HomeMy WebLinkAboutWestgate Specific Plan Final EIR - MCN23-0103; DRP23-0025
ADDENDUM #6 TO THE
WESTGATE SPECIFIC PLAN FEIR
FOR
PLANNING AREA 27
Prepared for:
CITY OF FONTANA
City of Fontana Planning Department
DiTanyon Johnson, Senior Planner
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335-3528
Prepared by:
UltraSystems Environmental Inc.
16431 Scientific Way
Irvine, CA 92618-4355
Telephone: 949.788.4900
FAX: 949.788.4901
www.ultrasystems.com
July 2024
Project No. 7170G
This page left intentionally blank.
❖ PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page i
July 2024
PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET
1. Project Title Addendum #6 to the Westgate Specific Plan EIR for
PA27
2. CEQA Lead Agency and Address City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA
3. Contacts and Phone Numbers Cecily Session-Goins, Associate Planner
Telephone: 909-350-6723
Email: csgoins@fontanaca.gov
4. Project Applicant Attn: Douglas M. Ford, Vice President
Intex Properties Inland Empire Corp.
4001 Via Oro Avenue
Long Beach, CA 90810
E: dford@intexcorp.com
5. Location The project is located in the northwestern portion of
the City approximately five miles northwest of
downtown Fontana. The site is also adjacent to
Interstate 15 (I-15) and State Route 210 (SR-210)
freeways.
More specifically, the project site is located in
Planning Area (PA) 27 of the Westgate East
community area of the Westgate Specific Plan. The
project site is located at the northwest corner of San
Sevaine Road and South Highland Avenue, bounded
by SR-210 to the north and a utility corridor to the
west.
6. Assessor’s Parcel Number 022802147
7. Project Site General Plan
Designation
The project site has a General Plan land use
designation of Regional Mixed Use (RMU) (Westgate
Specific Plan [JHA Consulting, 2017, p. 1-5]).
8. Project Site Zoning Designation Specific Plan (Westgate Specific Plan #17), with
designation MU-1 (Mixed Use-1 (Westgate Specific
Plan [JHA Consulting, 2017, p. 3-21]).
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The project site is currently used for agriculture. The
project site is surrounded by vacant land opposite San
Sevaine Road to the east and South Highland Avenue
to the south; a utility corridor to the west; and SR-210
to the north.
❖ PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page ii
July 2024
10. Description of Project The proposed project would develop two medical
office buildings, each four stories and 104,000 square
feet in building area; surface parking; and
landscaping. The buildings would be in the north-
central part of the site and the parking in the east,
south, and west.
11. Other Public Agencies whose
Approval is Required
• San Gabriel Valley Water Company, Fontana
Division
• Southern California Gas Company
• Southern California Edison Company
• Metropolitan Water District
❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page iii
July 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Modified Project ................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.3 Project Applicant .................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.4 Lead Agencies – Environmental Review Implementation .................................................. 1-1
1.5 CEQA Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.6 Purpose of an Addendum ................................................................................................................. 1-3
1.7 Review and Comment by Other Agencies .................................................................................. 1-3
1.8 Organization of the Addendum ...................................................................................................... 1-4
1.9 Findings from the Addendum ......................................................................................................... 1-5
1.10 Certification ............................................................................................................................................ 1-6
2.0 RATIONALE FOR PREPARING AN ADDENDUM .......................................................................... 2-1
2.1 CEQA Standards .................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Modified Project Compared to Approved Project .................................................................. 2-2
2.3 Summary of Environmental Findings .......................................................................................... 2-3
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Approved Project and Modified Project Locations and Settings ...................................... 3-1
3.2 Existing Land Use and Zoning ......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.3 Background and Purpose ................................................................................................................. 3-7
3.4 Project Overview .................................................................................................................................. 3-7
3.5 Project Features .................................................................................................................................... 3-0
3.6 Landscaping ........................................................................................................................................... 3-0
3.7 Access and Circulation ....................................................................................................................... 3-0
3.8 Utilities ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-0
3.9 Construction Activities ...................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.10 Standard Requirements and Conditions of Approval ........................................................... 3-2
3.11 Discretionary Actions ......................................................................................................................... 3-2
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ........................................................................................................ 4-1
4.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................. 4.1-1
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ......................................................................................... 4.2-1
4.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................ 4.3-1
4.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................ 4.4-1
4.5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.6 Energy .................................................................................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.7 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................................. 4.7-1
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................... 4.8-1
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................. 4.9-1
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................... 4.10-1
4.11 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................ 4.11-1
4.12 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................................... 4.13-1
4.14 Population and Housing .............................................................................................................. 4.14-1
4.15 Public Services ................................................................................................................................ 4.15-1
4.16 Recreation ......................................................................................................................................... 4.16-1
❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page iv
July 2024
4.17 Transportation and Traffic ........................................................................................................ 4.17-1
4.18 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................... 4.18-1
4.19 Wildfire .............................................................................................................................................. 4.19-1
4.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................................................... 4.20-1
5.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 5-1
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Lead Agency (CEQA) ........................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Project Applicant .................................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.3 UltraSystems Environmental, Inc. ................................................................................................. 6-1
TABLES
Table 2.2-1 – Comparison of Environmental Findings Between the Modified Project and the Previous
Approved Project ................................................................................................................................................................. 2-3
Table 3.3-1 – Approved Project Compared to Modified Project .................................................................... 3-7
Table 3.9-1 – Estimated Construction Schedule ................................................................................................... 3-1
Table 3.6-1 – Permits and Approvals ........................................................................................................................ 3-2
Table 3.4-1 – Estimated Construction Schedule ................................................................................................ 4.3-8
Table 4.3-6 - Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions- Phase I .................................................. 4.3-8
Table 4.3-6 - Maximum Daily Project Operational Emissions ......................................................................... 4.3-9
Table 4.4-1 - Burrowing Owl Survey Results ................................................................................................... 4.4-14
Table 4.4-1 – Acreage of Mapped Land Cover Types .................................................................................... 4.4-35
Table 4.6-1 – Approved Project Consistency with the Attorney General's (Energy Related)
Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................... 4.6-1
Table 4.8-1 – Annual Unmitigated Construction GHG Emissions ............................................................... 4.8-7
Table 4.8-2 – Annual Mitigated Operational GHG Emissions ....................................................................... 4.8-7
Table 4.17-1 – Existing Conditions Intersection Capacity ........................................................................... 4.17-2
Table 4.17-2 – Comparison of Opening Year 2027 Baseline and Opening Year 2027 + Project Intersection
Capacity Analysis Conditions ....................................................................................................................................... 4.17-2
Table 4.17-3 – Comparison of Future Year 2050 Baseline and 2050 Baseline + Project Intersection Capacity
Analysis Conditions ........................................................................................................................................................ 4.17-3
Table 4.17-4 – Comparison of Opening Year 2027 Baseline and Opening Year 2027 + Project Conditions
with Mitigation ................................................................................................................................................................ 4.17-5
Table 4.17-5 – Comparison of Future Year 2050 Baseline and 2050 Baseline + Project Conditions with
Mitigation .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4.17-6
FIGURES
Figure 3.1-1 – Regional Location Map ....................................................................................................................... 3-2
Figure 3.1-2 – Westgate Specific Plan Community Areas ................................................................................. 3-3
Figure 3.1-3 – Westgate Community Area ............................................................................................................... 3-4
Figure 3.1-4 – Project Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................ 3-5
Figure 3.1-5 – Project Location Map .......................................................................................................................... 3-6
Figure 3.4-1 – Site Plan .................................................................................................................................................... 3-8
Figure 3.4-2 – First Floor Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 3-9
Figure 3.4-3 – Third/Fourth Floor Plans ............................................................................................................... 3-10
Figure 3.4-4 – Elevations .............................................................................................................................................. 3-11
❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page v
July 2024
Figure 3.4-5 – Rendering .............................................................................................................................................. 3-12
Figure 4.1-1 – Views Surrounding the Project Site ........................................................................................... 4.1-7
Figure 4.1-2 – Scenic Highways ................................................................................................................................ 4.1-8
Figure 4.2-1 – Important Farmlands ...................................................................................................................... 4.2-3
Figure 4.4-1 – Project Boundary and Biological Study Area (BSA) ......................................................... 4.4-10
Figure 4.4-3 – CNDDB Known Occurrences: Plant Species and Habitats ............................................. 4.4-12
Figure 4.4-3 –Burrowing Owl Locations ............................................................................................................ 4.4-17
Figure 4.4-4 – CNDDB Known Occurrences: Wildlife Species ................................................................... 4.4-30
Figure 4.4-5 – Land Cover Types ........................................................................................................................... 4.4-34
Figure 4.4-5 – USGS Surface Waters and Watersheds .................................................................................. 4.4-36
Figure 4.4-6 – CDFW Wildlife Corridors ............................................................................................................ 4.4-39
Figure 4.4-7 – USFWS Critical Habitat ................................................................................................................ 4.4-42
Figure 4.6-1 – Regionally Active Faults ................................................................................................................. 4.7-6
Figure 4.6-2 – Alquist Priolo Fault Zones ............................................................................................................. 4.7-7
Figure 4.9-1 – Listed Hazardous Materials Sites ............................................................................................ 4.9-12
Figure 4.9-2 – Nearest Airport Influence Area ................................................................................................ 4.9-13
Figure 4.9-3 – State Responsibility Area for Fire Hazard Severity .......................................................... 4.9-16
Figure 4.9-4 – Local Responsibility Area for Fire Hazard Severity ......................................................... 4.9-17
Figure 4.10-1 – FEMA FIRM Map ....................................................................................................................... 4.10-10
Figure 4.10-2 – Groundwater Basins, Subbasins, Recharge Basins Map ........................................... 4.10-12
Figure 4.11-1 – General Plan Land Use Map ..................................................................................................... 4.11-1
Figure 4.11-2 – Zoning Designation Map ........................................................................................................... 4.11-2
Figure 4.12-1 – Mineral Resources ....................................................................................................................... 4.12-3
Figure 4.12-2 – Oil and Gas Wells ......................................................................................................................... 4.12-4
Figure 4.12-3 – Geothermal Wells ........................................................................................................................ 4.12-5
Figure 4.17-1 – Intersections Analyzed .............................................................................................................. 4.17-1
Figure 4.19-1 – Fire Hazard Severity Zone - State Responsibility Area (SRA) ................................... 4.19-5
Figure 4.19-2 – Fire Hazard Severity Zone - Local Responsibility Area (LRA) .................................. 4.19-6
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Biological Resources Appendix
Appendix B: Cultural Resources Survey
Appendix C: Geotechnical Investigation and Water Infiltration Test Report
Appendix D: Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page vi
July 2024
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
AAQS ambient air quality standards
AB 32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32)
ADL aerially dispersed lead
AIA Airport Influence Area
AMSD approximate minimum search distance
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ARB Air Resources Board
ARB California Air Resources Board
ASR Aquifer Storage Recovery
ASR Aquifier Storage Recovery
BGS below the ground surface
BMPs Best Management Practices
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALFIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CALGreen California green building standards code
CAOs Cleanup and Abatement Orders
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
CBC California Building Code
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CDC California Department of Conservation
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDO(s) Cease and Desist Order(s)
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 methane
CHHSLs California Human Health Screening Levels
CHRIS California Historic Resources Inventory System
CHRIS-SBAIC California Historical Resources Information System – San Bernadino
Archaeological Information Center
City City of Fontana
CMA Congestion Management Agency
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CVC California Vehicle Code
CWA Clean Water Act
DCAP Draft Climate Action Plan
DCV Design Capture Volume
DMAs Drainage Management Areas
❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page vii
July 2024
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
DOC California Department of Conservation
DOGGR California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
DPR (California) Department of Parks and Recreation
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EI emissions inventory
EMS Emergency Medical Services
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FFPD Fontana Fire Protection District
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zones
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FPD Fontana Police Department
FUSD Fontana Unified School District
FWC Fontana Water Company
GHG greenhouse gases
GP EIR General Plan EIR
GPD gallons per day
GWP global warming potential
H2S hydrogen sulfide
HALS Historic American Landscapes Survey
HCOC Hydrologic Condition of Concern
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HHW Household Hazardous Waste Element
HMMP Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
HSCs hydrologic source controls
I-15 Interstate 15 Freeway
IEUA Inland Empire Utilities Agency
I-G General Industrial General Plan Designation
I-L Light Industrial Zoning Designation
JND Jurupa North Research and Development District Zoning
Designation
LE Land Evaluation
LED light-emitting diodes
LESA Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
LID Low Impact Development
LMWTP Lloyd W. Michael Water Treatment Plant
LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LSTs localized significance thresholds
LUST leaking underground storage yank
Map Act California Subdivision Map Act
MGD million gallons per day
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MMT million metric tons
MRZ-3 Mineral Resource Zone 3
MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
MSL Mean Sea Level
❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page viii
July 2024
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
MT metric tons
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
MWhr megawatt-hour
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan
NO nitric oxide
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O3 ozone
OHWM ordinary high-water mark
OS/P1 Open Space/Public Park
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Pb lead
PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report
PM particulate matter
PM10 respirable particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
PR Recreational Facility zoning designation
PRC Public Resources Code
PV Photovoltaic
RAFSS Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
RF-4 IEUA’s Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 4
ROG Reactive organic gases
RSS Riversidean sage scrub
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SA Site Assessment
SANBAG San Bernardino Associated Governments
SBAIC San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center
SBCFD San Bernardino County Fire Department
SBCM San Bernadino County Museum
SBKR San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SIP State Implementation Plan
SLF Sacred Lands File
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SMP soil management plan
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SRA State Responsibility Area
❖ ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page ix
July 2024
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
SRAs source receptor areas
SRRE Source Reduction and Recycling Element
SWH Solar Water Heating
SWIP Southwest Industrial Park Specific Plan
SWIS Solid Waste Information System
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant(s)
TCP Traffic Control Plan
TSS total suspended solids
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WSAs Water Supply Assessments
WSP Westgate Specific Plan
WW wastewater
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 1-1
July 2024
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Modified Project
The modified project would develop two four-story medical office buildings totaling 208,000 square
feet, surface parking, and landscaping on a 17.5-acre site within the Westgate East community area
of the Westgate Specific Plan (WSP) in the City of Fontana. The modified proposed project would
implement a portion of the approved Westgate Specific Plan Amendment #1.
1.2 Existing Conditions
Westgate East
The Westgate East community area, 168.9 acres, is located in the central portion of the WSP area
(Westgate Specific Plan, 2017, p. 3-21). More specifically, Westgate East is bounded by the I-210
freeway and San Sevaine Channel to the north, a utility corridor to the west, San Sevaine Road to the
east, and south Highland Avenue to the south.
Modified Project Site
The modified project site is approximately 17.5 acres located within the Westgate East community
area. The project site is currently active agricultural land, specifically used as an organic vineyard
(Lee, 2024a). It is surrounded by vacant land opposite San Sevaine Road to the east and South
Highland Avenue to the south; a utility corridor to the west; and SR-210 to the north.
1.3 Project Applicant
Douglas Ford, Vice President
Intex Properties Corporation
4001 Via Oro Avenue
Long Beach, CA 90810
1.4 Lead Agencies – Environmental Review Implementation
The City of Fontana is the Lead Agency for this project pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and its implementing regulations.1 The Lead Agency has the principal
responsibility for implementing and approving a project that may have a significant effect on the
environment.
1.5 CEQA Overview
1.5.1 Purpose of CEQA
All discretionary projects in California are required to undergo environmental review under CEQA.
A Project is defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15378 as the whole of the action having the potential to
1 Public Resources Code §§ 21000 - 21177 and California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3.
❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 1-2
July 2024
result in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change to the environment and
is any of the following:
• An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to public works
construction and related activities, clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing
public structures, enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and
amendment of local General Plans or elements.
• An activity undertaken by a person which is supported in whole or in part through public
agency contacts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public
agencies.
• An activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other
entitlement for use by one or more public agencies.
CEQA Guidelines § 15002 lists the basic purposes of CEQA as follows:
• Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant
environmental effects of proposed activities.
• Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.
• Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects
through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds
the changes to be feasible.
• Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the
manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.
1.5.2 Authority to Mitigate under CEQA
CEQA establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage where
feasible. Under CEQA Guidelines § 15041 a Lead Agency for a project has authority to require feasible
changes in any or all activities involved in the project in order to substantially lessen or avoid
significant effects on the environment, consistent with applicable constitutional requirements such
as the “nexus”2 and “rough proportionality”3 standards.
CEQA allows a Lead Agency to approve a project even though the project would cause a significant
effect on the environment if the agency makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that
there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effect. In such cases, the Lead Agency must
specifically identify expected benefits and other overriding considerations from the project that
outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project.
2 A nexus (i.e., connection) must be established between the mitigation measure and a legitimate governmental
interest.
3 The mitigation measure must be “roughly proportional” to the impacts of the project.
❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 1-3
July 2024
1.6 Purpose of an Addendum
The CEQA process begins with a public agency making a determination as to whether the project is
subject to CEQA at all. If the project is exempt, the process does not need to proceed any farther. If
the project is not exempt, the Lead Agency takes the second step and conducts an Initial Study to
determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
In cases where no potentially significant impacts are identified, the Lead Agency may issue a negative
declaration (ND), and no mitigation measures would be needed. Where potentially significant
impacts are identified, the Lead Agency may determine that mi tigation measures would adequately
reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. The Lead Agency would then prepare a mitigated
negative declaration (MND) for the proposed project. If the Lead Agency determines that individual
or cumulative effects of the project would cause a significant adverse environmental effect that
cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels, then the Lead Agency would require an
environmental impact report (EIR) to further analyze these impacts.
