU 6.74 0.10 0.30 0.40 0.32 0.19 0.51
Proposed Project Trip Generation
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)1 54 DU 364 5 16 21 17 10 27
Total Trip Generation 364 5 16 21 17 10 27
TSF = Thousand Square Feet
1 Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation,11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Code 220- Multifamily
Housing (Low-Rise).
Source: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis (Appendix K).
As described above, the proposed Project is located in a low VMT area. Therefore, the proposed Project
would meet Screening Criteria 2. Additionally, the Project would generate 364 ADT, which is below the 500
ADT threshold specified in Screening Criteria 4. Thus, the proposed Project meets Screening Criteria 2 and
4, and it is presumed to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT, requiring no further analysis (Appendix
K).
Additionally, a Level of Service (LOS) Screening Analysis (Appendix M) was prepared to determine whether
a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) would be required for the Project. As shown in Table T-1, the proposed Project
would generate 21 AM peak hour trips and 27 PM peak hour trips. According to Section 3 of the City's TIA
guidelines (2020), if a project generates fewer than 50 peak hour trips, a TIA is not required. As shown in
Table T-1, the Project generates fewer than 50 peak hour trips for both the AM and PM peak hour.
Therefore, a TIA would not be necessary for the Project and the project can be presumed to have a less than
significant impact related to LOS. Additionally, the Project is within the overall development capacity that
was considered in the RFSP Final EIR. Therefore, the traffic that would be generated from operation of the
Project is within the assumptions of the RFSP Final EIR.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No New Impact.
Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via two ingress and egress driveways, one connecting
to Lime Avenue and one connecting to Orlando Drive. A Queuing Analysis (Appendix L) was prepared to
determine whether sufficient queuing could be accommodated along Orlando Drive with the addition of the
proposed Project. The intersection of Lime Avenue/Baseline Avenue is right in/right out only, therefore, it is
assumed approximately 80 percent of vehicles are expected to exit and 100 percent are expected enter
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
148
the site using the Orlando Drive intersection, which allows both right in/right out and left in/left out. The
driveway on Orlando Drive would be 35 feet wide. There would be approximately 105 feet of space
between the intersection of Baseline Avenue at Orlando Drive and the main proposed driveway on Orlando
Drive.
In order to understand existing traffic volumes at the intersection of Baseline Avenue at Orlando Drive, traffic
volumes were collected on Tuesday, August 20th, 2024, during the AM (7-9 AM) and PM (4-6 PM) peak
periods. Using the PTV Vistro 2024 software, 95th percentile queues were performed at the signalized study
intersection (Appendix L). Queue lengths were evaluated as a metric of geometric requirements. Particularly
for turning movements, as a queue forms, the lane can become blocked. When a queue length exceeds the
storage length provided, additional turn lanes and adjacent through lanes can become blocked. The result
is a shockwave that sends queues upstream and deteriorates intersection operations.
Currently, there is a striped 160-foot westbound left turn (WBL) lane at Baseline Ave. As shown in Table T-
2, sufficient storage for the WBL movement is anticipated as the 95th percentile queue is forecast to be 149
feet during the AM peak hour and 147 feet during the PM peak hour in the Background Plus Project
conditions, which would not exceed the 160-foot storage length. Although Table T-2 shows the queues in all
directions at the intersection, this analysis is focused on the south leg of the intersection to ensure that
driveway operations are not impeded by intersection queuing. The northbound approach at Orlando Drive
provides a shared lane for both left and right-turning movements. The northbound approach 2-lane
approach at the intersection is 19 feet wide and therefore considered a de facto right-turn lane (25 feet).
Based on the 95th percentile shown below for the northbound approach at Orlando Drive, 132 feet and
129 feet of queuing would be required for the northbound left-turn movement in the Year 2026 Background
Plus Project AM and PM peak hour conditions respectively. When the signal timing is optimized under Year
2026 Background Plus Project condition, the 95th percentile queue would be 67 feet during the AM peak
hour and 38 feet during the PM peak hour, well within the 105 feet spacing between the signalized
intersection and the proposed driveway as shown on the site plan. To ensure that adequate queuing is
maintained on the northbound approach at Orlando Drive and Baseline Avenue and that queues do not
block the Project driveway, the Project has been designed to restrict parking on the east side of Orlando
Drive between Baseline Avenue and the Project driveway. Additionally, a left turn lane would be striped on
Orlando Drive to provide a dedicated left turn lane. Further, the Project Applicant would pay development
fees as part of the Project, which in part would go to ensuring that the signal timing at the intersection of
Orlando Drive and Baseline Avenue is monitored and optimized after Project opening to ensure queues on
the northbound approach are minimized. Therefore, adequate queuing would be maintained at the Project
intersection of Baseline Avenue and Orlando Drive and impacts would be less than significant.