This project proposes an addendum to the Westgate Specific Plan (WSP) in compliance with CEQA.
The project is located in the Westgate East community area within the Westgate Specific Plan area.
Development of the project would be subject to the community design guidelines contained within
the WSP.
Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines states:
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if
some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling
for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes
or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the
preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final
EIR or adopted negative declaration.
(d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative
declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should
be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s findings on the project, or elsewhere in the
record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.
Refer to Section 2.0 of this document for a discussion of the rationale for preparing an addendum
for the proposed project.
1.7 Review and Comment by Other Agencies
Other public agencies are provided the opportunity to review and comment on the Addendum. Each
of these agencies is described briefly below.
❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 1-4
July 2024
• A Responsible Agency (14 CCR § 15381) is a public agency, other than the Lead Agency, that
has discretionary approval power over the project, such as permit issuance or plan approval
authority.
• A Trustee Agency4 (14 CCR § 15386) is a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural
resources affected by a project that are held in trust for the people of the State of California.
• Agencies with Jurisdiction by Law (14 CCR § 15366) are any public agencies who have
authority (1) to grant a permit or other entitlement for use; (2) to provide funding for the
project in question; or (3) to exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the
project. Furthermore, a city or county will have jurisdiction by law with respect to a project
when the city or county having primary jurisdiction over the area involved is (1) the site of
the project; (2) the area which the major environmental effects will occur; and/or (3) the
area in which reside those citizens most directly concerned by any such environmental
effects.
1.8 Organization of the Addendum
This document is organized to satisfy CEQA Guidelines § 15164, and includes the following sections:
Section 1.0 - Introduction, which identifies the purpose and scope of the Addendum.
Section 2.0 – Rationale for Preparing an Addendum, which describes why an addendum is being
prepared for the proposed project.
Section 3.0 - Project Description, which provides an overview of the project objectives, a
description of the proposed development, project phasing during construction, and other project
details.
Section 4.0 - Environmental Analysis Checklist, which presents checklist responses for each
resource topic to identify and assess impacts associated with the proposed project, and proposes
mitigation measures, where needed, to render potential environmental impacts less than significant,
as applicable.
Section 5.0 - References, which includes a list of documents cited in the addendum.
Section 6.0 - List of Preparers, which identifies the primary authors and technical experts that
prepared the addendum.
Technical studies and other documents, which include supporting information or analyses used to
prepare this addendum, are included in the following appendices:
• Appendix A – Biological Resources Appendix
• Appendix B – Cultural Resources Inventory
• Appendix C – Geotechnical Investigation and Water Infiltration Test Report
• Appendix D – Draft Traffic Impact Analysis
4 The four Trustee Agencies in California listed in CEQA Guidelines § 15386 are California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, State Lands Commission, State Department of Parks and Recreation, and University of California.
❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 1-5
July 2024
1.9 Findings from the Addendum
1.9.1 Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring the
Preparation of an MND or EIR
Based on the findings of this addendum, the project would have either less than significant impacts,
or no changes or new information requiring the preparation of an MND or EIR for the following
environmental categories:
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gases
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation and Traffic
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
1.9.2 No Impacts
Based on the findings of this addendum, the project would have no impact on the following
environmental categories:
• Mineral Resources
1.9.3 Section Omitted
The provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 are not applicable to the proposed Project. AB 52 applies
“...only to a project that has a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration or mitigated
negative declaration filed on or after July 1, 2015”. AB 52, which became effective on July 1, 2015,
established a consultation process with California Native American tribes, and established Tribal
Cultural Resources as a new class of resources to be considered in the determination of project
impacts and mitigation under CEQA. AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide notice to tribes that are
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project, if they have
requested such notice in writing. The project notification is required prior to the lead agency's release
of a Notice of Preparation of an EIR or notice of intent to adopt an MND or ND, and is not required
for Addendums. However, the analysis of impacts to cultural resources, including prehistoric
archaeological sites, resulting from implementation of the Westgate Specific Plan is provided in the
Cultural Resources section of the Westgate Specific Plan Final EIR, as summarized in the Cultural
❖ SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 1-6
July 2024
Resources section of this Addendum. The Westgate Specific Plan Final EIR found that implementation
of the Specific Plan would result in less than significant impact to archaeological resources with
implementation of mitigation measures E-2 to E-5.
1.10 Certification
Prior to project approval, Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, Agencies with Jurisdiction by Law,
and the public are provided 30 days to review and comment on the Addendum. Approval of the
proposed project by the Lead Agency is contingent on adoption of the Addendum after considering
agency and public comments. By adopting the Addendum, the Lead Agency (City) certifies that the
analyses provided in the Addendum were reviewed and considered by the City Planning Commission,
and the Addendum complies with CEQA.
❖ SECTION 2.0 – RATIONALE FOR PREPARING AN ADDENDUM ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 2-1
July 2024
2.0 RATIONALE FOR PREPARING AN ADDENDUM
2.1 CEQA Standards
Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides the authority for preparing an Addendum to a
previously certified Environmental Impact Report or adopted Negative Declaration. Specifically,
§ 15164 states:
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified
EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in § 15162
calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical
changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in § 15162 calling for the
preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the
final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
(d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative
declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to § 15162 should
be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s findings on the project, or elsewhere in
the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.
As required in subsection (e), above, substantial evidence supporting the lead agency’s decision not
to prepare a Subsequent Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15162 is provided in
Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis Determination, of this Addendum. The environmental analysis
presented in Section 4.0 evaluates new potential impacts relating to the Fontana Victoria residential
project in relation to the current environmental conditions.
Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that, after certification of an EIR or adoption of
a MND for a project, “no subsequent [environmental review] shall be prepared for that project” unless
the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that
certain criteria are met. Those criteria include the following:
(a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects; or
(c) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
❖ SECTION 2.0 – RATIONALE FOR PREPARING AN ADDENDUM ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 2-2
July 2024
(1) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR
or negative declaration;
(2) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the previous EIR;
(3) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact
be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project,
but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(4) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on
the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measu re or
alternative.
The above standards represent a shift in applicable policy considerations under CEQA. The low
threshold for requiring the preparation of an EIR in the first instance no longer applies; instead,
agencies are “prohibited” from requiring further environmental review unless the § 15162 criteria
are met (Fund for Environmental Defense v. County of Orange (1988) 204 Cal. App.3d 1538, 1544.) In
addition, the “interests of finality are favored over the policy of favoring public comment, and the rule
applies even if the initial review is discovered to have been inaccurate and misleading in the
description of a significant effect or the severity of its consequences.” (Friends of Davis v. City of Davis
(2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 1004, 1018; see Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University
of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th at p. 1130.)
2.2 Modified Project Compared to Approved Project
The Approved Project encompasses 964 acres in the northwestern portion of the City of Fontana
(City) with a General Plan land use and zoning designations of Multi-Family Medium High Residential
(R-MFMH) and Specific Plan (Westgate Specific Plan #17), respectively. The Approved Project
permitted development of up to 3,248 residential units; 364 acres of commercial uses; 84 acres of
schools; 89.4 acres of roadway rights-of-way; and about 135 acres of open space.
The MU-1 zone permits a broad range of business, commercial retail, medical, educational,
entertainment, commercial services, and other complementary uses. The maximum permitted floor
area ratio (FAR) in the MU-1 zone is 1.0. The maximum permissible building area on the modified
project site is about 762,736 square feet, that is, 17.51 acres x 43,560 square feet per acre. The WSP
does not impose a quantitative building height limit in the MU -1 zone except that buildings must
conform to the maximum FAR of 1.0. Relevant setback requirements on the modified project site are
20 feet from South Highland Avenue and from San Sevaine Road, and 30 feet from residential
property lines (the nearest residential properties to the modified project site are opposite the
intersection of San Sevaine Road and South Highland Avenue, over 30 feet from the modified project
site).
The estimate of building area within portions of the WSP designated for commercial uses is based on
a floor area ratio of 0.4 (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 2-16]). For example, on a parcel
100,000 square feet (2.3 acres) in area building area of 40,000 square feet would yield a floor area
ratio of 0.4 (40,000/100,000). Thus, the WSP envisioned PA 27 to be developed with approximately
305,100 square feet of building area.
❖ SECTION 2.0 – RATIONALE FOR PREPARING AN ADDENDUM ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 2-3
July 2024
The Modified Project proposes development of two medical office buildings, each four stories and
104,000 square feet in building area, for total building area of 208,000 square feet; surface parking;
and landscaping. The land use type and intensity proposed under the modified project is within that
permitted under the MU-1 zone. The intensity is also within that set forth in the Certified EIR.
2.3 Summary of Environmental Findings
As summarized in Section 3.0, Project Description, and further analyzed in greater detail in
Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, the modified project would not result in any new
significant environmental impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified Westgate
Specific Plan FEIR. The analysis contained herein demonstrates that the modified project is
consistent with the prior Approved Project and many of the impact issues previously examined in
the certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR would remain unchanged with the modified project.
The modified project would result in minor change with respect to each of the environmental issue
area analyzed in this Addendum (see Table 2.2-1 below). Therefore, as described in further detail in
Section 4.0, the CEQA analysis supports the determination that the modified project would not
involve new significant environmental effects, or result in a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects which would call for the preparation of a subsequent EIR, as
provided in § 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, an Addendum to the Certified FEIR
serves as the appropriate form of documentation to meet the requirements of CEQA.
Table 2.2-1
COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS BETWEEN THE MODIFIED PROJECT
AND THE PREVIOUS APPROVED PROJECT
Environmental Issue
Westgate Specific Plan
EIR Conclusions for
Previously Certified
Westgate Specific Plan1
Addendum
Conclusions for
Modified Project
Modified Project Impacts
in Comparison to
Conclusions of the
Westgate Specific Plan
EIR
Aesthetics Less Than Significant
Less Than Significant
Impact/No Changes
or New Information
Equal impact
Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Significant and
Unavoidable
Significant and
Unavoidable Equal Impact
Air Quality Significant and
Unavoidable
Significant and
Unavoidable Equal Impact
Biological Resources Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less than Significant
Impacts/No Change
or New Information
Equal impact
Cultural Resources Significant and
Unavoidable
Less than Significant
Impacts/No Changes
or New Information
Less Impact
Geology and Soils Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less than Significant
Impacts/No Changes
or New Information
Equal impact
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact/No Changes
or New Information
Equal impact
❖ SECTION 2.0 – RATIONALE FOR PREPARING AN ADDENDUM ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 2-4
July 2024
Environmental Issue
Westgate Specific Plan
EIR Conclusions for
Previously Certified
Westgate Specific Plan1
Addendum
Conclusions for
Modified Project
Modified Project Impacts
in Comparison to
Conclusions of the
Westgate Specific Plan
EIR
Hazardous Materials Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact/No Changes
or New Information
Equal impact
Hydrology/Water
Quality Less than Significant
Less Than Significant
Impact/No Changes
or New Information
Equal impact
Land Use & Planning Less than Significant
Less Than Significant
Impact/No Changes
or New Information
Equal impact
Mineral Resources2 No Impact No Impact Equal impact
Noise Significant and
Unavoidable
Less than Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or New
Information
Equal Impact
Population and Housing Less than Significant
Less than Significant
Impacts/No Changes
or New Information
No Impact
Equal impact
Public Services Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact/No Changes
or New Information
Equal impact
Recreation Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less than Significant
Impacts/No Change
or New Information
Equal impact
Traffic/Transportation Significant and
Unavoidable
Less than Significant
Impacts/No Changes
or New Information
Less Impact
Utilities Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less than Significant
Impacts/No Change
or New Information
Less impact
Wildfire Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Less than Significant
Impacts/No Change
or New Information
Equal Impact
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Significant and
Unavoidable Impact
Less than Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or New
Information
Less Impact
1Source: PCR Services Corporation (PCR). 2015. Westgate Specific Plan Draft EIR. January. Table ES-1, Summary of
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
2 Source: Source: PCR. 2013. Westgate Specific Plan Initial Study. July. p. B-14
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-1
July 2024
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Approved Project and Modified Project Locations and Settings
3.1.1 Approved Project
The Westgate Specific Plan (WSP) area encompasses 964 acres in the northwestern portion of the
City of Fontana (City). The WSP site is approximately five miles north and west of downtown Fontana,
ten miles west of Downtown San Bernardino, and is adjacent to the I-15 and Route 210 freeways
(Westgate Specific Plan [JHA Consulting, 2017, p. 1-1]). Figure 3.1-1 depicts the regional location of
the WSP area. The WSP is composed of four community areas, from north to south: Falcon Ridge,
Westgate Central, Westgate East, and Westgate West. Figure 3.1-2 shows the community planning
areas of the WSP. Additionally, each community area is divided into planning areas (PAs), which are
areas that have a specific type of development planned. The City of Fontana (City) originally approved
the WSP in 1996. The City approved an Amendment 1 (Amendment 1) to the WSP in February 2017,
and certified an FEIR for Amendment 1 (SCH No. 1995052002). Amendment 1 permits a mix of
residential, commercial, open space, and school uses and roadways including 3,248 residential units,
364 acres of commercial uses, and about 135 acres of open space uses. The WSP area also includes
the full width of public roadway rights-of-way abutting each of the four community areas.
3.1.2 Modified Project
The modified project site is located within Planning Area 27 in the north part of the Westgate East
community area (refer to Figure 3.1-3), surrounded by vacant land opposite San Sevaine Road to the
east and South Highland Avenue to the south; a utility corridor to the west; and SR -210 to the north
(Google Earth Pro, 2023) (refer to Figures 3.1-4 and 3.1-5). The modified project site is 17.5 acres in
area. The modified project proposes development of two identical medical office buildings, each four
stories and 104,000 square feet in building area, for total building area of 208,000 square feet;
surface parking; and landscaping.
3.2 Existing Land Use and Zoning
The modified project site is currently active agricultural land used as an organic vineyard (Lee,
2024a).
• General Plan Land Use Designation: Regional Mixed Use (RMU) (Westgate Specific Plan
[JHA Consulting, 2017, p. 1-5]). Refer to Figure 3.2-1.
• Zoning Designation: Specific Plan (Westgate Specific Plan #17), with designation Mixed-Use
1 (MU-1) (Westgate Specific Plan [JHA Consulting, 2017, p. 3-21]); see Figure 3.2-2.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-2
July 2024
Figure 3.1-1
REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-3
July 2024
Figure 3.1-2
WESTGATE SPECIFIC PLAN COMMUNITY AREAS
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-4
July 2024
Figure 3.1-3
WESTGATE EAST COMMUMNITY AREA
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-5
July 2024
Figure 3.1-4
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-6
July 2024
Figure 3.1-5
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-7
July 2024
3.3 Background and Purpose
The Westgate Specific Plan was adopted in 1996 by the City of Fontana. Since that time, the region
has experienced substantial growth and the dynamics of the area have changed considerably. The
Route 210 / I-15 Freeway overpass has been completed, with the 210 Freeway extending easterly to
the I-215 Freeway then south to the I-10 Freeway. The overall quality of new development has
improved in the region, as consumers and municipalities such as Fontana have become more
discerning. Greater emphasis has also emerged statewide and nationally for developing sustainable
communities striving to encourage conservation of resources, energy efficiency, reduction of water
consumption, and to promote healthy buildings and communities.
Westgate Specific Plan Amendment 1, approved through an environmental impact report (EIR)
certified in 2017, permits a range of commercial uses on PA 27 including a broad range of business,
commercial retail, medical, educational, entertainment, commercial services, and other
complementary uses.
The modified project proposes development of two identical medical office buildings, each four
stories and 104,000 square feet in building area, for total building area of 208,000 square feet;
surface parking; and landscaping.
The modified project is compared to the Approved Project below in Table 3.3-1.
Table 3.3-1
APPROVED PROJECT COMPARED TO MODIFIED PROJECT
Planning Area 27
Scenario Land Use and Units
Approved Project Commercial (a range of permitted uses), up to 305,100 square feet
Modified Project Medical Office, 208,000 square feet
3.4 Project Overview
The modified project would consist of: (1) utilities improvements; (2) roadway improvements; (3)
construction of two new four-story medical office buildings totaling 208,000 square feet, and surface
parking (1,060 spaces); and (4) project site amenities and landscaping.
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-8
July 2024
Figure 3.4-1
SITE PLAN
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-9
July 2024
Figure 3.4-2
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-10
July 2024
Figure 3.4-3
THIRD/FOURTH FLOOR PLANS
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-11
July 2024
Figure 3.4-4
ELEVATIONS
❖ SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-12
July 2024
Figure 3.4-5
RENDERING
❖ SECTION 3.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-0
July 2024
3.5 Project Features
3.5.1 Medical Office Buildings
The modified project includes development of two identical 4-story medical office buildings totaling
208,000 square feet building area. The project site plan is shown on Figure 3.5-1. The first-floor plan
of one of the buildings is shown on Figure 3.5-2; a third/fourth floor plan is shown on Figure 3.5-3;
an elevation of one of the buildings is shown on Figure 3.5-4; and a rendering of the two buildings is
shown on Figure 3.5-5.
3.6 Landscaping
The modified project would install landscaping, all of which would be drought tolerant to conserve
water.
3.7 Access and Circulation
Project site ingress and egress would be via three driveways – two along Highland Avenue and one
along San Sevaine Street. Circulation within the project site would be along proposed paved paths.
All driveways and paths would adhere to the city’s development standards. Surface parking (1,060
spaces) would be provided, exceeding the City code requirement of 1,040 spaces.