Table T-2: Queuing Analysis
EBT EBTR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Storage Length N/A N/A 160 N/A N/A N/A
Existing Condition
Volume 439(923) 10(20) 63(43) 1089(563) 55(16) 23(13)
Vistro (50th%) 25’(59’) 26’(60’) 71’(71’) 28’(11’) 60’(47’) 23’(37’)
Vistro (95th%) 45’(106’) 47’(108’) 127’(128’) 50’(20’) 109’(85’) 41’(67’)
HCM7th (50th%) 25’(59’) 26’(60’) 71’(71’) 28’(11’) 60’(47’) 23’(37’)
Sufficient Storage Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2026 Background
Volume 457(960) 10(21) 66(45) 1133(586) 81(31) 24(17)
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
149
Vistro (50th%) 26’(63’) 27’(64’) 78’(74’) 30’(12’) 62’(49’) 24’(41’)
Vistro (95th%) 48’(113’) 49’(115’) 140’(133’) 54’(21’) 112’(88’) 44’(73’)
HCM7th (50th%) 26’(63’) 27’(64’) 78’(74’) 30’(12’) 62’(49’) 24’(41’)
Sufficient Storage Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2026 Background Plus Project
Volume 457(960) 14(33) 68(50) 1133(586) 93(39) 24(39)
Vistro (50th%) 28’(70’) 29’(71’) 83’(82’) 34’(13’) 73’(71’) 25’(43’)
Vistro (95th%) 51’(125’) 52’(128’) 149’(147’) 62’(24’) 132’(129’) 44’(78’)
HCM7th (50th%) 28’(70’) 29’(71’) 83’(82’) 34’(13’) 73’(71’) 25’(43’)
Sufficient Storage Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
2026 Background Plus Project-Optimized
Volume 457(960) 14(33) 68(50) 1133(586) 93(39) 24(39)
Vistro (50th%) 24’(47’) 26’(49’) 32’(27’) 27’(10’) 37’(21’) 13’(13’)
Vistro (95th%) 44’(84’) 46’(88’) 59’(48’) 48’(17’) 67’(38’) 23’(24’)
HCM7th (50th%) 24’(47’) 26’(49’) 32’(27’) 27’(10’) 37’(21’) 13’(13’)
Sufficient Storage Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Note: EBT = Eastbound Turn Lane; EBTR = Eastbound Thru and Right Lane; SBL = Southbound Left-Turn Lane; WBL = Westbound
Left-Turn Lane; WBT = Westbound Thru Lane; NBL = Northbound Left; NBR = Northbound Right
Queue length reported in feet for the AM (PM) peak periods.
AM Cycle Length is assumed to be 120, and PM Cycle Length is assumed to be 90.
Source: Queuing Analysis Memo (Appendix L)
Vehicular traffic to and from the Project site would utilize the existing network of regional and local
roadways that currently serve the Project area. The proposed Project would not introduce any new roadways
or introduce a land use that would conflict with existing urban land uses in the surrounding area. Additionally,
design of the proposed Project, including the internal circulation, is subject to the City’s development
standards and RFSP design guidelines. The Project design would be reviewed to ensure fire engine
accessibility and turn around area is provided to the fire code standards. As a result, impacts related to
vehicular circulation design features would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the RFSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the RFSP Final
EIR.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No New Impact.
Construction
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within
the Project site, and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. The
installation of the Project driveways, connections to existing infrastructure systems, and construction of new
infrastructure that would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project could require the
temporary closure of one side or portions of Orlando Drive, Baseline Drive or Lime Avenue for a short period
of time (i.e., hours or a few days). However, the construction activities would be required to ensure emergency
access in accordance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations,
Part 9), which would be ensured through the City’s permitting process. Thus, implementation of the Project
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
150
through the City’s permitting process would ensure existing regulations are adhered to and would reduce
potential construction related emergency access impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Operation
As described previously, the proposed Project area would be accessed via two ingress and egress
driveways, one connecting to Lime Avenue and one connecting to Orlando Drive. The construction permitting
process would provide adequate and safe circulation to, from, and through the Project area, and would
provide routes for emergency responders to access different portions of the Project site. The Fire Department
and the Public Works Department would review the development plans as part of the permitting procedures
to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the California Fire
Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), included as Municipal Code Chapter 5, Buildings
and Building Regulations, Article XV, California Fire Code, Section 5-425. Because the Project is required to
comply with all applicable City codes, as verified by the City’s permitting process, potential impacts related
to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental
document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding transportation and traffic.
There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that
require major revisions of the RFSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new
information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives
that were not known and could not have been known when the RFSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
151
5.18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
a) Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of the
size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that
is:
Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
i. a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
ii. b) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth
in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
Summary of Impacts Identified in the RFSP Final EIR
The RFSP Final EIR did not discuss impacts related to tribal cultural resources as the topic area was not
included in the Appendix G checklist at the time the EIR was prepared.
RFSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
None.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape
that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register
of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
No New Impact.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
152
As detailed previously in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, the Project site does not meet any of the historic
resource criteria and does not meet the definition of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA. Therefore,
the proposed Project would not result in impacts to historical resources that are listed or eligible for
listing. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a tribal cultural resource, as defined in Public Resources Code section 21074, that is a historical
resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines or PRC Section 5020.1(k) and no
new substantial environmental impacts would occur in comparison to the RFSP Final EIR.
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe?
No New Impact.
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) establishes a formal consultation process for
California tribes as part of the CEQA process and equates significant impacts on “tribal cultural resources”
with significant environmental impacts (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21084.2). AB 52 requires that lead
agencies undertaking CEQA review evaluate, just as they do for other historical and archeological
resources, a project’s potential impact to a tribal cultural resource. In addition, AB 52 requires that lead
agencies, upon request of a California Native American tribe, begin consultation prior to the release of
a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR for a project. AB 52 does not apply to a
Notice of Exemption or Addendum, and therefore is not required for the Project.
Senate Bill (SB) 18 (Chapter 905, Statues of 2004) requires cities and counties to contact, and consult
with California Native American tribes prior to amending or adopting any general plan or specific plan,
or designating land as open space. The proposed Project includes a SPA and therefore is subject to SB
18. On February 17, 2025, the City of Fontana sent letters to Native American tribes notifying them of
the proposed Project pursuant to SB 18. At the time of this Addendum, consultation is ongoing between
the City and tribes.
As described in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, a Sacred Land Files (SLF) search from the NAHC was
received on August 29, 2024, stating the results of the SLF search were negative for known tribal cultural
resources or sacred lands within 1 mile of the Project site (Appendix D). Additionally, as described in
Section 5.5, a field survey of the Project area was conducted which did not result in the identification of
cultural resources within the Project site (Appendix D). The Project site has been previously disturbed due
to the previous agricultural use of the site. Therefore, there is reduced potential for the Project to impact
tribal cultural resources because the site has previously been disturbed. It is unlikely that development of
the Project would result in the discovery of a tribal cultural resource.
Additionally, the California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are
discovered in the Project site, disturbance of the site shall halt and remain halted until the coroner has
conducted an investigation. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American,
they shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission (PPP CUL-1).
Therefore, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant and no new substantial
environmental impacts would occur in comparison to the RFSP Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental
document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding tribal cultural resources. There
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
153
have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that
require major revisions of the RFSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new
information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives
that were not known and could not have been known when the RFSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP CUL-1. As previously listed in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
154
5.19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry, and
multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the RFSP Final EIR
The RFSP Final EIR discussed impacts related to public services under Section 7.3.14, Community Services,
and Section 7.3.15, Public Utilities.
Water
The RFSP Final EIR described that water service in the vicinity of the Plan area is provided by the Fontana
Water Company. At the time the Final EIR was written, the Fontana Water Company estimated adequate
water supplies to serve the Fontana area beyond the year 2000. Using water consumption rates from the
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
155
Fontana Water Company, the RFSP Final EIR determined buildout of the Plan would result in the consumption
of approximately 1,373,355 gallons of water per day.
Wastewater
The City of Fontana owns and operates the wastewater collection system within the City and contracts with
the Chino Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD) to treat and dispose of the effluent. Sewage is treated
at the CBMWD Regional Plant No. 3 which had a daily flow of 3.2 million gallons per day (mgd) and a
rated capacity of 3.5 mgd. The CBMWD obtained Clean Water Grant Funds to expand the treatment plant
capacity at Regional Plant No. 1 to treat flows from Regional Plant No. 3. However, this plan had been
delayed pending funding of the Fontana Interceptor and the result of the Chino Basin Water Reclamation
Study. Using the City’s wastewater generation factors, the RFSP estimated buildout of the Plan would result
in approximately 754,125 gallons per day of wastewater. The RFSP Final EIR determined the City would
have adequate capacity to collect wastewater from buildout of the plan with implementation of the
proposed sewer improvements, described below under the mitigation section.
Telephone Services
The RFSP Final EIR described that telephone service in the Plan area is provided by Pacific Telephone
Company. The RFSP Final EIR determined adequate facilities are available to serve the initial phase of Plan
development. However, major facility reinforcements would be necessary in order to serve the project at
buildout. Construction of the necessary additional facilities was expected to be completed in approximately
18 months following the approval of the project’s first phase.
Electricity
The RFSP Final EIR described that electricity service in the Plan area is provided by Southern California
Edison (SCE). The Final EIR determined that upon buildout of the Plan, the RFSP would create a demand of
approximately 23 million kilowatts (kwh) of electricity annually. The SCE indicated it had adequate capacity
to serve buildout of the RFSP.
Solid Waste
The RFSP Final EIR describes that the Solid Waste Management Division of the San Bernardino County
Environmental Public Works Agency is responsible for maintaining adequate solid waste facilities in the
County. At the time the RFSP Final EIR was written, there were four landfills within the County; two of which
were scheduled for closure in 1982 and 1984, respectively. According to the Solid Waste Management
Division, a figure of six pounds per person per day is estimated to determine refuse generation within the
County. Using this figure, buildout of the RFSP is estimated to result in the generation of approximately 18.9
tons of solid waste per day. The RFSP Final EIR determined development of the subject RFSP would not
significantly alter the ability of the remaining San Timeteo and Milliken landfill facilities to accommodate
future growth.
RFSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is from pages VII-88 through VII-91 from the RFSP Final EIR:
Water
The Fontana Water Company proposes to construct transmission mains reflected in Exhibit 11. That portion
of the project in the Alder Zone will be serviced by a 10-inch diameter main on Baseline Road tied into an
existing 10-inch diameter line of Citrus and Baseline. In addition, a pressure reducing facility at the
intersection of Lime Avenue and Baseline Road is proposed in order to supply water into the Alder Zone
from the Highland Zone.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
156
Fire flow requirements for the project will range from 1500 gallons per minute for single-family residential
developments to 3500 to 4000 gallons per minute for multiple family and commercial developments. Based
on the projected water demands for fire flow requirements, Fontana Water Company has estimated the cost
of water facilities necessary to serve Rancho Fontana. Since Fontana Water Company is a public utility
regulated by the State of California, the construction cost for the recommended facilities would be
constructed under a reimbursement contract with the developers. An implementation program has been
proposed in Section VI of the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan.
Measures recommended by the California Department of Water Resources to reduce domestic water
consumption are listed below and should be implemented where feasible.
i. Conformance with applicable water regulations of the Fontana Water Company and the State and
Regional Water Company policies.
ii. Funding of necessary water facilities by the project sponsors in accordance with City and Fontana Water
Company policies.
iii. Implementation of the following water conservation measures were appropriate:
a) Required by law
1. Low-flush toilets (see Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code).
2. Low-flow showers and faucets (California Administrative Code,· Title 24, Part 6, Article 1, T
20-l406F) .
3. Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems (California Energy Commission
regulations).
b) Recommend implementation where applicable.
Interior:
1. Supply line pressure: recommend water pressure greater than SO pounds per square inch (psi)
be reduced to SO psi or less by means of a pressure reducing valve.
2. Flush valve operated water closets: recommend 3 gallons per flush.
3. Drinking fountains: recommend equipped with self-closing valves.
4. Pipe insulation: recommend all hot water lines in dwelling be insulated to provide hot water
faster with less water waste, and to keep hot pipes from heating cold water pipes.
5. Hotel rooms: recommend posting conservation reminders in rooms and restrooms. Recommend
thermostatically-controlled mixing valve for bath/shower.
6. Laundry Facilities: recommend use of water conserving models of washers.
7. Restaurants: recommend use of water-conserving models of dishwashers or retrofitting spray
emitters. Recommend serving drinking water upon request only.
Exterior:
1. Landscape with low water-consuming plants wherever feasible.
2. Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn dependent uses, such as paying fields.
3. Use mulch extensively in all landscape areas. Mulch applied on top of soil will improve the
water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil compaction.
4. Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are often adapted to low
water and their use saves water needed to establish replacement vegetation.
5. Install efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the
water which will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors and automatic
irrigation systems are a few methods of increasing irrigation efficiency.
6. Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff and aid in
ground water recharge.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
157
7. Grading of slopes should minimize surface water runoff.
8. Investigate the feasibility of utilizing reclaimed waste water, stored rainwater, or household
gray water for irrigation.
9. Encourage cluster development which can reduce the amount of land being converted to urban
use. This will reduce the amount of impervious paving created and thereby aid in ground water
recharge.
10. Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation of natural drainage
systems in new developments. This would aid in ground water recharge.
11. Flood plains and aquifer recharge areas which are the best sites for ground water recharge
should be preserved as open space.
The following mitigation measure is from page VII-94 from the RFSP Final EIR:
Wastewater
An analysis was made of several alternatives to determine the best plan for collecting wastewater from the
proposed Rancho Fontana development. Of these various alternatives considered, three were selected for a
more complete, detailed analysis. Upon completion of the detailed analysis, a preferred conceptual
sewerage plan has been proposed. This concept is described below. (A complete discussion of the alternatives
is included in Appendix D.)
The proposed sewerage system requires the construction of a trunk line along Beech Avenue. However, the
18-inch diameter trunk line would be increased to 21 inches south of the railroad line. This main would end
approximately 1000 feet northerly of San Bernardino Avenue; at that point, an interconnecting line would
be constructed easterly to Poplar Avenue to an existing 15-inch diameter line. The interconnecting line would
be designed to flow by gravity utilizing a 15-inch diameter line and average slope of O.4 percent. The
peak flow capacity of the 15-inch diameter interconnecting line would be 1.85 million gallons per day
(mgd), which would have adequate capacity for the ultimate development of Rancho Fontana. This
conceptual plan is depicted in Exhibit 12. The implementation plan is described in Section VI of the Rancho
Fontana Specific Plan.
This method of sewage collection is recommended because of its ability to provide the greatest flexibility
for the City of Fontana in their design and master planning of the ultimate collection system. This is
particularly important since the City has just retained an engineering firm for the preparation of the master
plan.