3.8 Utilities
Most of the following information is from the approved WSP (Westgate Specific Plan [JHA Consulting,
2017]) as appropriate and still applies to the proposed Modified Project. The proposed project would
include utility connections to South Highland Avenue.
Sanitary Sewer – The City of Fontana would provide wastewater collection from the Westgate
Specific Plan area. Currently, sewage is collected by the City and then transported via pipelines to the
Inland Empire Utility Agency (IEUA), with whom the City contracts for treatment and disposal
(Westgate Specific Plan [JHA Consulting, 2017, p. 3-55]). Proposed sewer mains within the project
site would discharge to an existing main in South Highland Avenue.
Domestic Water – The Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) would serve water for the project
site (Westgate Specific Plan [JHA Consulting, 2017, p. 3-55]). Proposed domestic water mains within
the project site would connect to an existing main in South Highland Avenue.
Storm Drain – Approved Project storm drainage plans include a 42-inch storm drain in Highland
Avenue, and a storm drain in a segment of Cherry Avenue extending from Highland Avenue south to
Walnut Avenue that would be 42 inches along part of its length and 60 inches along the remainder.
The planned storm drain in Cherry Avenue would discharge into an existing 60-inch storm drain in
Cherry Avenue extending south to Baseline Avenue where it would discharge into an existing double
14-foot by 8-foot storm drain that extends west till it discharges into San Sevaine Channel.
❖ SECTION 3.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-1
July 2024
Dry Utilities:
Electricity
Southern California Edison Company (SCE) serves the modified project site (, Westgate Specific Plan
[JHA Consulting, 2017, p. 3-57]). The project applicant will be required to construct all on-site
underground substructures per the city’s policy that meets the California Public Utility Commissions
(CPUC) rules and SCE specifications (City of Fontana, 2017, p. 3-57).
Gas
The Southern California Gas Company (SCG) serves the modified project site (Westgate Specific Plan
[JHA Consulting, 2017, p. 3-58]).
Telephone Service
Westgate East, including the modified project site, would be served by AT&T (Westgate Specific Plan,
2017, p. 3-58]).
Cable Television
Time Warner Cable provides cable television services to the modified project site (Westgate Specific
Plan [JHA Consulting, 2017, p. 3-58]).
Photovoltaic Solar
Photovoltaic solar panels would be installed on overhead (“carport”) structures over two of the
proposed parking lots, one east of the proposed buildings and one west.
3.8.1 Offsite Improvements
Offsite improvements would consist of utilities installations in South Highland Avenue.
3.9 Construction Activities
Construction would be carried out in several phases; the construction schedule is shown below in
Table 3.9-1.
Table 3.9-1
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Phase Start (month) End (month) Duration
Site Preparation June 2024 July 2024 1 month
Grading July 2024 September 2024 2 months
Building Construction August 2024 October 2025 14 months
Paving and Landscaping August 2025 September 2025 1 month
Source: Lee, 2023
❖ SECTION 3.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-2
July 2024
3.10 Standard Requirements and Conditions of Approval
The proposed project would be reviewed in detail by all City of Fontana departments and divisions
responsible for reviewing land use applications’ compliance with City codes and regulations. City
staff is also responsible for reviewing this Addendum to ensure that it i s technically accurate and is
in full compliance with CEQA. The departments and divisions at the City of Fontana responsible for
technical review include:
• Community Development Department Building and Safety Division
• Community Development Department Planning Division
• City of Fontana Public Works Department
• City of Fontana Fire Protection District.
3.11 Discretionary Actions
Project Entitlements
• Development Agreement; and
• Other permits of approval, as necessary
Permits and Approvals
The following permits and approvals would be required prior to construction.
Table 3.6-1
PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Agency Permit or Approval
Discretionary Approvals by City of Fontana
City of Fontana Building & Safety Division Site Plan review and approval, Building plan check &
permit approvals.
City of Fontana Planning Division Development Agreement; Design Review approval.
Ministerial Approvals by City of Fontana; and third-party approvals
City of Fontana Fire Protection District
Building plan check and approval. Review for
compliance with the 2022 California Fire Code, 2022
California Building Code, California Health & Safety
Code and Fontana Municipal Code.
Plans for fire detection and alarm systems, and
automatic sprinklers.
Cucamonga Valley Water District
Letter of authorization/consent for proposed
improvements to provide water supply connection to
new development.
Southern California Gas Company
Letter of authorization/consent for proposed
improvements to provide natural gas connection to
new development.
❖ SECTION 3.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 3-3
July 2024
Agency Permit or Approval
Southern California Edison Company
Letter of authorization/consent for proposed
improvements to provide electrical supply connection
to new development.
City of Fontana Public Works (Sewer Provider)
Letter of authorization/consent for proposed
improvements to provide sewer connection to new
development.
AT&T Internet Service Providers
❖ SECTION 4.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4-1
July 2024
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that would represent a new significant environmental effect, a substantial increase
in the severity of a significant impact previously identified, or new information of substantial
importance, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agricultural and Forest Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities / Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination (To Be Completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by
or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to
be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
I find that the amended project has previously been analyzed as part of an earlier CEQA
document. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous documentation
adequate to cover the project which are documented in this ADDENDUM to the earlier CEQA
document (CEQA § 15164).
Signature Date
Printed Name Title
❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.1-1
July 2024
4.1 Aesthetics
4.1.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR)
Analysis and Conclusions
Views/Scenic Vistas (Impact 4.A-1): Implementation of the Approved Specific Plan (Previous
Approved Project) would incrementally obstruct views of and across the site over time. With
maximum structural heights ranging between 35 and 60 feet (without rooftop architectural features)
throughout the various Planning Areas, mid‐range and long‐distance views generally would be
partially or completely obstructed by buildout of proposed uses.
The City of Fontana identifies a number of scenic corridors within the City, several of which are
located within the project area. The east‐west corridors of Baseline Avenue and Highland Avenue,
the north‐south corridor of Cherry Avenue, and the elevated freeway corridors of I‐15 and SR‐210
are considered significant view corridors within the project area, as they afford long‐distance views
of scenic resources such as the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains to the north, east, and
west, and the Jurupa Hills to the south. While implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would
partially or completely obstruct certain views of and across the site, views of these identified scenic
resources from designated view corridors would generally be maintained alon g the roadway
corridors. Specifically, views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and Jurupa Hills to the south
would be preserved along Cherry Avenue’s north‐south alignment, while views of the San Bernardino
Mountains to the east and San Gabriel Mountain foothills to the west would be maintained along the
east‐west alignment of Baseline Avenue and Highland Avenue.
Additionally, given the elevated location of the I‐15 and SR‐210 corridors, views of scenic resources
from these highway segments would not be substantially reduced. Future development of proposed
uses within the Specific Plan area could reduce or eliminate views of scenic resources from certain
areas within and adjacent to the project site. However, significant views of the San Gabriel
Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains, and Jurupa Hills would generally be at least partially
preserved along City‐designated view corridors. As such, impacts to scenic vistas resulting from
implementation of the modified project would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services,
2015, pp, 4.A-16 and -17]).
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure: None Required.
Visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings (Impact 4.A-2): The Previous
Approved Project Area, with the exception of developed portions of the Specific Plan area such as
Falcon Ridge Town Center and Caltrans Southern Regional Lab, lacks notable scenic features such as
natural landforms or vegetation, urban development with consistent design elements, landscaping,
or other visually pleasing characteristics, the visual quality of the site is considered relatively low
(WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.A-1]). No designated state or county scenic highways exist in
the vicinity of the Approved Project site. In addition, it is anticipated that future development
associated with the previous Approved Project would result in an improvement in the visual
character of the area, and a less than significant impact is anticipated and no mitigation is required
(WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.A-17 – 4.A-18]).
❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.1-2
July 2024
Construction
The vast majority of the WSP project site is vacant. Therefore, the existing condition generally does
not contribute to the visual quality or aesthetic value of the area. Future construction of proposed
uses would require site clearing and grading activities within each affected Planning Area, followed
by trenching/utility installation and street and building construction. Construction activities would
occur intermittently throughout implementation of the proposed Specific Plan, with market forces
determining the timing and location of each development project. Construction activities at any one
location would be temporary and would therefore only result in impacts for the duration of
construction within that particular Planning Area. Nonetheless, given the undeveloped nature of the
Approved Project area, short‐term adverse visual character impacts could occur during temporary
construction activities as equipment, materials, personnel, temporary structures (contractor
trailers), worker vehicles, and other features would be located on the development site. While site
clearing and grading, as well as the placement of construction equipment, vehicles, materials, and
other visually unappealing features on the project site, could detract from the visual character of the
project site, this impact is not considered significant due to the disturbed nature of the project site
and lack of notable visual features onsite. Furthermore, construction fencing with visual screening
would be installed around the perimeter of all construction areas, thereby minimizing the potential
for substantial adverse aesthetic/visual character impacts during construction activities (WSP Draft
EIR [PCR Services, 2015a, pp. 4.A-17]).
Operations
The WSP FEIR stated that the vast majority of the Approved Project site is characterized by disturbed,
undeveloped land that was historically used for vineyards or other agricultural activities, and therefore very
few structures currently exist onsite. (However, for clarification the Approved Project site is actually still
active agricultural land currently used as an organic vineyard and there are no structures onsite.) The site
also generally lacks aesthetic improvements such as landscaping or other visual buffers. Implementation of
the proposed Specific Plan would result in the long‐term, incremental development of urban uses within
the various Planning Areas, which would fundamentally change the visual character of the Approved
Project site. However, future development pursuant to the Specific Plan would be consistent with applicable
policies of the General Plan Community Design Element that encourage new development that exhibits
unified and visually cohesive urban design elements. Development of future uses in accordance with the
various Specific Plan development standards and design guidelines, therefore, would represent an
improvement in visual quality relative to the existing vacant, undeveloped condition of the majority of the
Approved Project site. Thus, despite the conversion of vacant land to urban uses, development of proposed
uses would serve to improve the overall visual character of the Approved Project site since the Specific
Plan includes development standards and design guidelines that ensure visually cohesive and attractive
urban design patterns within the various Planning Areas. As discussed previously, these development
standards and design guidelines regulate allowable uses, structural heights, setbacks, wall/fence features,
landscaping, signage, and lighting throughout the Specific Plan area, which precludes the potential for
incompatible or inconsistent development patterns or urban designs. The City identifies five scenic
roadway corridors within the Approved Project area, including B aseline Avenue, Highland Avenue,
Cherry Avenue, and the I‐15 and SR‐210 corridors. The proposed Specific Plan, consistent with the
City’s General Plan, includes extensive streetscape and landscape improvements along all roadways
within the Plan area, including Baseline Avenue, Highland Avenue, and Cherry Avenue. These
improvements would serve to meet the intent of the General Plan for these scenic thoroughfares and
provide visual relief along the affected segments of the roadways, consistent with the existi ng and
proposed surrounding development. Furthermore, landscape screening would be provided along the
Approved Project boundaries adjacent to the I‐15 and SR‐210 freeway corridors to provide visual
❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.1-3
July 2024
relief for future development in adjacent Planning Areas, which would reduce visual quality impacts
along the freeway alignments (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015a, pp. 4.A-17 – 4.A-18]).
Overall, since all development within the Specific Plan boundaries would be required to comply with
the Specific Plan development standards and design guidelines, which would represent an aesthetic
improvement relative to existing site conditions, and designated scenic roadway corridors would be
improved with landscaping and other design treatments, implementation of the Plan would result in
improved overall visual character relative to existing conditions. The WSP FEIR stated that despite
the conversion of the Approved Project site from vacant land to urban uses, the proposed Specific
Plan would result in less than significant operational visual character impacts (WSP Draft EIR [PCR
Services, 2015a, p. 4.A-18]).
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure: None Required.
New Sources of Light and Glare (Impact 4.A-3):
Construction
Lighting needed during project construction could generate light spillover in the vicinity of the
project including residential uses to the south and east. However, construction activities would occur
primarily during daylight hours and any construction‐related ill umination would be used for safety
and security purposes only, in compliance with FMC light intensity requirements. Construction
lighting also would last only as long as needed in the finite construction process. Thus, with the
implementation of existing FMC regulations, artificial light associated with construction activities
would not significantly impact residential uses, substantially alter the character of off‐site areas
surrounding the construction area, or interfere with the performance of an off‐site activity.
Therefore, artificial light impacts associated with construction would be less than significant.
Construction activities are not anticipated to result in large expanses of flat, shiny surfaces that would
reflect sunlight or cause other natural glare. Therefore, less than significant construction‐related
impacts with respect to reflected sunlight and natural glare are anticipated.
Operation
Artificial Light
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan over the long‐term would incrementally increase the
relatively low levels of ambient light under the existing conditions. Light‐sensitive land uses in the
area include residential uses along Baseline Avenue, Highland Avenue, Cherry Avenue, Lytle Creek
Road, and Summit Drive. New light sources within the Specific Plan area would include light from
windows of residential structures and retail uses (and to a lesser extent office uses given typical
business hours), outdoor architectural lighting, parking lot lighting, and sign‐related lighting, as well
as light from street lights, vehicles traveling along on‐site and adjacent roadways, and security
lighting. Such lighting has the potential to create a “glow” effect wi thin and around the project area,
including adjacent residential neighborhoods, and result in an overall increase ambient light in the
area. This increase in ambient lighting, however, is not expected to interfere with activities in on‐site
or adjacent residential neighborhoods, as they already would be subject to similar lighting
conditions. As noted previously, up to 20.0 acres of business park uses within Planning Area 24 could
❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.1-4
July 2024
be replaced with high density residential uses, which could result in additional light sources within
the residential portions of the planning area. However, the effect of the incremental increase in light
sources associated with the residential uses would be negligible in the context of the overall
development pattern in the area, which would include indoor and outdoor lighting and intervening
structures and vegetation that would limit light‐related impacts to adjacent uses.
Exterior lighting would also include lighting provided at vehicle entry points and areas of circulation;
points of entry into buildings; along the exterior façades of buildings; and other outdoor areas (e.g.,
parks, paseos, common open space areas) for both architectural highlighting and security purposes.
Lighting for security purposes would occur from dusk to dawn to ensure the safety of residents,
employees, and visitors. Lighting would primarily consist of a mix of standard incandescent light
fixtures, as well as various types of efficient/low energy fixtures. Lighting would be designed and
strategically placed to minimize glare and light spill onto adjacent properties. Specifically, any pole‐
mounted light fixtures located on‐site or within the adjacent public rights‐of‐way would be shielded
and directed towards the areas to be lit and away from adjacent sensitive uses. In addition, all project
lighting would comply with the FMC and/or the Specific Plan requirements listed above that have
been established to limit light spill on light‐sensitive (residential) uses.
Based on the above, with adherence to the Specific Plan lighting guidelines and any other applicable
FMC regulations, lighting associated with the project would not substantially alter the character of
the off‐site areas surrounding the project site and would not interfere with the performance of an
off‐site activity. Impacts attributable to project‐induced artificial lighting would be less than
significant.
Glare
Daytime glare can result from sunlight reflecting from a shiny surface that would interfere with the
performance of an off‐site activity, such as the operation of a motor vehicle. Reflective surfaces can
be associated with window glass and polished surfaces, such as metallic or glass curtain walls and
trim. Glare generation within the project vicinity is limited, as surrounding development consists
predominately of low‐ rise residential and commercial buildings that generally lack large expanses
of glass or other reflective materials. Glare‐sensitive uses in the project area include single‐family
residential uses located to the south and east of the project site, and no glare‐sensitive uses are
currently located within the project area. Future development would be subject to the Specific Plan
development standards and design guidelines, which include provisions for architectural design
(including window design/placement), types of building materials, and landscape screening, and
would therefore minimize glare impacts to adjacent or other off‐site land uses. Given the nature of
future uses and associated design requirements, glare impacts are anticipated to be less than
significant.
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less than Significant Impact.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: None Required.
4.1.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
The modified project’s potential impacts on aesthetics and visual resources have been evaluated in
light of the present environmental regulatory setting. The modified project would be similar to the
previous Approved Project because it would be consistent with the requirements of the City’s General
Plan and Municipal Code. The project is not located in the vicinity of a designated State or County
❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.1-5
July 2024
scenic highway and therefore would not impact scenic resources associated with a designated scenic
highway. As with the Approved Project, the modified project would introduce new structures and
open space in the project area that are attractive, well-landscaped and well maintained and therefore
have a positive effect on the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings. New lighting
installed as a result of project implementation would conform to the requirements of the City’s
Municipal Code (Chapter 30) and the Community Design Element of the General Plan as appropriate,
to reduce the potential for light and/or glare effects to occur. Therefore, impacts associated with
implementation of the project would be similar to those of the previous Appr oved Project and no
additional significant impacts beyond those identified for the previous Approved Project would
occur.
4.1.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist responses compare the previous Approved Project analyzed under the
certified WSP FEIR with the project as described in this document, and analyze the potential impacts
resulting from the development of the modified project.
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees,
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
Scenic vistas generally include extensive panoramic views of natural features, unusual terrain, or
unique urban or historic features, for which the field of view can be wide and extend into the distance,
or can be narrow and focus on a particular object, scene or feature of interest.
❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.1-6
July 2024
The City of Fontana considers views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains to the north,
east, and west, and the Jurupa Hills to the south to be significant scenic vistas (WSP Draft EIR, 2015a,
p. 4.A-16]). Views surrounding the project site are shown in Figure 4.1-1 below, which depict a mix
of urban development and distant mountain views. The modified project would develop two four-
story medical office buildings, 74 feet high. The modified project site is designated MU-1, Mixed Use-
1, under the WSP. The WSP does not specify a maximum building height in zone MU-1 except that
building height is limited to a floor area ratio of 1.0. The proposed medical office use FAR would be
0.273, within the limit of 1.0. Therefore, no new significant impacts to scenic vistas would occur.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
There are no official state scenic highways within or adjacent to the project site. The nearest official
state scenic highway is a portion of the SR-2 highway, approximately 15 miles northwest of the
project site (Caltrans, 2022) (see Figure 4.1-2 below). Therefore, due to the distance between the
project site and the nearest official scenic highway, the modified project would not substantially
damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway. No new impact would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.1-7
July 2024
Figure 4.1-1
VIEWS SURROUNDING THE PROJECT SITE
❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.1-8
July 2024
Figure 4.1-2
SCENIC HIGHWAYS
❖ SECTION 4.1 - AESTHETICS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.1-0
July 2024
c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
Construction
Project construction could temporarily degrade the visual character of the project area and
immediate surroundings. The modified project site is vacant and has no significant scenic resources.
The nature and scale of construction activities for the modified project would not differ substantially
from construction activities for the approved project within the modified project site. All
construction activities would be temporary and visual screening would be implemented to minimize
visual impacts during construction. Therefore, no new construction impact on the visual character of
the site and its surroundings would occur.
Operation
The modified project would be built in accordance to the Specific Plan development standards and
design guidelines. Therefore, modified project development would represent an improvement in
visual quality compared to existing conditions, as would the approved project. Therefore, modified
project operation would not cause any new significant impact to the visual character of the site and
surroundings.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
The modified project would increase lighting in the area by creating new sources of light, including security
lighting. Exterior lighting plans for parking and other site areas would be required at the design review
stage to identify preliminary lighting fixture layout and type of fixture. Additionally, new lighting installed
as a result of modified project development would conform to the requirements of Fontana Municipal Code
(Section 30-655) and the Community Design Element of the General Plan as appropriate, to reduce the
potential for light and/or glare effects to occur. The City of Fontana requires outdoor lighting fixtures to be
aimed and shielded, thereby reducing the potential for glare effects or light spillover onto adjacent
properties. Therefore, no new significant light and glare impacts would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.2-1
July 2024
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
4.2.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR)
Analysis and Conclusions
Agricultural and Forestry Resources (Impact 4.B.1): The WSP FEIR stated that the “area is not
currently being utilized for significant agricultural operations, although a large portion of the project
site was historically used for vineyards. Furthermore, no other agricultural production occurs in the
areas surrounding this specific plan area.” (However, for clarification the Approved Project site is
actually still active agricultural land currently used as an organic vineyard.)
As discussed in the certified WSP FEIR, under Section E, Significant and Unavoidable Environmental
Impact, it was concluded that the development of the Approved Project would accelerate the
conversion of agricultural lands and loss of agricultural uses in the City and the region. The loss of
agricultural lands would therefore be considered significant, even with the implementation of
applicable mitigation measures. Loss of these lands would also be considered cumulatively
considerable from a regional perspective (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015a, p. ES-8]).
According to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), the WSP area contains
approximately 444 acres of Unique Farmland, 104 acres of Grazing Land, 105 acres of Urban and
Built Up Land, and 312 acres of Other Land.
The CDC’s Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model is composed of six different factors,
which evaluated the Approved Project lands. Two Land Evaluation (LE) factors are based upon
measures of soil resource quality. Four Site Assessment (SA) factors provide measures of a project
site’s size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected
resource lands intended to measure social, economic, and geographic attributes that contribute to
the overall value of agricultural land (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015a, p. 4.B-9]).
Based on the evaluation in the LESA worksheets, the final score for the Approved Project was
53.54 points out of a possible 100 points, with a LE score of 24.29, and a SA score of 29.25. The total
LESA score was between 40 and 59 points, which is considered significant only if LE and SA sub‐
scores are each greater than or equal to 20 points. As both of the scores associated with the LE factors
or the SA factors were above the threshold of 20 points, the WSP DEIR indicated that the
implementation of the Approved Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on
farmland and agricultural resources (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015a, p. 4.B-9]).
➢ Approved Project Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impact.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
No. Mitigation Measure
B-1
Prior to future project approval, for the on‐site land that is mapped as Unique Farmland, the
project proponent shall allow agricultural activities to continue or resume on such farmland for
a period of time as long as practicable until development of such land pursuant to the project,
thereby allowing agricultural use up to and until the land is prepared for development and/or
development‐related activities pursuant to the project.
❖ SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.2-2
July 2024
No. Mitigation Measure
B-2
Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the project
proponent shall complete of one or more of the following measures to mitigate the loss
of agricultural land before conversion:
• For on‐site land that is mapped as Unique Farmland, the project proponent
shall make displaced topsoil available to less productive agricultural lands in
the surrounding region, including on similarly mapped agricultural land within
San Bernardino County or within the San Joaquin Valley (San Joaquin,
Stanislaus, Merced, Fresno, Madera, Kings, Tulare, or Kern County). Such
dispersion of displaced topsoil can add productivity and yield to other
farmland;
• For on‐site land that is mapped as Unique Farmland and designated in the
project as Open Space/Utility Corridor totaling approximately 43 acres, subject
to existing utility easements and restrictions and City trails and setbacks,
preserve such land for agricultural uses; and
• For on‐site land that is not mapped as Unique Farmland or other farmland
designation and is designated in the project as Open Space/Utility Corridor
totaling approximately 44 acres, subject to existing utility easements and
restrictions and City trails and setbacks, dedicate such land for agricultural
uses.
Source: WSP Draft EIR, PCR Services, 2015a, p. 4.B-11
4.2.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
The modified project’s potential impacts on agriculture and forestry resources have been evaluated
in light of the present environmental regulatory setting. As discussed in Section 4.2.1 above, the WSP
FEIR concluded that the Previous Approved Project would cause significant and unavoidable impacts
on farmland and agricultural resources. As a result of prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland
of statewide importance within the Approved Project boundaries being developed, significant and
unavoidable impacts would occur. Therefore, the City of Fontana previously prepared a Statement of
Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines relating to
Agriculture and Forestry Resources pertaining to the Previous Approved Project. The Westgate
Specific Plan contains approximately 444 acres of Unique Farmland, 104 acres of Grazing Land,
105 acres of Urban and Built-Up Land, and 312 acres of Other Land. (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services,
2015a, p. 4.B-2]). The entire 17.5-acre modified project site is designated as Unique Farmland (DOC,
2022) as shown on Figure 4.2-1. The impacts on agricultural resources from the modified project
would still remain significant and unavoidable.
❖ SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.2-3
July 2024
Figure 4.2-1
IMPORTANT FARMLANDS
❖ SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.2-4
July 2024
4.2.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
§ 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Codes § 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government
Code § 51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
X
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
As shown in Figure 4.2-1, the entire approximately 17.5-acre project site is designated as Unique
Farmland on the California Important Farmland Finder (CIFF) maintained by the Division of Land
Resource Protection. The Certified EIR determined that impacts of the Approved Project on
important farmland would be significant and unavoidable after the implementation of mitigation
❖ SECTION 4.2 – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.2-5
July 2024
measures. Impacts of the modified project on mapped important farmland are presumed here to be
significant. No Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) analysis is required here for the modified
project, as the City of Fontana already adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
significant and unavoidable impact of the Approved Project. Therefore, modified project
development would not cause any new impact on mapped farmland.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
No Impact
No portion of the City of Fontana is currently under a Williamson Act contract (WSP Draft EIR, 2015a,
p. 4.B-3]). The zoning designation for the project site is Specific Plan (Westgate Specific Plan #17),
with designation MU-1 (Mixed Use-1) (Westgate Specific Plan [JHA Consulting, 2017, p. 3-21]).
Therefore, there would be no conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act
contract, and no new impact would occur.
c) Would the project (c) conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public Resources Code § 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Codes § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code § 51104(g))?
No Impact
The zoning designation for the project site is Specific Plan (Westgate Specific Plan #17), with
designation MU-1 (Mixed Use-1) (Westgate Specific Plan [JHA Consulting, 2017, p. 3-21]). Modified
project development would not conflict with existing zoning or cause the rezoning of forest land,
timberland, or timberland-zoned timberland production. No new impact would occur.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
No Impact
There are no forest lands present on the project site. Therefore, modified project development would
not cause any loss of forest land, or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use, and no new impact
would occur.
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural
use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
The modified project would cause a significant impact to Unique Farmland. However, the City of
Fontana issued a Statement of Overriding Considerations as part of the Certified FEIR. No forest land
is present on the modified project site and development would not convert any such land to other
uses. Therefore, no new changes would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.3 - AIR QUALITY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.3-1
July 2024
4.3 Air Quality
4.3.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR)
Analysis and Conclusions
Air Quality Plan Conflicts. (Impact 4.C-1): Implementation of the WSP would result in a less than
significant impact related to the Congestion Management Plan but since the approved WSP
contemplated substantially higher development intensity than was included in the originally adopted
1996 WSP, the approved WSP would exceed the growth projections for the project site contained in
the City’s General Plan. It would also not be consistent with the projections in the 2012 Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP). Adherence to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules
and regulations, General Plan policies, and implementation of applicable WSP Final EIR Mitigation
Measures C-1 through C-21 would reduce this impact, but not to a less than significant level. This
impact would remain significant and unavoidable (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015a, pp. 4.C-38 to
4.C-40]).
➢ Approved Project Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
Violation of Air Quality Standards. (Impact 4.C-2): Implementation of the WSP would potentially
violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation. Maximum regional construction emissions would exceed the SCAQMD daily significance
thresholds, resulting in potentially significant short‐term impacts, and regional operational
emissions would exceed the SCAQMD daily significance threshold at completion of Phase I and at
buildout. Adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations, General Plan policies, and implementation of
applicable WSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-21 would reduce this impact, but not to
a less than significant level. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable (WSP Draft EIR
[PCR Services, 2015a, pp. 4.C-40 to 4.C-49]).
➢ Approved Project Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
Cumulative Pollutant Increases (Impact 4.C-3): Implementation of the WSP would potentially result
in a cumulatively considerable net increase of nonattainment criteria pollutants. Adherence to
SCAQMD rules and regulations, General Plan policies, and implementation of applicable WSP Final EIR
Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-21 would reduce this impact, but not to a less than significant
level. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015a,
pp. 4.C-49 to 4.C-50]).
➢ Approved Project Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
Exposure to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations (Impact 4.C-4): Implementation of the WSP would
potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Onsite construction
emissions from future development pursuant to the proposed Specific Plan could potentially cause
or contribute to locally significant air quality impacts as they would potentially exceed the SCAQMD
localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and particulate matter less than
10 micrometers (PM10). Thus, localized construction impacts of Phase I future projects could
potentially exceed the LSTs. Onsite operational sources of emissions would be relatively minimal and
would be required to comply with SCAQMD rules and permitting requirements as applicable. Onsite
operational emissions are not expected to exceed the SCAQMD localized thresholds for NO X, PM10,
and particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). Thus, localized operational impacts
associated with project implementation would not exceed the LSTs and impacts would be less than
❖ SECTION 4.3 - AIR QUALITY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.3-2
July 2024
significant. The WSP would not contribute to the formation of carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots and
would result in less than significant impacts with respect to CO hotspots. Construction activities
would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial or long-term toxic air contaminant (TAC)
emissions. Therefore, construction would result in a less than significant impact. Operation would
not expose off‐site sensitive receptors to substantial sources of TAC emissions. Therefore, operation
would result in a less than significant impact on offsite receptors. Operation would potentially locate
onsite sensitive receptors near freeways (I‐15 and I-210), which may expose onsite sensitive
receptors to substantial sources of motor vehicle TAC emissions. Therefore, operation would result
in a potentially significant impact on onsite receptors. Mitigation is provided to ensure that future
developments pursuant to the proposed Specific Plan do not locate within the separation distance
recommended in the California Air Resources Board (ARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook or that
dispersion modeling is performed to assess health impacts for future projects that do locate sensitive
land uses within the recommended separation distance.
➢ Approved Project Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
Odors (Impact 4.C-5): Implementation of the WSP would not create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people. Future development pursuant to the WSP consists of residential,
commercial, educational, and recreational uses that are not expected to be a source o f offsite odor
complaints. In addition, the project is not located near any sources of odors identified by the SCAQMD
handbook. Therefore, construction of the WSP would have a less than significant impact.
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
The following air quality mitigation measures in the Final EIR are relevant to the modified project.
No. Mitigation Measure
C‐1 To minimize potential construction‐period VOC impacts, the City shall require future projects to use
architectural coatings which meet the SCAQMD “super‐compliant” VOC standard of <10 g/L, if readily
available from commercial suppliers.
C‐2 During project construction, the City shall require internal combustion engines/construction
equipment operating on future project sites greater than five acres to meet the following:
• At least 50 percent of construction equipment greater than 250 hp, which are on‐site for 6 or more
consecutive work days, shall meet Tier 3 emissions standards or better and be outfitted with BACT
devices (e.g., Level 3 diesel emissions control devices) certified by CARB.
• Post‐January 1, 2016, in additional [sic] to the Tier 3 standards specified above, an additional 20
percent or more of construction equipment greater than 250 hp, which are on‐site for 6 or more
consecutive work days, shall meet Tier 4 and be outfitted with BACT devices (e.g., Level 3 diesel
emissions control devices) certified by CARB.
• A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification and BACT documentation shall be available for
inspection during construction. The contractor(s) shall monitor and record compliance for each project
construction phase and document efforts undertaken to increase the use of compliant off‐road vehicles,
such as but not limited to bid solicitation documents, fleet registration of successful vendor(s), etc.
C‐2a During project construction, the City shall require diesel‐fueled on‐road haul trucks importing or
exporting soil or other materials to and from the project site to meet the USEPA model year 2007 or
newer on‐road emissions standards. A copy of each unit’s certified emissions standard
documentation shall be available during construction activities.
❖ SECTION 4.3 - AIR QUALITY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.3-3
July 2024
No. Mitigation Measure
C‐3 Construction contractors supplying heavy duty diesel equipment, greater than 50 hp, will be
encouraged to apply for AQMD SOON funds. Information including the AQMD website will be
provided to each contractor which uses heavy duty diesel for on‐site construction activities.
C‐4 All construction vehicles shall be prohibited from idling in excess of five minutes, both on‐ and off‐
site.
C‐5 All construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications.
C‐6 General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust
emissions by implementing the following construction measures:
• Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to maintain
smooth traffic flow.
• Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on‐ and off‐site.
• Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas.
• Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on‐site construction
activity including resolution of issues related to PM10 generation.
• Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization.
• Require the use of electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel [or] gasoline powered
generators.
C‐7 The City shall require future projects to comply with the following SCAQMD Applicable Rule 403
(Fugitive Dust) Measures:
• Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive
construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
• Water active sites at least three times daily (locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly
watered prior to earthmoving).
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered, or should maintain at least
two feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section
23114 (freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer).
• Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
• Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from main road.
• Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to 15 mph or less.
• Stockpiled dirt may be covered with a tarp to reduce the need for watering or soil stabilizers.
C‐8 The City shall require future projects greater than five acres to conduct individual localized impact
analysis using dispersion modeling. If such analysis produces significant impacts, with respect to the
SCAQMD air quality standards, future projects must mitigate impacts on the extent possible utilizing
approved mitigation measures such as those outlined in Mitigation Measures C‐1 through C‐7.
C‐13 The City shall require future residential, commercial, and industrial projects [to] promote the
expanded use of renewable fuel and low‐emission vehicles by including the following project
components: provide preferential parking for ultra‐low emission, zero‐emission, and alternative‐fuel
vehicles; and provide electric vehicle charging stations within the development. Future multi‐family
residential, commercial, and industrial projects shall be required to provide parking spaces capable
of supporting future installation of electric vehicle charging stations consistent with the CALGreen
code Tier 1 standards.
C‐14 The City shall require future projects to provide linkages and connections to adjacent off‐site trails,
walkways, and other pedestrian commuting routes.
❖ SECTION 4.3 - AIR QUALITY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.3-4
July 2024
No. Mitigation Measure
C‐16 Prior to future project approval, plans demonstrating that residential units are to be located a
minimum of 200 feet from the nearest right of way of Interstate 15 or State Route 210 and that the
units would be equipped with high‐efficiency air filters shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval. Residential units located within 500 feet from the closest right of way of Interstate 15 or
State Route 210 shall be equipped with high‐efficiency air filters with a rating of MERV 8 or better.
C‐17 Prior to future project approval, plans shall demonstrate that sensitive uses are to be located a
minimum separation distance from light industrial and commercial uses, as recommended in the
CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. For future projects that result in sensitive uses within
the recommended separation distance, an analysis, such as a project‐level health risk assessment,
shall demonstrate compliance with the SCAQMD health risk thresholds of significance or are
mitigated to the extent feasible.
C‐18 Residential, commercial, and industrial buildings, where appropriate and applicable, shall be
required to be constructed with solar‐ready rooftops that provide for the future installation of on‐
site solar photovoltaic (PV) or solar water heating (SWH) systems.
C‐19 Future implementing projects with residential, commercial, or industrial buildings or on‐site paved
surface areas, where appropriate and applicable, shall be required to be constructed with cool roofing
or cool pavement materials that would at a minimum meet the CALGreen code Tier 1 standards.
C‐20 Future implementing projects with residential and commercial buildings, where appropriate and
applicable, shall be required to install Energy Star‐rated or equivalent appliances.
C‐21 Tenants of future implementing projects shall be encourage [d] to use water‐based or low VOC
cleaning products. Information on water‐based or low VOC cleaning products can be obtained from
the following sources:
• South Coast Air Quality Management District:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/programs/business/business‐detail?title=low‐voc‐cleaning‐materials‐
equipment‐list,
• California Air Resources Board:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/indoor/cleaning_products_fact_sheet‐10‐2008.pdf,
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/greenhomes/protectingyourhealth.htm.
Source: WSP Draft EIR, PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.C-67 to 4.C-70; WSP Final EIR, PCR Services, pp. 3-4 and 3-5.
4.3.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
The modified project’s potential impacts on air quality have been evaluated considering the present
environmental regulatory setting. Unmitigated criteria pollutant emissions were calculated by the
ARB-approved CalEEMod emissions model. Emissions of all pollutants would be below significance
thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
4.3.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist responses compare the Approved Project with the modified project, and
analyze impacts resulting from modified project development.
❖ SECTION 4.3 - AIR QUALITY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.3-5
July 2024
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing
New or
Increased
Effects
Compared
to the
Certified
Westgate
Specific
Plan FEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring
the
Preparation
of an MND or
EIR
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
X
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation?
X
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard?
X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations? X
e) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
The Approved Project included development of PA 27 in accordance with zone MU-1 of the WSP.
Zone MU-1 permits a wide variety of commercial uses including business, commercial retail, medical,
educational, entertainment, commercial services. The Approved Project permitted development of
about 305,094 square feet of building area in PA 27. The medical office use proposed in the modified
project is within the range of uses permitted in the MU-1 zone. The modified project proposes
development of PA 27 with approximately two-thirds of the intensity permitted by the Approved
Project.
The Certified EIR concluded that the following air quality impacts of the Approved Project would be
significant and unavoidable: conflict with an air quality plan; violation of air quality standards;
cumulative pollutant increases; and exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations. The Certified
EIR also concluded that impacts regarding objectionable odors would be less than significant (see
further discussion above in Section 4.3.1).
As the medical office use proposed in the modified project is within the range of land uses permitted
by the Approved Project within the modified project site, and the building area proposed in the
modified project is substantially less that permitted on the modified project site by the Approved
Project, air quality impacts of the modified project would be within those analyzed for development
of the Approved Project within the modified project site.
❖ SECTION 4.3 - AIR QUALITY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.3-6
July 2024
This analysis applies to both construction and operational impacts. Most operational emissions are
generated by project-generated vehicle trips. Estimated vehicle trip generation within PA 27 used in
the Certified EIR was 3,474 trips per day (Kunzman, 2013, p. 36). Trip generation for the modified
project is estimated as 7,488 trips per day (Tucker, 2024).
Sensitive Receptors
Some people, such as individuals with respiratory illnesses or impaired lung function because of
other illnesses, persons over 65 years of age, and children under 14, are particularly sensitive to
certain pollutants. Facilities and structures where these sensitive people live or spend considerable
amounts of time are known as sensitive receptors. For the purposes of a CEQA analysis, the SCAQMD
considers a sensitive receptor to be a receptor such as a residence, hospital, or convalescent facility
where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours (Chico and Koizumi, 2008, p. 3 -2).
Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition of sensitive receptor, because
employees typically are present for shorter periods of time, such as eight hours.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are residences about 115 feet southeast of the
project site opposite the intersection of San Sevaine Road and South Highland Avenue. Those were
also the nearest sensitive receptors in 2017 when the Approved Project EIR was certified (Google
Earth Pro, 2023).
Impacts Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
Determination in Westgate Specific Plan EIR
Analysis for Impact 4.C-1 found that, despite implementation of applicable WSP Final EIR Mitigation
Measures C-1 through C-21, potential impacts from the WSP would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Modified Project Analysis
Since the 2015 WSP Final EIR, the SCAQMD adopted two new AQMPs, the latest of which is the 2022
AQMP (SCAQMD, 2022b). The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires that these plans be updated
triennially to incorporate the most recent available technical information. A multi-level partnership
of governmental agencies at the federal, state, regional, and local levels implement the programs
contained in these plans. Agencies involved include the USEPA, the ARB, local governments, Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG), and SCAQMD. The SCAQMD and the SCAG are
responsible for formulating and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the
SCAB. The SCAQMD updates its AQMP every three years.
The 2022 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Board on December 2, 2022. It focuses on reducing
ozone by limiting the emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) which are key reactants in ozone formation.
The NOx reductions are through extensive use of zero emission technologies across all stationary and
mobile sources categories. The majority of NOx emissions are from heavy-duty trucks, ships and other
❖ SECTION 4.3 - AIR QUALITY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.3-7
July 2024
state and federally regulated mobile sources that are mostly beyond the SCAQMD’s control. The
SCAQMD’s primary authority is over stationary sources, which account for approximately 20 percent
of the SCAB’s NOx emissions.
The AQMP incorporates updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories
and incorporates the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS) prepared by SCAG (2020). The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS was determined to conform to the
federally mandated State Implementation Plan for the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
county and city general plans. The modified project would not change the WSP EIR determination
that emissions associated with development in the WSP have been considered in the forecasts
presented.
Significance Determination
Air pollutant emissions by the modified project are expected to be less than those for the Approved
Project within PA 27 due to the reduction in building area compared to that analyzed in the Certified
EIR. That finding, in combination with the finding that emissions associated with development in the
WSP have been considered in the forecasts underlying the 2022 AQMP, leads to the conclusion that
the modified project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan, and no new significant impact would occur.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
Determination in Westgate Specific Plan EIR
Analysis for Impact 4.C-2 found that short-term construction and long-term regional air quality
impacts, despite implementation of applicable WSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-21
impacts, would remain significant and unavoidable.
Modified Project Analysis
The WSP EIR analyzed the project development at a program level since it would not directly result
in the construction of any new development projects. At a program level, construction impacts must
be considered at a conceptual level due to the short term of the impac ts and the unavailability of
specific temporal and spatial construction data.
Long-term operational air quality mobile and area source emissions were estimated using general
assumptions regarding the operational emissions based on types and sizes of projects expected. The
WSP EIR recognized that future site-specific development proposals would be evaluated for potential
air emissions once development details have been determined and are available and that individual
projects may not result in significant air quality emissions.
Air Quality Methodology
Table 4.3-1 shows the project schedule used for the air quality, GHG emissions, and noise analyses.
❖ SECTION 4.3 - AIR QUALITY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.3-8
July 2024
Table 4.3-1
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Phase Start (month) End (month) Duration
(months)
Site Preparation June 2024 July 2024 1
Grading July 2024 September 2024 2
Building Construction August 2024 October 2025 14
Paving and Landscaping August 2025 September 2025 1
Source: Lee, 2023
Regional criteria pollutant emissions during construction and operations were calculated with the
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2022.1 (CAPCOA, 2022).
Regional Short-Term Air Quality Effects
Construction emissions can be distinguished as either onsite or offsite. Onsite air pollutant emissions
consist principally of exhaust emissions from offroad heavy-duty construction equipment, as well as
fugitive particulate matter from earth working and material handling operations. Offsite emissions
result from workers commuting to and from the job site, as well as from trucks hauling materials to
the site and construction debris for disposal. Table 4.3-2 shows the projected maximum unmitigated
daily emissions of regional criteria pollutants during construction. Emissions of all pollutants are below
their SCAQMD significance thresholds.
Table 4.3-2
MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (UNMITIGATED)
Construction Activity
Maximum Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Emissions, 2024 5.20 47.2 51.3 9.49 5.47
Maximum Emissions, 2025 3.42 19.4 30.0 2.15 1.06
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 55
Significant? (Yes or No) No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.20) (CAPCOA, 2022). SCAQMD, 2019.
❖ SECTION 4.3 - AIR QUALITY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.3-9
July 2024
Regional Long-Term Air Quality Effects
The primary source of operational emissions would be vehicle exhaust generated from project-induced
vehicle trips, known as “mobile source emissions.” Other emissions, identified as “energy source
emissions,” would be generated from energy consumption for water conveyance, space heating, and
cooking equipment, while “area source emissions,” would be generated from structural maintenance and
landscaping activities, and the use of consumer products.
Table 4.3-3 shows maximum daily unmitigated criteria pollutant emissions during the operational
phase. For all pollutants, emissions are below their respective SCAQMD significance thresholds. Air
quality impacts for the proposed project are less than significant, with no need for mitigation.
Table 4.3-3
MAXIMUM DAILY PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (UNMITIGATED)
Emission Source
Pollutant (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Source Emissions 6.53 0.08 9.05 0.02 0.01
Energy Source Emissions 0.08 1.53 1.29 0.12 0.12
Mobile Source Emissions 28.7 26.6 231 46.3 12.0
Total Operational Emissions 35.3 28.2 241 46.4 12.1
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 55 55 550 150 55
Significant? (Yes or No) No No No No No
Source: Calculated by UltraSystems with CalEEMod (2020.4.0) (CAPCOA, 2022). SCAQMD,
2019.
❖ SECTION 4.3 - AIR QUALITY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.3-10
July 2024
c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
Determination in Westgate Specific Plan EIR
The Air Quality Plan Conflict Impact Analysis (4.C-1) and the Violation of Air Quality Standards
Impact Analysis (4.C-2) found that, despite compliance with the requirements of the Municipal Code,
SCAQMD regulations, and implementation of applicable WSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures C-1
through C-21, potential impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Modified Project Analysis
SCAQMD recommends separate analyses for cumulative impacts to ascertain if the project would
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in emissions. This analysis uses a three -tiered
approach to assess cumulative air quality impacts, as presented in CEQA Guidelines §15130(b), to
assess cumulative air quality impacts.
• Consistency with the SCAQMD project-specific thresholds for construction and operation.
• Project consistency with existing air quality plans.
• Assessment of the cumulative health effects of the pollutants.
It is assumed that the modified project would not change the WSP EIR determination that the impact
of criteria pollutant emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. This assumption is due to
the modified project being within the types and intensity of land uses permitted on the modified
project site by the Certified EIR.
Air Quality Plans
Even using the 2022 AQMP, the modified project would not change the WSP EIR determination that
the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. No new significant impact would occur.
d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
Determination in Westgate Specific Plan EIR
Analysis for localized exposure from onsite construction emissions could significantly cause or
contribute to locally potentially significant air quality impacts but would be mitigated by compliance
with the requirements of the Municipal Code, SCAQMD regulations, and implementation of applicable
WSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures C-1 through C-21. Analysis of localized impacts from CO hotspots
and onsite emissions of TACs would be less than significant. However, the WSP EIR found that the
Project would potentially locate onsite sensitive receptors near freeways (I‐15 and I-210), which may
❖ SECTION 4.3 - AIR QUALITY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.3-11
July 2024
expose onsite sensitive receptors to substantial sources of motor vehicle TAC emissions.
Implementation of WSP EIR Mitigation Measure C-16 would reduce the impacts but potential TAC
impacts on onsite receptors would remain significant and unavoidable.
Modified Project Analysis
The WSP EIR analyzed the potential project development at a program level since it would not
directly result in the construction of any new development projects. At a program level, construction
impacts must be considered at a conceptual level due to the short-term of the impacts and the
unavailability of specific temporal and spatial construction data.
Modified project construction impacts on localized significance thresholds would be no greater than
the significant and unavoidable impacts identified for the Approved Project, as the land use and
building area proposed by the modified project conform with that proposed in the Approved Project
for that site. No new significant impact would occur.
e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
Determination in Westgate Specific Plan EIR
Analysis for Impact 4.C-5 found that implementation of the WSP would not create objectionable
odors affecting a substantial number of people and would be less than significant.
Modified Project Analysis
Odors can cause a variety of responses. The impact of an odor results from interacting factors such
as frequency (how often), intensity (strength), duration (in time), offensiveness (unpleasantness),
location, and sensory perception.
The SCAQMD recommends that odor impacts be addressed in a qualitative manner. Such an analysis
shall determine whether the project would result in excessive nuisance odors, as defined under the
California Code of Regulations and § 41700 of the California Health and Safety Code, and thus would
constitute a public nuisance related to air quality.
Land uses typically considered associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste
disposal facilities, or agricultural operations. The modified project is not a land use typically
associated with emitting objectionable odors. No new significant impact would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-1
July 2024
4.4 Biological Resources
4.4.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR)
Analysis and Conclusions
Impacts to special status species: direct or through habitat modification (Impact 4.D-1):
Sensitive Plant Species
The Certified WSP FEIR identified three plant communities on the Approved Project site: former
vineyard, disturbed/ruderal, and developed. (However, for clarification the Approved Project site is
actually still active agricultural land currently used as an organic vineyard. [Lee, 2024a]) Ruderal
vegetation is dominated by species characteristic of areas that have been disturbed over a long
period. Disturbed areas include bare land, recently disturbed soil, and newer growth of ruderal
species. The FEIR identified 13 sensitive plant species that could occur within the 964-acre Approved
Project site. None of those species was considered to potentially occur in any of the plant
communities on the Approved Project site. Impacts to sensitive plant species were determined to be
less than significant pending project-specific focused surveys within several vegetation types
(Riversidian Sage Scrub [RSS], Disturbed RSS, Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
[RAFSS]/Disturbed, and Disturbed RAFSS). While none of the plant communities specified is present
within the Approved Project site, it is understood that focused surveys for sensitive plant species
would be required before development of the Approved Project site.
Sensitive Animal Species
The FEIR determined that burrowing owl has low potential to occur in the Approved Project site; and
that foraging habitat for several species of raptors is present. San Bernardino kangaroo rat and Delhi
Sands flower-loving fly are not considered to have potential to occur in the Approved Project site,
and coastal California gnatcatcher is considered to have low potential to occur in the Approved
Project site. Mitigation Measure D-1 addresses impacts on coastal California gnatcatcher and San
Bernardino kangaroo rat. Mitigation Measure D-2 addresses impacts on burrowing owl. The FEIR
determined that impacts of the Approved Project on sensitive animal species would be less than
significant after implementation of mitigation measures D-1 and D-2.
Impact 4.D-2: Impacts on Riparian Habitat and Sensitive Natural Communities
The Certified FEIR did not identify riparian habitat in the Approved Project site. The FEIR identified
four sensitive natural communities in the Approved Project site: RSS, Disturbed RSS, RAFSS, and
Disturbed RAFSS. Specific Plan implementation would cause impacts on sensitive natural
communities. This impact was found to be less than significant after implementation of Mitigation
Measure D-3.
Impact 4.D-3: Impacts on Federally Protected Wetlands
No federally protected wetlands were identified in the Approved Project site in the Certified FEIR.
The FEIR identified non-wetland drainages that would likely be considered jurisdictional pursuant
to the USACE/RWQCB; no such drainages are within the Approved Project site. Impacts on
jurisdictional areas were determined to be less than significant after implementation of Mitigation
Measure D-4.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-2
July 2024
Impact 4.D-4: Impacts on Wildlife Movement and Migration
The Approved Project site was found in the Certified FEIR to support local wildlife movement, but
not to function as a regional wildlife movement corridor. The Approved Project site was determined
to potentially support nesting by bird species protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
and the California Fish and Game Code. Impacts on nesting migratory birds were identified as less
than significant after implementation of Mitigation Measure D-5.
Impact 4.D-5: Impacts on Policies Protecting Biological Resources
The Certified FEIR determined that part of the northern portion of the Approved Project site was
within the North Fontana Multiple-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) area. However, that
portion of the Approved Project site was identified as supporting non-native grassland vegetation,
which was not subject to mitigation actions under the MSCHP. No significant impact was identified.
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
The following biological resources mitigation measures in the Final EIR are relevant to the Westgate
PA27 Medical Center Addendum #6 project.
No. Mitigation Measure
D-1 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for the Westgate Village area or Falcon Ridge Village
Area, habitat assessments should be conducted to confirm the presence and extent of suitable
habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher and San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR). Specifically,
Riversidean Sage Scrub (RSS) and Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) was mapped in
the Westgate Village area during 2012 surveys and may be suitable for coastal California
gnatcatcher, and USFWS mapped designated critical habitat for SBKR occurs in the Falcon Ridge
Village area. If suitable habitat is present, focused protocol surveys should be conducted. The
assessments and focused surveys should be conducted by a biologist(s) possessing a valid
Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(A) Recovery Permit (herein referred to as a USFWS
permitted biologist) and following the required USFWS survey protocols. If coastal California
gnatcatcher and/or SBKR are found to occupy the site, and/or if suitable habitat within SBKR
designated critical habitat is proposed for impacts, the measures outlined below shall be
incorporated. The project applicant shall also consult with USFWS pursuant to the Federal
Endangered Species Act, either through a Section 7 or a Section 10 consultation to ensure that
proposed impacts are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species or
destroy or adversely modify SBKR designated critical habitat. The proposed measures may be
refined during the consultation process.
Coastal California gnatcatcher
1. Avoid CAGN occupied habitat to the greatest extent feasible, and preserve avoided
habitat and any mitigation areas in perpetuity (see 2. And 3. Below).
2. Mitigate for any impacts to CAGN occupied habitat at a minimum 2:1 ratio of habitat
restoration or creation either on‐site and/or offsite on land acquired for the purpose
of mitigation, or through the purchase of mitigation credits at an agency approved
mitigation bank. Purchase of any mitigation credits should occur prior to any habitat
removal. Mitigation on land acquired for mitigation shall include the preservation,
creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of similar habitat pursuant to a Habitat
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP). The HMMP shall be prepared prior to any
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-3
July 2024
No. Mitigation Measure
impacts to the habitat, and shall provide details as to the implementation of the
mitigation, maintenance, and future monitoring. The goal of the mitigation shall be to
preserve, create, restore, and/or enhance similar habitat with equal or greater function
and value than the impacted habitat.