This alternative would construct a sewer trunk line along Beech Avenue to approximately 1000 feet northerly
of San Bernardino Avenue. A provision could be made at this point for continuing this interceptor southerly
in accordance with the future master sewer plan. It appears that the line would be a 24-inch diameter line
down to CBMWD Regional Plant No. 3.
Implementation of this alternative would provide capacity in the Beech Avenue trunk line in accordance with
the land uses reflected in the Fontana General Plan. The proposed 21-inch diameter Beech Avenue trunk line
would have a peak design capacity of approximately 8.0 mgd, based on a design depth of 0.6 full. The
peak flow anticipated from the ultimate development of Rancho Fontana is 1.28 mgd. Thus, it is possible
that the City of Fontana may wish to participate in the construction cost of the recommended trunk line, since
the excess capacity of approximately 6.7 mgd could be utilized for future development.
The following mitigation measure is from page VII-95 from the RFSP Final EIR:
Telephone Services
Facility installation will conform to applicable Public Utilities Commission regulations. Further, the project
sponsor should work closely with the telephone company during subsequent development processing phases.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
158
The following mitigation measure is from page VII-96 from the RFSP Final EIR:
Electricity
Facility installation will conform to applicable Public Utilities Commission regulations. As tentative tract maps
and site plans are designed, developers/project sponsors should work directly with SCE planners to
designate the specific location and configuration of electrical lines and facilities to best serve the Rancho
Fontana community.
The following mitigation measure is from page VII-66 from the RFSP Final EIR:
Solid Waste
Although the County agency responsible for providing an adequate level of refuse disposal service has
indicated that no significant impacts will result from project development, a measure presently being
considered by the County is extending the site life of the Fontana Sanitary Landfill by 5 years. In order to
accomplish this approximately $100,000 must be budgeted in the County's Capital Improvement Program
(CIP). If the necessary monies are not made available through the CIP, an alternative source of these funds
is an assessment of County users. Both alternatives are being investigated.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment,
stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No New Impact.
Water
The Project Applicant would develop the Project site, which is currently served by Fontana Water Company
(FWC) and would install new water infrastructure at the Project site that would connect to existing water
infrastructure within Orlando Drive and Lime Avenue. The new on-site water system would convey water
supplies to the proposed self-storage building and landscaping through plumbing/landscaping fixtures that
are compliant with the CALGreen Code for efficient use of water.
The proposed Project would continue to receive water supplies through the existing water lines located within
Orlando Drive and Lime Avenue that have the capacity to provide the increased water supplies needed to
serve the proposed Project, and no expansions of the water pipelines that convey water to the Project site
would be required. Installation of the new on-site water distribution lines would only serve the proposed
Project and would not provide new water supplies to any off-site areas.
The construction activities related to the on-site water infrastructure that would be needed to serve the
proposed Project is included as part of the Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects
beyond those identified throughout this Addendum. For example, analysis of construction emissions from
excavation and installation of the water infrastructure is included in Sections 5.3, Air Quality, and 5.8,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the construction of new water
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects, and impacts would be less than significant.
Wastewater
Wastewater treatment services are provided to the area by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). The
Project includes installation of new on-site sewer lines that would connect to the existing sewer lines Baseline
Avenue. The existing sewer lines would accommodate development of the Project site and would not require
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
159
expansion to serve the proposed Project. The construction activities related to installation of the on-site sewer
infrastructure that would serve the proposed Project, is included as part of the proposed Project and would
not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this Addendum. For
example, analysis of construction emissions for excavation and installation of the sewer infrastructure is
included in Section 5.3, Air Quality, and 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and noise volumes from these activities
are evaluated in Section 5.13, Noise. As the proposed Project includes facilities to serve the proposed
development, it would not result in the need for construction of other new wastewater facilities or expansions,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant, and no new or increased impact would occur.
Storm Drainage
The proposed Project would install underground infiltration chambers in the central portion of the site to
capture, treat, and infiltrate stormwater flows. Once the designed captured volume has been achieved and
retained, the excess storm runoff would overflow the chamber system and exit out of the center driveways
on the surface and drain out into the existing curb and gutter in Orlando Drive and be conveyed by the
existing drainage facilities to the Miller Avenue Detention Basin where such drainage volumes would be
mitigated prior to continuing downstream into the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Channel. As discussed above in
Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, due to the appropriate sizing of the on-site drainage features
and detention basin, as shown in the Project’s Hydrology Report (Appendix H) and WQMP (Appendix I) as
ensured through the Project permitting process, operation of the proposed Project would not substantially
increase stormwater runoff, and the Project would not require or result in the construction of new off-site
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing off-site facilities. Thus, no new or increased impacts
would result.
Electric Power
The Project would connect to the existing Southern California Edison electrical distribution facilities that are
adjacent to the Project site and would not require the construction of new electrical facilities.