3. Provide long‐term management of preserved and/or mitigation habitat.
4. Avoid direct mortality of individual CAGN during construction by:
a. Removing any vegetation within CAGN occupied habitat outside the breeding
season (the breeding season is February 15 to August 31)
b. Monitoring by a qualified biologist during vegetation removal to flush out any
nonbreeding birds away from the clearing activities.
5. Avoid indirect impacts to CAGN including noise impacts during construction and edge
effects post‐construction, by implementing measures to buffer and avoid human‐
wildlife conflicts as appropriate. Proposed measures are as follows:
During Construction
a. Construction noise shall not exceed 60 dB(A) Leq in avoided occupied coastal California
gnatcatcher habitat between February 15 and August 31 unless noise attenuation
measures are implemented to reduce noise levels below this level, or the USFWS
approves noise levels above this threshold. Noise attenuation measures may include,
but are not limited to, establishing construction setback buffers, equipment nois e
mufflers, and noise walls, as determined necessary by an acoustic specialist and in
consultation with the project biologist. Monitoring by a qualified biologist should also
occur during construction to ensure noise levels are maintained below the threshold.
Alternatively, construction noise levels above 60 dB(A) Leq may be approved by
USFWS if monitoring by a USFWS permitted biologist for this species determines that
the construction noise is not impacting the expected breeding behavior of the birds.
Post-Construction
a. Installation of cat‐proof fencing at the perimeter of development where it abuts
preserved areas.
b. Restricting access to preservation areas for conservation activities only.
c. Direction of all night lighting within development areas away from the preserved areas.
d. Installation of signage to direct human activity away from preserved habitat areas.
e. Prohibition of unleashed dogs within preserved habitat areas.
f. Implementation of an awareness program to educate tenants and/or residents about
the conservation values associated with preserved habitat areas.
San Bernardino kangaroo rat
1. Avoid SBKR occupied or suitable habitat within SBKR designated critical habitat to the
greatest extent feasible and preserve avoided habitat and any mitigation areas in
perpetuity (see 2 and 3 below).
2. Mitigate for any impacts to SBKR occupied or suitable habitat within SBKR designated
critical habitat at a minimum 2:1 ratio of habitat restoration or creation either on‐site
and/or off‐site on land acquired for the purpose of mitigation, or through the purchase
of mitigation credits at an agency approved mitigation bank. Purchase of any mitigation
credits should occur prior to any habitat removal. Mitigation on land acquired for
mitigation shall include the preservation, creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of
similar habitat pursuant to a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP). The
HMMP shall be prepared prior to any impacts to the habitat and shall provide details
as to the implementation of the mitigation, maintenance, and future monitoring. The
goal of the mitigation shall be to preserve, create, restore, and/or enhance similar
habitat with equal or greater function and value than the impacted habitat.
3. Provide long‐term management of preserved and/or mitigation habitat.
4. Avoid direct mortality of individual SBKR during construction by:
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-4
July 2024
No. Mitigation Measure
a. Installation of exclusionary fencing at the limits of construction within suitable
habitat areas; and
b. Live trapping of SBKR within suitable habitat in construction areas and the
relocation of trapped individuals to one or more biologically appropriate
receiver sites (defined as suitable habitat that is known to be unoccupied, is
below population carrying capacity levels, and/or where scrub vegetation has
been restored and colonization by the species has not occurred). Trapping
shall be conducted by a USFWS permitted or approved biologist.
5. Avoid indirect impacts to SBKR as a result of edge effects postconstruction by
implementing measures to buffer and avoid human‐wildlife conflicts as appropriate,
such as:
a. Installation of cat‐proof fencing at the perimeter of development where it
abuts preserved areas.
b. Restricting access to preservation areas for conservation activities only.
c. Direction of all night lighting within development areas away from the
preserved areas.
d. Installation of signage to direct human activity away from preserved habitat
areas.
e. Prohibition of unleashed dogs within preserved habitat areas.
f. Implementation of a homeowner’s awareness program to educate residents
about the conservation values associated with preserved habitat areas.
D-2 Focused surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted during the breeding season prior to
vegetation clearing or ground disturbing activities by a qualified biologist with experience
conducting surveys for this species. Surveys shall be conducted in suitable habitat as
determined by the qualified biologist based on a field assessment of site conditions at the time
of the survey, including habitats such as the Ruderal and Non‐ native Grassland plant
communities observed during the 2012 survey. The survey methodology shall follow the
protocol provided as Appendix D of the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation published by
Department of Fish and Wildlife (March 7, 2012). Pursuant to this protocol four survey visits
are required, including at least one site visit between February 15 and April 15, and a minimum
of three survey visits at least three weeks apart between April 15 and July 15 (with at least one
visit after June 15). The results of the focused surveys are typically considered valid for one year
after completion.
If burrowing owls are determined present following focused surveys, occupied burrows shall
be avoided to the greatest extent feasible, following the guidelines in the 2012 Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation including, but not limited to, conducting pre‐ construction surveys,
avoiding occupied burrows during the nesting and non‐breeding seasons, implementing a
worker awareness program, biological monitoring, establishing avoidance buffers, and flagging
burrows for avoidance with visible markers. If occupied burrows cannot be avoided, acceptable
methods may be used to exclude burrowing owl either temporarily or permanently, pursuant
to a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan that shall be prepared and approved by CDFW. The
Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the guidelines in the Staff
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
D-3 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit in areas determined to support sensitive plant
communities (e.g., RSS and RAFSS in the Westgate Village Area) to which impacts would occur,
an assessment shall be conducted to confirm the presence and extent of these vegetation
communities and potentially suitable habitat for sensitive plants. If suitable habitat is present
for sensitive plants, a focused survey shall be conducted. The survey shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist with experience in conducting plant surveys and pursuant to the CDFW
protocol (i.e., “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant
Populations and Natural Communities”). If any sensitive plant species are found the significance
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-5
July 2024
No. Mitigation Measure
of potential impacts shall be assessed following the guidelines in the CDFW protocol, including
the significance of the populations observed considering nearby populations and total species
distribution. Impacts to sensitive plant communities shall be minimized to the greatest extent
feasible. For significant impacts, mitigation shall be proposed and outlined in a Habitat
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) that shall be prepared during project‐level approvals.
The HMMP shall offset impacts to the species and/or plant communities, focusing on the
creation of equivalent habitats within disturbed habitat areas within the study area and/or off‐
site. In addition, the HMMP shall provide details as to the implementation of the mitigation,
maintenance, and future monitoring. Mitigation for impacts shall be offset by on‐ or off‐site
replacement, restoration, or enhancement of each respective sensitive plant
species/community within an area dedicated for conservation. Ratios of mitigation to impacts
shall occur at no less than 0.5:1 for disturbed, remnant plant populations/communities (e.g.
Disturbed RSS and Disturbed RAFSS), and at a minimum 1:1 ratio for less disturbed pla nt
populations/communities (e.g. RSS and RAFSS/Disturbed). Mitigation shall occur in one or
more of the following ways, as determined appropriate by a qualified biologist:
1. Transplantation of sensitive plant species (on‐site or off‐ site);
2. Seeding of plant species (on‐site or off‐ site);
3. Planting of container plants (on‐site or off‐ site);
4. Salvage of on‐site duff and seed bank and subsequent dispersal (on‐site or off‐ site); and/or
5. Off‐site preservation at an established mitigation bank or other area dedicated for
conservation.
D-4 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for permanent impacts in the areas designated as
jurisdictional features on Figure 4.D‐7, Impacts to Jurisdictional Features, the project applicant
shall obtain a CWA Section 404 permit from the USACE, a CWA Section 401 permit from the
RWQCB, and Streambed Alteration Agreement permit under Section 1602 of the California Fish
and Game Code from the CDFW. The following shall be incorporated into the permitting, subject
to approval by the regulatory agencies:
1. On‐ and/or off‐site replacement of USACE/RWQCB jurisdictional “waters of the
U.S.”/“waters of the State” at a ratio no less than 1:1 for permanent impacts, and for
temporary impacts to restore the impact area to pre‐project conditions (i.e., pre‐ project
contours and revegetate as appropriate). Off‐site replacement may include the purchase of
mitigation credits at an agency‐approved off‐site mitigation bank.
2. On‐ and/or off‐site replacement of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian
habitat at a ratio no less than 2:1 for permanent impacts, and for temporary impacts to
restore the impact area to pre‐project conditions (i.e., pre‐project contours and revegetate
as appropriate). Off‐site replacement may include the purchase of mitigation credits at an
agency‐approved off‐site mitigation bank.
D-5 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit that would all removal of habitat containing raptor
and songbird nests, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of
Fontana that either of the following have been or will be accomplished.
1. Vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled outside the nesting season (September 16
to February 14 for songbirds; September 16 to January 14 for raptors) to avoid potential
impacts to nesting birds.
2. Any construction activities that occur during the nesting season (February 15 to September
15 for songbirds; January 15 to September 15 for raptors) will require that all suitable
habitat be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist
before commencement of clearing. If any active nests are detected, a buffer of at least 300
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-6
July 2024
No. Mitigation Measure
feet (500 feet for raptors) will be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is
complete as determined by the biological monitor to minimize impacts.
Source: WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015a, pp. 4.D43-4.D-49]; WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015b, pp. 4-14 – 4-29].
4.4.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
The potential impacts of the modified project concerning biological resources have been evaluated
as applicable to the present environmental regulatory setting, the impacts identified in the WSP FEIR,
and site-specific baseline conditions. Therefore, impacts associated with implementation of the
modified project would be consistent with those associated with implementation of the previous
Approved Project, no additional significant impacts beyond those identified for the previous
Approved Project were identified, and no additional mitigation measures would be required.
4.4.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
With regard to biological resources the following checklist compares the impacts of the previous
Approved Project analyzed in the WSP FEIR with those of project described in this document. The
comparative conclusions provided in the following table for the project are based on the discussions
immediately thereafter.
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing
New or
Increased
Effects
Compared
to the
Certified
Westgate
Specific
Plan FEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation
of an MND or
EIR
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined
by § 404 of the Clean Water Act
X
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-7
July 2024
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing
New or
Increased
Effects
Compared
to the
Certified
Westgate
Specific
Plan FEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes
or New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation
of an MND or
EIR
No
Impact
(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 nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
X
Existing Setting. The Westgate Specific Plan (WSP) includes 302.4 acres of land designated as Mixed‐
Use and Retail Uses (City of Fontana, 2017) These areas are located adjacent to State Route 210 (SR-
210) and Interstate 15 I(‐15) corridors and comprise approximately 31 percent of the 964‐acre total
Specific Plan (SP) area.
The area of the WSP that is discussed in this section is Planning Areas (PA) 27 (project site), located
in the Westgate East WSP Community Area in the southern segment of the WSP area. PA 27 plus a
500-foot buffer are collectively referred to as the Biological Study Area (BSA) in this section. The
project site is located south of State Route (SR) 210, north of South Highland Avenue, west of San
Sevaine Road, and west of Cherry Avenue (see Figure 4.4-1). Land cover types within the BSA consist
of developed, disturbed, Caltrans Landscaping, Eucalyptus groves, and Vinyard/Disturbed
fiddleneck-phacelia fields.
The project site is located in southwestern San Bernardino County in the City of Fontana (City), and
lies within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Topographic Map Devore
Quadrangle Township 1 North, Range 6 West, Section 35 Northwest (USGS, 2021). The project site
17.5 acres.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-8
July 2024
This section contains an analysis of the potential project impacts to protected biological resources
within the BSA. The BSA contains elevations ranging from approximately 1,380 feet to 1,450 feet
above mean sea level (amsl; Google Earth Pro, 2023).
The BSA does not overlap with USFWS-designated critical habitat. The nearest designated critical
habitat is for San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus), which is located
approximately 0.9 mile northwest from the project site (USFWS, 2022b).
Methodology
UltraSystems biologists researched readily available information, including relevant literature,
databases, agency websites, various previously completed reports and management plans, GIS data,
maps, aerial imagery from public domain sources, and in-house records to identify the following: 1)
habitats, special-status plant and wildlife species, jurisdictional waters, critical habitats, and wildlife
corridors that may occur in and near the project site; and 2) local or regional plans, policies, and
regulations that may apply to the project. Sources accessed by UltraSystems for analysis of potential
impacts within this Initial Study include:
• California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), provided by the CDFW (CNDDB, 2023a).
• Information, Planning and Conservation (IPaC), provided by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS; USFWS, 2023a).
• California Invasive Plant Inventory, provided by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-
IPC, 2023)
• Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, J.M. Evens, 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second
Edition, provided by California Native Plant Society Press.
Additional sources used are cited in the text.
Aerial imagery was overlaid with geospatial data by utilizing Geographic Information System (GIS)
software to identify documented observations of the following biological or environmental
components within the project vicinity:
1) Previously recorded observations within the project vicinity and geographic range of special
status species and potentially suitable habitats;
2) special-status vegetation communities;
3) protected management lands;
4) proposed and final critical habitats;
5) waters of the State and waters of the U.S., including wetlands; and
6) wildlife corridors.
In the analysis of potential biological impacts, UltraSystems biologists also relied on the following
documents:
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-9
July 2024
• Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report (UltraSystems, 2024; see Appendix A1);
• San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Habitat Assessment for Proposed Westgate Projects: City of
Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (ENVIRA, 2023a; see Appendix A2) and the
• Focused Trapping Surveys for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and Los Angeles Pocket Mouse
Westgate Development Project (ENVIRA, 2023b; see Appendix A3).
The BSA is located within a historical alluvial fan, the Fontana Plain. This alluvial fan flared out from
the mouth of Lytle Creek at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains to the base of the Jurupa Mountains
(Dutcher and Garrett, 1963), approximately 6.5 miles south of the project site. Topography of the BSA
slopes slightly from the northeast to the southwest, with elevations ranging from approximately
1,380 feet to 1, 450 feet amsl (Google Earth Pro, 2023). Soils within the project site are Hanford
coarse sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes (HaC) and Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes
(TvC), which are typical of alluvial fans (Soil Survey Staff, 2023). The construction of diversion dikes
and berms, beginning around 1950 (USGS, 1954), created a barrier to the fluvial processes that
created the Fontana Plain alluvial fan. As a result, the BSA is no longer part of an active alluvial fan.
Plant and wildlife species that are federal or state listed endangered, threatened, rare, or candidate
species under the ESA and/or CESA are referred to as listed species in this report. Plant and wildlife
species that have no designated status under the ESA and/or the CESA but are designated as
sensitive, rare or locally important by federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies, and nonprofit
resource organizations such as CNPS are referred to as sensitive species in this section. Collectively,
listed and sensitive species are referred to as special-status species.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-10
July 2024
Figure 4.4-1
PROJECT BOUNDARY AND BIOLOGICAL STUDY AREA (BSA)
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-11
July 2024
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
Special-Status Plants
The literature review and database search resulted in five listed and 38 sensitive plant species
recorded within 10 miles of the BSA. Due to factors including known elevation ranges limitations and
lack of suitable habitat, none of these 43 special-status plant species are expected to occur within the
BSA (see Appendix A4, Species Occurrence Potential Determinations).
Two special-status plant species and one sensitive vegetation community have been recorded within
two miles of the BSA: Plummer’s mariposa lily (Calochortus plummerae), mesa horkelia (Horkelia
cuneatavar. puberula); and Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub (see Figure 4.4-2). Due to factors
including known elevation ranges limitations and lack of suitable habitat, these species are not
expected to occur within the BSA (see Appendix A4, Species Occurrence Potential Determinations).
No listed or sensitive plant species were observed during the biological field surveys based on
limitations due to the elevation of the BSA or the lack of suitable habitat identified during the field
surveys. These species were not observed during the field surveys, and habitat within the BSA and
project site is unlikely to support these species.
Special-Status Wildlife
Twenty listed wildlife species and 32 sensitive wildlife species have been recorded within 10 miles
of the BSA. Of these 52 special-status species, four listed and six sensitive species have at least a low
potential to occur within the BSA, and an additional six sensitive species are present within the BSA
(see Appendix A4, Species Occurrence Potential Determinations).
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-12
July 2024
Figure 4.4-2
CNDDB KNOWN OCCURRENCES: PLANT SPECIES AND HABITATS
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-13
July 2024
Special-status wildlife species within at least a low potential to occur are: Crotch’s bumble bee
(Bombus crotchii; SCE5); Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni; ST6); San Bernardino kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys merriami parvus; FE7, SCE, SSC8 [not observed during focused surveys, see Appendix A3,
Focused Trapping Surveys for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and Los Angeles Pocket Mouse ]);
Stephen’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi; FT9, ST); southern California legless lizard (Anniella
stebbinsi; SSC); Blainville’s horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii; SSC); California glossy snake
(Arizona elegans occidentalis; SSC); northern harrier (Circus hudsonius; SSC, BCC10); merlin (Falco
columbarius; WL11); San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii; Special Animals
List12); and pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus; SSC). These species were not observed during focused or
general surveys.
For details special-status species recorded within 10 miles of the BSA, see Appendix A4, Species
Occurrence Potential Determinations.
The following species were observed during general and focused surveys, and are considered present
in the project site:
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia [BUOW]; SSC, BCC). BUOW is a small, ground-inhabiting owl.
BUOW are generally found in open country, where tree or shrub canopies cover of less than 30
percent. Typical habitats include annual and perennial grasslands, shortgrass prairies open
agricultural areas (particularly rangelands), and deserts floors. Other habitats include oak savannah;
grass, forb, and open shrub stages of pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine habitat; sandy beaches and
coastal dunes; and river bottom lands. BUOW inhabiting urban or suburban areas may occupy vacant
fields or lots, pastures, airports, athletic fields, golf courses, cemeteries, city parks, road shoulders,
drainage sumps, railroad beds, irrigation ditches, and road cuts.
Nest and roost burrows of the BUOW in California are most commonly dug by California ground
squirrels, but BUOW can also dig their own burrows in soft banks of irrigation canals and ditches.
Where burrows are scarce, man-made structures such as culverts, piles of concrete, rubble, or debris,
pipes, asphalt, artificial nest boxes, and openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement also are used
as nests.
The project site contains suitable annual grassland, vineyard and disturbed habitat for BUOW with
abundant communities of ground squirrels, which have created numerous suitable burrows. The
project site contains ample prey for the species, including several species of small mammals, reptiles,
ants, and other insects.
As of this date, three focused non-breeding season BUOW surveys and three of the four required
breeding season BUOW surveys have been conducted between June 2023 and March 2024. One final
breeding season survey will be conducted between April 15 and May 15, 2024. During the BUOW
surveys a total of three observations of BUOW were made on the project site, two BUOWs were
5 SCE: State candidate for listing as endangered.
6 ST: State listed as threatened.
7 FE: Federally listed as endangered.
8 SSC: CDFW Species of Special Concern.
9 FT: Federally listed as threatened.
10 BCC: USFWS Birds of Special Concern.
11 WL: CDFW Watch List
12 Special Animals List: Taxa that are actively inventoried, tracked, and mapped by the CNDDB (CNDDB, 2023b) .
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-14
July 2024
observed on December 5, 2023 at different burrow complexes (complexes 19 and 20.1). A BUOW was
observed at another complex on January 17, 2024 within the project site; BUOW sign (whitewash
and/or pellets) was observed at burrows within each of the occupied complexes (see Table 4.4-1,
Figure 4.4-3 and Appendix A1, Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Report).
Biologists did not observe any BUOW or BUOW sign within the section of PA 31 that lies within the
BSA of PA 27 during the breeding season surveys as of this date; however, they observed BUOW but
no BUOW sign at two different locations (sites 20.2 and 26) during the non-breeding season surveys.
One BUOW was observed on December 5, 2023, standing in the vineyard, approximately 400 feet
southwest of the northeast corner of PA 31. No burrow was observed in the vicinity of where the
BUOW at site 20.2 was standing. Another BUOW was observed peering above a burrow apron of
burrow 26, at the base of a grape vine. Burrow 26 is located approximately 100 feet south of South
Highland Avenue and approximately 1,300 feet east of Cherry Avenue. The biologists did not
approach burrow 26 to avoid flushing or otherwise disturbing the BUOW.
Table 4.4-1
BURROWING OWL SURVEY RESULTS
Burrow
/
Complex
ID
Highest
Status1
Planning
Area #
(Project
Location)2
Burrow
or
Complex
(Number
of
Burrows)
Number
and Age of
Occupants
Sign3
Discovery
Date
19 OWS 27 Complex
(2) 1 Adult FL,
W
2023-12-
05
20.1 OWS 27 Complex
(3) 1 Adult FL,
W
2023-12-
05
20.2 OWL 31 No
burrow 1 Adult FL,
W
2023-12-
05
25 OWS 27 Complex
(5) 1 Adult FL, P,
W
2024-01-
17
26 OWL 31 Solitary 1 Adult OWL 2024-01-
18
1. Statuses of BUOW Burrows/Complexes are abbreviated as follows: OWS = owl present,
sign observed; OWL = owl present; BSO = burrow with sign of owl (pellet, feathers,
whitewash, etc.).
2. The following project locations are represented: BSA = BUOW burrows/complexes that
occur within the Biological Study Area (BSA) of the project.
3. Types of BUOW sign are abbreviated as follows: B = bones, EXC = excrement, EXO =
invertebrate exoskeleton, F = feather, None =no sign. P = pellet, PE = pellet w/invertebrate
exoskeleton, W=whitewash. FL = BUOW flushed
Project Impacts
The project site and other areas within the BSA contain occupied BUOW habitat. Grading, excavation,
and other ground-disturbing activities that would occur during construction of the project would
excavate and remove occupied burrows of BUOW that occur on the project site. As a result, these
actions would lead to take of BUOWs and loss of occupied habitat. Overall, direct impacts to BUOWs
resulting from construction of the project, include take and loss of nesting, sheltering, and foraging
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-15
July 2024
habitat for this species. Since the project as designed will remove three burrows with owl (complexes
19, 20.1 and 25) within the project site, burrows at which BUOWs were observed using it for
sheltering, and hunting, the project would directly impact BUOW. Thus, the project as designed would
have a significant impact on BUOW.
Permanent loss of habitat and physical features would occur from clearing and grading and would
directly impact BUOW through the loss of nesting, sheltering, hunting, and foraging habitat (i.e.
habitat). Habitat loss from ground-disturbing activities such as excavation and grading would
displace BUOW from existing occupied habitat and reduce the home range of this species. Examples
of ground disturbing and habitat altering activities include grading, clearing, disking, grubbing,
excavation, trenching, paving, mowing, heavy equipment compacting, and driving over existing
habitat to access construction sites and temporary work areas.
Indirect impacts would occur within areas located adjacent to the limits of construction in the BSA.
Indirect impacts are more subtle than direct impacts, and may either be short-term, related to
construction, or long-term and may affect BUOW populations and habitat quality over an extended
period of time, long after construction activities have been completed.
Project construction could result in temporarily increased levels of ambient noise, dust, vibration,
lighting and/or human intrusion in and near BUOW habitat, resulting in disruption of foraging,
sheltering, and/or breeding behavior of BUOWs. BUOWs stressed by these factors may disperse from
habitat in the BSA and project vicinity. Since BUOW is a burrow-dwelling species that often exhibits
site fidelity, especially during nesting season, project activities may adversely affect the foraging and
nesting behavior of BUOWs occupying the project site and other locations within the BSA.
Displaced BUOW would then have to find and compete for new territories, also competing for food
with resident species in nearby undeveloped areas. This could also result in delayed nest building,
fewer nest attempts, reduced clutch size, and an overall reduction in reproductive output. BUOW
within the BSA may also experience significant temporary impacts from loss of nesting and foraging
habitat due to construction activities.
During construction, accidental releases of non-stormwater pollutants (e.g., petroleum products,
rodenticide) may also adversely affect BUOW through secondary or tertiary poisoning. Potential
impacts from onsite herbicides and pesticides would be low since all farming done by Intex
Properties Inland Empire Corp. on the project site is organic - no chemicals are used as herbicides
and pesticides (Lee, 2024a).
An increased level of human activities within and adjacent to the project site could also lead to
mortality, injury, or harassment of wildlife species by providing food in the form of trash, pet food,
or water which attracts BUOW predators such as the common raven, coyote, and feral cats and dogs.
Significance Conclusion for Impacts to BUOW Based on Existing FEIR
Implementation of mitigation measures D-2 and D-5, as detailed in the FEIR, would reduce impacts
to BUOW, a migratory bird species, to a less than significant level.
FEIR Mitigation Measure D-2 requires focused surveys be conducted during the breeding season to
determine BUOW presence. Mitigation Measure D-2 further requires that if BUOW are present on
site, then avoidance of occupied burrows be practiced to the greatest extent feasible; and, where
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-16
July 2024
burrows cannot be avoided, a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan, which details how the temporary or
permanent exclusion of these burrows is achieved, shall be prepared (see text above in Section 4.4.1).
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-17
July 2024
Figure 4.4-3
BURROWING OWL LOCATIONS
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-18
July 2024
The following actions would be taken to implement Mitigation Measure D-2 within the modified
project BSA, as commitments by the developer.
Action D2.1: focused BUOW surveys: Mitigation Measure D-2 requires that focused surveys for
BUOW shall be conducted within suitable BUOW habitat during the breeding season prior to
vegetation clearing or ground disturbing activities by a qualified biologist. As set forth by the CDFW
in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Staff Report; CDFG, 2012), four surveys are
required, one between February 15 and April 15, and minimum of three, at least three weeks apart,
between April 15 and July 15.
As of this date, three of the four required breeding season surveys have been conducted.within the
project BSA, and one final survey will be conducted during the current breeding season to maintain
compliance with the Staff Report. Three complexes with BUOW and BUOW sign have been observed
during the focused surveys that have been conducted to date. Avoidance of the onsite BUOWs during
construction of the project is not feasible because the construction of two four-story medical office
buildings, surface parking, and project site amenities would take up the majority of the project site,
including those areas where burrows with BUOW and BUOW sign have been observed. As a result of
avoidance being unachievable, other actions required by the Staff Report and Mitigation Measure D-
2 need to be implemented and are detailed below.
Action D2.2: Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (MMP): Mitigation Measure D-2
requires that a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan (hereafter, Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan) be prepared in cases in which BUOW cannot be avoided during construction of the project.
The Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (MMP; UltraSystems 2023; Burrowing Owl
Exclusion Plan) shall be prepared and approved by CDFW and outlines measures that will be
implemented by the Project Applicant and their contractors to protect BUOW pri or to construction
of the Cherry Avenue and Victoria Street Complete Streets Infrastructure Project. The MMP will
describe avoidance and minimization measures; specifically, the MMP will detail passive exclusion
and relocation procedures, identify potential mitigation lands owned by the Project Applicant that:
• Are within an acceptable distance from the original BUOW burrow locations;
• Are in habitat similar to existing BUOW habitat;
• Provide necessary structure of prey source, burrowing structure, perching structure, without
high overhead perches for predators;
The MMP will also determine, in consultation with CDFW, which ABS design is most appropriate for
the project site, including whether they should be above or below ground.
The MMP shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites, acres of burrowing owl
habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other
avoidance measures if avoidance is proposed. If impacts to occupied burrowing owl habitat or
burrow cannot be avoided, the MMP shall also describe exclusion and relocation actions that will be
implemented, with the approval of CDFW. Proposed implementation of burrow exclusion and closure
should only be considered as a last resort after all other options have been evaluated, as exclusion is
not in itself an avoidance, minimization, or mitigation method and has the possibility to result in take.
If impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, information shall be provided regarding adjacent
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-19
July 2024
or nearby suitable habitat available to owls along with proposed relocation actions. The project
proponent shall implement the MMP following CDFW and USFWS review and approval.
The MMP will also detail required monitoring and reporting requirements. If impacts to occupied
burrowing owl habitat or burrow cannot be avoided, mitigation lands for BUOW must be dedicated
to BUOW mitigation and protected in perpetuity.
The ultimate goal of the MMP is to relocate the owls as far away from active construction (present
and future) or other conflicting land uses as feasible, but as close to the burrows being removed as
possible. The MMP identify mitigation requirements including, but not limited to, acceptable types of
artificial burrow structures (ABS), revegetation, and signage to notify the public that the area is off
limits.
Implementation of the CDFW-approved Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan would avoid
or minimize impacts to burrowing owl that would result from development of the project.
Action D2.3: Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP): Mitigation Measure D-2
requires that a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) is implemented when BUOW are
observed on the project site and their burrows would potentially be impacted by development of the
project.
Development of the project would potentially impact special-status wildlife (including BUOW) under
the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) within the project site. Prior
to project construction activities, a qualified biologist will prepare and conduct a WEAP that will
describe the biological constraints of the project. All personnel who will work within the project site
will attend the WEAP prior to performing any work. The WEAP will include, but not be limited to the
following: results of pre-construction surveys; description of sensitive biological resources
potentially present within the project site; legal protections afforded the sensitive biological
resources; BMPs for protecting sensitive biological resources (i.e., restrictions, avoidance, protection,
and minimization measures); individual responsibilities associated with the project; and, a training
on grading to reduce impacts to biological resources. A condition shall be placed on grading permits
requiring a qualified biologist to conduct a training session for project personnel prior to grading.
The training shall include a description of the species of concern and its habitat, the general
provisions of the Endangered Species Act (Act) and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions
of the Act and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act, the general
measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project,
and the access routes to the project site boundaries within which the project activities must be
accomplished. The program will also include the reporting requirements if workers encounter a
sensitive wildlife species, including BUOW (i.e., notifying the biological monitor or the construction
foreman, who will then notify the biological monitor).
Training materials will be language-appropriate for all construction personnel. Upon completion of
the WEAP, workers will sign a form stating that they attended the program, understand all protection
measures, and will abide all the rules of the WEAP. A record of all trained personnel will be kept with
the construction foreman at the project field construction office and will be made available to any
resource agency personnel. If new construction personnel are added to the project later, the
construction foreman will ensure that new personnel receive training before they start working. The
biologist will provide written hard copies of the WEAP and photos of the sensitive biological
resources to the construction foreman.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-20
July 2024
Action D2.4: Biological Monitoring: Mitigation Measure D-2 requires that biological monitoring be
included as a strategy for avoiding impacts to BUOW during development of the project.
A biological monitor would be onsite to monitor activities that result in the clearing and grading of
areas known to contain sensitive biological resources, including but not limited to, habitat suitable
for burrowing owl. The biological monitor would also ensure that ground-disturbing activities do not
exceed the limits of construction and to minimize the likelihood of inadvertent impacts to special-
status species and other wildlife species. The biological monitor will ensure that all biological
mitigation measures, BMPs, avoidance and protection measures described in the relevant project
permits, project plans, and CEQA documents are implemented and are adhered to. Monitoring will
cease when vegetation has been cleared and all grading activities has ceased.
The biological monitor will have the authority to halt all construction activities and all non-
emergency actions if special-status species are observed onsite and would be directly impacted. The
monitor will notify and consult with the appropriate resource agency, as needed. If necessary and
possible, the biological monitor would relocate the individual outside of the work area where it will
not be harmed. Work can continue at the location if the City of Fontana and the consulted resource
agency determine that the activity will not result in impacts to the species.
Action D2.5: Avoidance Measures: Mitigation Measure D-2 requires that avoidance measures be
included as a strategy for avoiding impacts to BUOW during development of the project. The
avoidance measures detailed below would facilitate the reduction of impacts to BUOW during
construction activities.
The BSA contains habitat which can support many wildlife species. The project proponent will
implement the following general avoidance and protection measures to protect vegetation and
wildlife and to the maximum extent practical:
1. Avoidance buffers shall be established around occupied BUOW burrows. Buffers will be
established with appropriate materials (e.g., wooden stakes, flagging, etc.) and no work
activities will be permitted within the avoidance buffers. Buffer distance will be implemented
in compliance with the Staff Plan.
2. Cleared or trimmed vegetation and woody debris will be disposed of in a legal manner at an
approved disposal site. Cleared or trimmed non-native, invasive vegetation will be disposed
of in a legal manner at an approved disposal site as soon as possible to prevent regrowth and
the spread of weeds.
3. The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre-existing contours and revegetated
with appropriate native species.
4. Non-native wildlife species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be
permanently removed from the site to the extent feasible. Only a qualified biologist should
remove non-native species.
5. To minimize construction-related mortalities of nocturnally active species such as mammals
and snakes, it is recommended that all work be conducted during daylight hours. Nighttime
work (and use of artificial lighting) will not be permitted unless specifically authorized. If
required, night lighting will be directed away from the preserved open space areas to protect
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-21
July 2024
species from direct night lighting. All unnecessary lights will be turned off at night to avoid
attracting wildlife such as insects, migratory birds, and bats.
6. If any wildlife such as BUOW is encountered during the course of project activities, said
wildlife will be allowed to freely leave the area unharmed.
7. If any wildlife does not move off the site unassisted and within less than one hour, then a
qualified biologist will be contacted to move the species out of harm’s way wildlife if it would
otherwise be injured or killed from the project-related activities. Movement of wildlife out of
harm’s way should be limited to only those individuals that would otherwise by injured or
killed, and individuals should be moved only as far a necessary to ensure their safety. Only
biologists authorized by a Scientific Collecting Permit and/or a Memorandum of
Understanding issued by CDFW shall move FESA and CESA-listed species such as San
Bernardino kangaroo rat.
8. Wildlife will not be disturbed, captured, harassed, or handled. Animal nests, burrows and
dens will not be disturbed without prior survey and authorization from a qualified biologist.
9. Active nests of special-status or otherwise protected bird species cannot be removed or
disturbed. Nests can be removed or disturbed only if determined inactive by a qualified
biologist.
10. To avoid impacts to wildlife and attracting predators of protected species, the project
proponent will comply with all litter and pollution laws and will institute a litter control
program throughout project construction. All contractors, subcontractors, and employees
will also obey these laws. These covered trash receptacles will be placed at each designated
work site and the contents will be properly disposed at least once a week. Trash removal will
reduce the attractiveness of the area to opportunistic predators such as common ravens,
coyotes, northern raccoons, and Virginia opossums.
11. Contractors, subcontractors, employees, and site visitors will be prohibited from feeding
wildlife and collecting plants and wildlife.
12. Disturbance near ponded water will be limited during the rainy season.
FEIR Mitigation Measure D-5 requires that the project applicant shall schedule removal outside of
the nesting bird season to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, such as BUOW. Mitigation
Measure D-5 further requires that if construction activities are scheduled to occur during nesting
season that all suitable habitat be surveyed for nesting birds prior to the commencement of clearing.
Avoidance buffers shall be established around active nests (see text above in Section 4.4.1).
As a migratory bird species and member of the order Strigiformes (birds of prey), BUOW is protected
by the MBTA, and by § 3503, § 3503.5, and § 3513 of the FGC. Moreover, nesting bird surveys for
BUOW, a ground-nesting bird species, must be modified to maintain compliance with specific
standards detailed in the Staff Report.