Natural Gas
The Project would connect to the existing Southern California Gas natural gas distribution facilities that are
adjacent to the Project site.
Telecommunications
The proposed Project would require a connection to telecommunication services, such as wireless internet
service and phone service. This can be accomplished through connection to existing services that are available
to the developer at the Project site. The two largest telephone and internet service providers in Fontana are
AT&T and Time Warner Cable, one of which could provide service to the Project.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the RFSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the RFSP Final
EIR.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
No New Impact.
The FWC provides water to the Project site. According to FWC’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP), current water supplies are made up of water from the following sources: local groundwater basins
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
160
(Chino Basin, Rialto-Colton Basin, and Lytle Basin); local surface water (Lytle Creek); imported surface water
(State Water Project water purchased from IEUA and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District); and
recycled water (produced by Inland Empire Utilities Agency) (FWC, 2021). The 2020 UWMP details that
FWC has adequate supplies to serve its customers during normal, dry year, and multiple dry year demand
through 2045 with projected population increases and accompanying increases in water demand. Table UT-
1 shows FWC’s projected water supply between 2025 and 2045.
Table UT-1: Fontana Water Company Projected Water Supply (AF)
Water Source 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Purchased or Imported Water (IEUA) 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
Purchased or Imported Water (SBVMWD) 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200
Groundwater (not desalinated) (Chino Basin) 9,278 9,983 11,128 12,293 13,183
Groundwater (not desalinated) (Rialto Basin) 5,865 5,976 6,087 6,199 6,310
Groundwater (not desalinated) (Lytle Basin) 6,390 6,390 6,390 6,390 6,390
Surface Water (not desalinated) (Lytle Creek) 4,860 4,860 4,860 4,860 4,860
Recycled Water (IEUA) 1,000 1,500 2,00 2,500 3,000
Total 45,593 46,909 48,665 50,442 51,943
IEUA = Inland Empire Utilities Agency; SBVMWD = San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
Source: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (FWC, 2021)
The 2020 UWMP describes that its water demands are based on a water use factor of 165 gallons per
capita per day (gpcd). The RFSP estimated single-family residential uses would generate a water demand
of 575 gallons per day per dwelling unit. Thus, the 54 residential units would use approximately 31,050
gallons of water per day or 34.78 acre-feet per year (AFY), which is within the anticipated increased supply
for water, as shown in Table UT-1. Thus, implementation of the Project would result in an incremental and
less than significant increase in the demand for water. Additionally, development of the Project site would
also be required to comply with CALGreen/Title 24 requirements for low-flow plumbing fixtures and
irrigation, which would provide for efficient water use. Therefore, FWC has sufficient water supplies
available to serve the Project during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and impacts would be less than
significant.
The Project is within the assumptions of the RFSP Final EIR, which estimated water demand for buildout of the
entire RFSP area. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the
proposed Project when compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
No New Impact.
The City of Fontana owns and maintains six of its own pump stations and 437 miles of sewer lines, however
wastewater treatment services are provided by the IEUA. The City of Fontana is within the service area of
two of IEUA’s Regional Plants (RP), RP-1 and RP-4. The treatment capacity of RP-1 is 44 million gallons per
day (gpd), and RP-1 currently treats approximately 28 million gpd, or 65 percent of its capacity (City of
Fontana, 2018a). The treatment capacity of RP-4 is 14 million gpd, and RP-4 typically treats approximately
10 million gpd or approximately 71 percent of capacity (City of Fontana, 2018a). The RFSP estimated
single-family residential uses would generate 275 gallons of wastewater per day per dwelling unit. Using
this generation rate, the proposed Project is estimated to generate 14,850 gallons of wastewater per day.
Given the excess capacity available from IEUA’s RP-1 and RP-4, the Project would be adequately served
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
161
by IEUA’s existing infrastructure. Therefore, the Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
The Project is within the assumptions of the RFSP Final EIR, which estimated wastewater generation for
buildout of the entire RFSP area. Therefore, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with
implementation of the proposed Project when compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
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?
No New Impact.
Solid waste disposal services for Fontana are provided by Burrtec Waste Industries, a private company
under franchise agreement with the City of Fontana. The Mid-Valley Landfill is the primary solid waste
depository for the area (City of Fontana, 2018b). The Mid Valley Landfill is permitted to accept 7,500 tons
per day of solid waste and is permitted to operate through 2045 (CalRecyle, 2025a). As of December
2024, the landfill's peak tonnage was 5,852.6 tons (CalRecycle, 2024b). Thus, on average, the facility had
an additional capacity of 1,647.4 tons.
Project construction would generate solid waste for landfill disposal in the form of construction waste from
packaging and discarded materials. Utilizing a construction waste factor from the United States
Environmental Protection Agency of 4.39 pounds per square foot of residential development (USEPA, 2003,
p. 8), construction of the Project would generate approximately 164 tons of waste during construction from
packaging and discarded materials ([75,702 × 4.34 lbs/SF] ÷ 2,000 lbs/ton = 166 tons). However, Section
5.408.1 of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code requires demolition and construction
activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste.
Thus, the construction solid waste that would be disposed of at the landfill would be approximately 35
percent of the waste generated. Therefore, construction and demolition would generate approximately 58
tons of solid waste for landfill disposal. As the Mid-Valley Landfill has a limit of 7,500 tons per day and has
an average additional capacity of 1,647.4 tons per day (CalRecycle, 2025b), the landfill would be able
to accommodate the addition of solid waste during construction of the proposed Project.
Operation
Using the solid waste generation rate from the RFSP Final EIR of six pounds per person per day, the Project
is estimated to generate 894 pounds per day or 0.447 tons per day. However, at least 75 percent of the
solid waste is required by AB 341 to be recycled, which would reduce the volume of landfilled solid waste
to approximately 0.11 tons per day or 40.52 tons per year.
As the Mid Valley Sanitary Landfill has additional capacity of approximately 1,647.4 tons per day, the
facility would be able to accommodate the addition of 0.09 tons of waste per day from the Project.
Therefore, the Mid Valley Sanitary Landfill would be able to accommodate solid waste from operation of
the proposed Project, and impacts related to landfill capacity would be less than significant.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the RFSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the RFSP Final
EIR.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
162
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related
to solid waste?
No New Impact.
The proposed Project would result in a new development that would generate an increased amount of solid
waste. All solid waste-generating activities within the City are subject to the requirements set forth in Section
5.408.1 of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code that requires demolition and construction
activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste,
and AB 341 that requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste. The proposed
Project would be required to comply with all federal, State, and local regulations related to solid waste.
Furthermore, the proposed Project would comply with all standards related to solid waste diversion,
reduction, and recycling during Project construction and operation. Therefore, the proposed Project is
anticipated to result in less-than-significant impacts related to potential conflicts with federal, State, and
local management and reduction statutes and regulations pertaining to solid waste.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR. The proposed Project is consistent with the impacts
identified in the RFSP Final EIR and the level of impact remains unchanged from that cited in the RFSP Final
EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental
document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding utilities and service systems.
There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that
require major revisions of the RFSP Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new
information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives
that were not known and could not have been known when the RFSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
163
5.20. WILDFIRE
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR 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 or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollution
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines,
or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the RFSP Final EIR
The RFSP Final EIR did not evaluate impacts related to wildfire as the topic area was not included in CEQA
Guidelines Appendix G at the time the RFSP Final EIR was prepared. However, the Initial Study prepared
for the RFSP determined that the RFSP would not result in impacts related to hazards, including those relating
exposing people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires.
RFSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
None.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
164
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No New Impact.
According to the CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone map, the Project site not located within a State
Responsibility Area (SRA) or a VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE, 2024). The Project site does not contain any emergency
facilities, nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. Direct access to the Project site would be
provided via two driveways, one on Orlando Drive and one on Lime Avenue. The Project is required to
design and construct internal access and provide fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers) in
conformance with the Fontana Municipal Code, and FFPD would review the development plans prior to
approval to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the California
Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9, included in the Fontana Municipal Code (Chapter
5, Article XV, California Fire Code). As a result, the proposed Project would not impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan and would not result in new impacts. As such, the proposed
Project is consistent with the findings of the RFSP Final EIR.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
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?
No New Impact.
As described in the previous response, the Project site is not located within a SRA or a VHFHSZ. The Project
site is relatively flat and the areas within the Project’s vicinity do not contain hillsides or other factors that
could exacerbate wildfire risks. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or increased impacts related
to exposure of people or structures to significant risk involving wildland fires. As such, the proposed Project
is consistent with the findings of the RFSP Final EIR.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
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?
No New Impact.
As described in the previous responses, the Project site is not within a SRA or a VHFHSZ. The Project site is
located within an urbanized area within the City of Fontana. The Project does not involve any new
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risks or result in other impacts to the environment. Therefore, the Project would result in no
new or increased impacts. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the RFSP Final EIR.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
165
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No New Impact.
As described in the previous responses, the Project site is not within a SRA or VHFHSZ. As discussed in Section
5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project would not result in changes to drainage. Also as discussed
in Section 5. 7, Geology and Soils, the Project site is flat and is not susceptible to landslides. Likewise, areas
adjacent to the Project site are relatively flat urban sites that do not contain hillsides or other factors that
would expose people or structures to flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes. The Project would not generate slopes and would connect to existing drainage
facilities. Therefore, the Project would result in no new or increased impacts related to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the RFSP Final EIR.
No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed Project when
compared to those identified in the RFSP Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental
document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding wildfire. There have not been
(1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or
a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to
the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of
the previous Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and
could not have been known when the RFSP Final EIR was certified as completed.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
166
6. REFERENCES
Allard Engineering. (August 5, 2024a). Baseline & Lime Ave. Townhomes APN: 1110-171-02 Preliminary
Drainage Report. (Appendix H)
Allard Engineering. (August 30, 2024b). Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan APN No. 1110-171-
02 Baseline & Lime Townhomes, Fontana. (Appendix I)
BFSA Environmental Services. (September 30, 2024a). Cultural Resources Study for the Baseline Residential
Project. (Appendix D)
BFSA Environmental Services. (September 30, 2024b). Paleontological Assessment for the Baseline
Residential Project. (Appendix F)
California Department of Conservation (CDOC). (2008) Mineral Land Classification Map, Updated Mineral
Land Classification for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the San Bernardino
Production-Consumption (P-C) Region, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California, Special
Report 206, Plate 1.
California Department of Conservation (CDOC). (September 23, 2021). EQ Zapp: California Earthquake
Hazards Zone Application. Retrieved September 25, 2024, from
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp
California Department of Conservation (CDOC). (2022). California Important Farmland Finder. Retrieved
August 1, 2024, from https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp
California Department of Conservation (CDOC). (2023). California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder.
Retrieved September 25, 2024, from
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/App/index.html
California Department of Finance. (May 2024). E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties
and the State — January 1, 2021-2024. Retrieved April 16, 2025, from
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-
for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2024/
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (April 2020). Transportation and Construction Vibration
Guidance Manual. Retrieved February 28, 2025, from https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-
media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2018). State Scenic Highway Map. Retrieved
September 30, 2024, from https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-
community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). (2024). Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps.
Retrieved September 25, 2024, from https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-
preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps
CalRecycle. (2025a). SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055).
Retrieved February 28, 2025, from
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662
CalRecycle. (January 1, 2024b). Disposal Facility (Site) Inspection Report (52) Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill
(36-AA-0055). Retrieved September 18, 2024, from
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteInspection/Details/380064
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
167
City of Fontana. (June 8, 2018a). General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report
(SCH 2016021099). Retrieved September 11, 2024, from
https://www.fontanaca.gov/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015---2035
City of Fontana. (November 13, 2018b). General Plan Update 2015-2035. Retrieved September 11,
2024, from https://www.fontanaca.gov/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015---2035
City of Fontana. (July 23, 2023a). Community Mobility and Circulation Element. Retrieved March 3, 2025,
from https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/26748/Chapter-9---Community-
Mobility-and-Circulation
City of Fontana. (June 13, 2023b). City of Fontana Adopted Operating Budget 2023/2024 – 2024/2025.
Retrieved October 3, 2024, from https://www.fontanaca.gov/263/Budget
City of Fontana. (February 24, 2025). Municipal Code. Retrieved March 3, 2025, from
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances
City of Fontana. (October 21, 2020). Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) and Level of Service Assessment.
EPD Solutions, Inc. (april 18, 2025a). Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for Citrus
Walk Residential Fontana Project. (Appendix A)
EPD Solutions, Inc. (February 21, 2025b). Citrus Walk Residential Health Risk Assessment. (Appendix B)
EPD Solutions. (October 1, 2024a). Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis. (Appendix K)
EPD Solutions. (September 6, 2024b) Level of Service (LOS) Screening Analysis. (Appendix M)
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (August 28, 2008). FIRM Flood Map 06071C8652H. Retrieved
October 16, 2024, from https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home
Federal Transit Administration. (September 2018). Transit Not and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
Retrieved February 28, 2025, from
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-
noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf
Fontana Water Company. (June 2021). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Retrieved October 16,
2024, from https://www.fontanawater.com/water-quality-supply/2020-urban-water-
management-plan/
Hernandez Environmental Services. (September 2024). General Biological Assessment for Newbridge Homes
Assessor’s Parcel Number 1110-171-02. (Appendix C)
LSA. (May 2025). Nosie and Vibration Impact Analysis Citrus Walk Residential Project Fontana, California.
(Appendix J)
Ontario International Airport. (July 2018). Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Retrieved September 30, 2024, from https://www.ont-iac.com/airport-land-use-compatibility-
plan/
Petra Geosciences. (May 20, 2024a). Due Diligence Feasibility Geotechnical Assessment: 3-acre Vacant
Property at 15547 Baseline Avenue, APN 1110-171-02-0000, Fontana, San Bernardino County,
California. (Appendix E)
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
168
Petra Geosciences. (May 14, 2024b). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 3-acre Vacant Property at
15547 Baseline Avenue, Southwest Corner of Lime Avenue and Baseline Avenue APN 1110-171-02-
0000, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California 92336. (Appendix G)
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). (October 2008). Draft Guidance Document –
Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. Retrieved April 18, 2025, from
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-
significance-thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2003). Estimating 2003 Building-Related
Construction and Demolition Materials Amounts. Retrieved February 14, 2025, from
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-
09/documents/estimating2003buildingrelatedcanddmaterialsamounts.pdf
United States Geological Survey (USGS). (2018). Mineral Resources Online Spatial Data. Retrieved August
1, 2024, from https://mrdata.usgs.gov/general/map-us.html#home.
Citrus Walk Residential Project
City of Fontana Addendum to the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan
169
End of document.