In consultation with the CDFW, the following actions would be taken to implement Mitigation
Measure D-5 within the modified project BSA, as commitments by the developer.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-22
July 2024
Action D5.1: Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey: Mitigation Measure D-5 requires that pre-
construction nesting bird surveys for nesting birds, such as BUOW, shall be implemented prior to
initiation of project clearance. Since BUOW have been observed on the project site implementation
of a modified pre-construction nesting bird survey that focuses on BUOW is detailed below.
After implementation of the passive exclusion and relocation measures described in the
Programmatic Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (MMP), burrowing owls may
repopulate the project site prior to construction. Therefore, pre-construction burrowing owl surveys
shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of project-related activities and within 24
hours prior to ground disturbance, including but not limited to vegetation, security fencing, and
staging activities, in accordance with the Staff Report. Preconstruction surveys should be performed
by a qualified biologist following the recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report.
The survey may detect changes in BUOW presence such as colonizing BUOWs that have recently
moved onto the project site, migrating BUOWs, resident BUOWs changing burrow use, or young of
the year that are still present and have not dispersed (CDFG, 2012).
Following the completion of the pre-construction BUOW survey, the biologist would prepare a letter
report in accordance with the instructions described in the Staff Report, summarizing the results of
the survey. The report would be submitted to the City of Fontana and CDFW prior to initiating any
ground disturbance activities.
If no BUOWs or signs of BUOWs are observed during the survey and concurrence is received from
CDFW, project activities may begin and no further mitigation would be required.
If BUOWs or signs of BUOWs are observed during the survey, the project site would be considered
reoccupied, and project activities shall be immediately halted. The biologist would contact the City of
Fontana and CDFW to assist in the development of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measures, prior to commencing project activities. The measures to avoid and minimize impacts to
BUOWs described in the CDFW-approved Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (MMP)
would be implemented.
Implementation of actions D2.1 through D2.5 and D5.1 would achieve the less than significant impact
on burrowing owls as determined in the Certified FEIR.
Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii; WL). Cooper’s hawks are medium-sized hawks of the woodlands.
These raptors are commonly sighted in parks, neighborhoods, over fields, and even along busy
streets if there are large trees nearby for perching and adequate prey species such as other birds and
small mammals. They prefer to breed in more densely wooded areas than occur in the BSA, such as
woodland openings and edges of riparian and oak habitat. Cooper’s hawks build nests in pines, oaks,
Douglas-firs, beeches, spruces, and other trees. They are known to forage and nest in urban and
residential areas (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2023).
Because this species has become urbanized southern California, it may often be seen foraging in
residential areas as well as in open space; thus, the BSA provides suitable foraging habitat for
Cooper’s hawk and its presence within the BSA may have been the result of hunting and foraging
activities.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-23
July 2024
Project Impacts
The project could potentially result in impacts to Cooper’s hawk through loss of hunting and foraging
habitat, and negative effects caused by dust, noise, vibration, and other project activities. However,
the urbanization of Cooper’s hawks indicate that the Cooper’s hawks observed within the BSA would
be able to find new nesting and hunting habitat within the project area.
Significance Conclusion for Impacts to Cooper’s Hawk Based on Existing FEIR
FEIR Mitigation Measure D-5 requires that the project applicant shall implement pre-construction
nesting bird surveys if construction activities are scheduled to occur during nesting season. As a
migratory bird species, Cooper’s hawk is protected by the MBTA, and by § 3503 and § 3513 of the
FGC; and therefore, nesting bird surveys are required to avoid impacts to this species.
The following actions would be taken to implement Mitigation Measure D-5 within the modified
project BSA, as commitments by the developer.
Action D5.2: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Surveys: Mitigation Measure D-5 requires that if
construction is planned during the breeding season that pre-construction nesting bird surveys must
be conducted. The survey methods and reporting requirements are detailed below.
The survey will be conducted between three to seven days prior to the onset of scheduled activities,
including building demolition and vegetation trimming or removal and will include all potential nest
sites, such as open ground, trees, shrubs, grasses, burrows, and structures during the breeding
season.
The project applicant will make every effort to conduct the pre-construction survey and subsequent
removal of all physical features that could potentially serve as avian nest sites (e.g., staging and
stockpiling, structure removal, clear and grub, grading, fill, etc.) to avoid impacts to nesting birds.
If a breeding bird territory or an active bird nest is located during the pre-construction survey and
will potentially be impacted by demolition or construction activities, the site will be mapped and
location provided to the construction foreman, City, and project applicant. The qualified biologist will
establish a buffer zone around the active nest, which will be delimited (fencing, stakes, flagging,
orange snow fencing, etc.) at a minimum of 100 feet, or as the qualified biologist determines is
appropriate, for the detected species. The biologist will determine the appropriate buffer size based
on the planned activities and tolerances of the nesting birds. This no-activity buffer zone will not be
disturbed until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is inactive, the young have fledged,
the young are no longer being fed by the parents, the young have left the area, or the young will no
longer be impacted by project activities.
Periodic monitoring by the qualified avian biologist will be performed to determine when nesting is
complete. After the nesting cycle is complete, project activities may begin within the buffer zone.
If no breeding birds or active nests are observed during the preconstruction survey or they are
observed and will not be impacted, project activities may begin and no further mitigation will be
required.
Implementation of Action D5.2 would achieve the less than significant impact on Cooper’s hawk as
determined in the Certified FEIR.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-24
July 2024
California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia; WL). California horned lark is a resident of a
variety of open habitats, usually where trees and large shrubs are absent. They are found from
grasslands along the coast and deserts near sea level to alpine dwarf-shrub habitat above the treeline
(McCaskie et al. 1979)). They prefer short, sparsely vegetated prairies, deserts, and agricultural
lands. Agricultural land may be recently plowed land, with or without emerging crops, or land used
the previous year for crops and then mowed short and left fallow, or very sparse, heavily grazed
annual grassland; or it may simply be a large expanse of mowed weeds. These birds breed primarily
in open fields from March through July, with peak activity in May, usually building a cup-shaped
grass-lined nest in a depression on the ground in the open. California horned lark forage on the
ground in either bare areas or in agricultural fields with short vegetation (Airola, 1980).
Open, undeveloped areas within the BSA provide suitable nesting or foraging habitat for this species;
additionally, California horned lark is present within the BSA.
Project Impacts
The project could result in potential impacts to California horned lark, through the loss of suitable
nesting and foraging habitat for this ground-nesting species; take of eggs and nest removal could
occur during vegetation clearance and ground-disturbing activities such as excavation and grading.
The project could also cause adverse impacts to these species through loss of foraging habitat and
negative effects caused by dust, noise, vibration, and other project activities.
Significance Conclusion for Impacts to California Horned Lark Based on Existing FEIR
FEIR Mitigation Measure D-5 requires that the project applicant shall implement pre-construction
nesting bird surveys if construction activities are scheduled to occur during nesting season. As a
migratory bird species, California horned lark is protected by the MBTA, and by § 3503 and § 3513
of the FGC; and therefore, pre-construction nesting bird surveys are required to avoid impacts to this
species.
Implementation of Action D5.2 would achieve the less than significant impact on California horned
lark as determined in the Certified FEIR.
Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus [LAPM]13, SSC). The LAPM is one
of two pocket mice found in southwestern San Bernardino County. Both LAPM and northwestern San
Diego pocket mouse occupy similar habitats, but the San Diego pocket mouse has a wider range
extending south into San Diego County. The habitat of LAPM is described as being confined to lower
elevation grasslands and coast sage scrub habitats, in areas with soils composed of fine s ands. The
present known distribution of this species extends from Rancho Cucamonga east to Morongo and
south to the San Diego County border. This mouse is a California Species of Special Concern (SSC)
whose historical range has been reduced by urban development and agriculture.
Los Angeles pocket mouse forages in open ground and underneath shrubs. Pocket mice in general
dig burrows in loose soil, although this has not been completely documented for this subspecies.
13 The Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus) is referred to in this document using the 4-letter
acronym for its common name, LAPM; whereas, the 4-letter acronym based on its scientific name, PELO, is used in the
focused survey report (Envira, 2023a,b; see Appendix A3 Focused Trapping Surveys for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
and Los Angeles Pocket Mouse).
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-25
July 2024
A LAPM specimen was captured on the project site during small mammal trapping surveys conducted
in September 2023. Thus, LAPM is present within the project site. Since some of this species would
have been estivating during the survey period, the numbers ca ptured during the surveys are not
indicative of the population on site (Envira, 2023a,b; see Appendix A3 Focused Trapping Surveys for
the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and Los Angeles Pocket Mouse).
Project Impacts
Grading, excavation, and other ground-disturbing activities that would occur during construction of
the project would excavate and remove occupied burrows of LAPM that occur on the project site. As
a result, these actions would lead to take of LAPM and loss of occupied habitat. Overall, direct impacts
to LAPM resulting from construction of the project, include take and loss of nesting, sheltering, and
foraging habitat for this species. Thus, the project as designed would have a significant impact on
LAPM.
Significance Conclusion for Impacts to Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Based on Existing FEIR
The analysis of Approved Project impacts on LAPM in the Certified EIR was based on species
occurrence potential estimates based on known occurrences within the project region, and the
presence or absence of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. As LAPM was captured
during trapping surveys in September 2023, implementation of the Certified EIR mitigation measure
for San Bernardino kangaroo rat (mitigation measure D-1 [part]) is considered warranted for LAPM.
Action D1.1: Minimizing Impacts to Los Angeles Pocket Mouse, San Diego Pocket Mouse, and San
Diego Kangaroo Rat
1. Avoid habitat occupied by, or suitable for, LAPM, SDPM, and/or SDKR to the greatest extent
feasible and preserve avoided habitat and any mitigation areas in perpetuity (see 2 and 3
below).
2. Mitigate for any impacts to LAPM, SDPM, and/or SDKR occupied or suitable habitat at a
minimum 2:1 ratio of habitat restoration or creation either on‐site and/or off‐site on land
acquired for the purpose of mitigation, or through the purchase of mitigation credits at an
agency approved mitigation bank. Purchase of any mitigation credits should occur prior to
any habitat removal. Mitigation on land acquired for mitigation shall include the
preservation, creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of similar habitat pursuant to a
Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP). The HMMP shall be prepared prior to any
impacts to the habitat and shall provide details as to the implementation of the mitigation,
maintenance, and future monitoring. The goal of the mitigation shall be to preserve, create,
restore, and/or enhance similar habitat with equal or greater function and value than the
impacted habitat.
3. Provide long‐term management of preserved and/or mitigation habitat.
4. Avoid direct mortality of individual LAPM, SDPM, and/or SDKR during construction by:
a. Installation of exclusionary fencing at the limits of construction within suitable
habitat areas; and
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-26
July 2024
b. Live trapping of LAPM, SDPM, and/or SDKR within suitable habitat in construction
areas and the relocation of trapped individuals to one or more biologically
appropriate receiver sites (defined as suitable habitat that is known to be unoccupied,
is below population carrying capacity levels, and/or where scrub vegetation has been
restored and colonization by the species has not occurred). Trapping shall be
conducted by a USFWS permitted or approved biologist.
5. Avoid indirect impacts to LAPM, SDPM, and/or SDKR as a result of edge effects
postconstruction by implementing measures to buffer and avoid human‐wildlife conflicts as
appropriate, such as:
a. Installation of cat‐proof fencing at the perimeter of development where it abuts
preserved areas.
b. Restricting access to preservation areas for conservation activities only.
c. Direction of all night lighting within development areas away from the preserved
areas.
d. Installation of signage to direct human activity away from preserved habitat areas.
e. Prohibition of unleashed dogs within preserved habitat areas.
f. Implementation of a homeowner’s awareness program to educate residents about the
conservation values associated with preserved habitat areas.
Implementation of Action D1.1 would reduce modified project impacts on LAPM to less than
significant.
Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax [SDPM]14; Special Animals List).
The habitat of SDPM is open, sandy areas in the valleys and foothills of southwestern California;
specifically, this species confined to primary and secondary alluvial fan scrub habitats, with sandy
soils deposited by fluvial (water) rather than aeolian (wind) processes. Burrows are dug in loose soil,
usually near or beneath shrubs. Preferred habitat is open areas of coastal sage scrub and weedy
growth, often on sandy substrates.
The SDPM occasionally occurs sympatrically with LAPM. The range of this species extends from
Orange County to San Diego County, but also includes Riverside and San Bernardino counties
(ENVIRA, 2023).
The SDPM was captured on the project site during small mammal trapping surveys conducted in
September 2023. Thus, SDPM is present within the project site (Envira, 2023a,b; see Appendix A3
Focused Trapping Surveys for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and Los Angeles Pocket Mouse).
14 The northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax) is referred to in this document using the 4-letter
acronym for its common name, SDPM; whereas, the 4-letter acronym based on its scientific name, CHFA, is used in the
focused survey report (Envira, 2023a,b; see Appendix A3 Focused Trapping Surveys for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
and Los Angeles Pocket Mouse).
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-27
July 2024
Project Impacts
Grading, excavation, and other ground-disturbing activities that would occur during construction of
the project would excavate and remove occupied burrows of SDPM that occur on the project site. As
a result, these actions would lead to take of SDPM and loss of occupied habitat. Overall, direct impacts
to SDPM resulting from construction of the project, include take and loss of nesting, sheltering, and
foraging habitat for this species. Thus, the project as designed would have a significant impact on
SDPM.
Significance Conclusion for Impacts to Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse Based on
Existing FEIR
The analysis of Approved Project impacts on SDPM in the Certified EIR was based on species
occurrence potential estimates based on known occurrences within the project region, and the
presence or absence of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. As SDPM was captured
during trapping surveys in September 2023, implementation of the Certified EIR mitigation measure
for San Bernardino kangaroo rat (mitigation measure D-1 [part]) is considered warranted for SDPM.
Implementation of Action D1.1 would reduce impacts on SDPM to less than significant.
San Diego (=Dulzura) kangaroo rat (Dipodomys simulans [SDKR]15; Special Animals List). The SDKR
is found in open, sandy areas in southwestern California and northern Baja California. This species
prefers habitats of grassland and open sage scrub with sandy-loam to loam soils in which it may
excavate burrows. The SDKR often occupies areas also occupied by the San Bernardino kangaroo rat,
but has a wider habitat range.
The SDKR was captured on the project site during small mammal trapping surveys conducted in
September 2023. Thus, SDKR is present within the project site (ENVIRA, 2023a,b; see Appendix A3
Focused Trapping Surveys for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and Los Angeles Pocket Mouse).
Project Impacts
Grading, excavation, and other ground-disturbing activities that would occur during construction of
the project would excavate and remove occupied burrows of SDKR that occur on the project site. As
a result, these actions would lead to take of SDKR and loss of occupied habitat. Overall, direct impacts
to SDKR resulting from construction of the project, include take and loss of nesting, sheltering, and
foraging habitat for this species. Thus, the project as designed would have a significant impact on
SDKR.
Significance Conclusion for Impacts to San Diego Kangaroo Rat Based on Existing FEIR
The analysis of Approved Project impacts on SDKR in the Certified EIR was based on species
occurrence potential estimates based on known occurrences within the project region, and the
presence or absence of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. As SDKR was captured
15 The San Diego (=Dulzura) kangaroo rat (Dipodomys simulans) is referred to in this document using the 4-letter acronym for
one of its common names, San Diego kangaroo rat (SDKR); whereas, the 3-letter acronym based on its other common name,
Dulzura kangaroo rat (DKR), is used in the focused survey report (Envira, 2023a,b; see Appendix A3 Focused Trapping
Surveys for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and Los Angeles Pocket Mouse).
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-28
July 2024
during trapping surveys in September 2023, implementation of the Certified EIR mitigation measure
for San Bernardino kangaroo rat (mitigation measure D-1 [part]) is considered warranted for SDKR.
Implementation of Action D1.1 would reduce impacts on SDKR to less than significant.
Eleven special-status wildlife species have been recorded within two miles of the BSA (see
Figure 4.4-4): Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), Delhi sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas
terminatus abdominalis), Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), San
Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus), San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus
californicus bennettii), San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia), southern California
legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), coast horned lizard
(Phrynosoma blainvillii), northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax), and
western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus).
As discussed previously, BUOW, LAPM, SDPM, and SDKR are present within the project site. Crotch
bumble bee has not been recorded within two miles of the BSA since 1953 but has a low potential to
occur due to the presence of disturbed fiddleneck-phacelia fields; Delhi sands flower-loving fly is not
expected to occur because this species requires Delhi sands soils, which are not found within the BSA;
and San Bernardino kangaroo rat was not found during focused trapping surveys conducted for this
and other small mammal species. San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit was recorded in 2001 near the
Etiwanda Creek Flood Control Basin but has a moderate potential to occur in the BSA; San Diego
desert woodrat is not expected to occur due to lack of suitable habitat or veg etation; southern
California legless lizard was recorded in 1992 and has a low potential to occur due to marginally
suitable habitat within the BSA; coast horned lizard has been recorded in the BSA and has a moderate
potential to occur; and western mastiff bat is not expected to occur because the BSA does not contain
suitable vegetation or roosting habitat. For details, see Appendix A4, Species Occurrence Potential
Determinations.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) Bird Species
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements four international conservation treaties that the
U.S. entered into with Canada (in 1916), Mexico (in 1936), Japan (in 1972), and Russia (in 1976).
ensure the sustainability of populations of all protected migratory bird species by prohibiting the
take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species
without prior authorization by the USFWS, The USFWS updates its list of migratory bird species if it
meets one or more of the following criteria:
1. It occurs in the United States or U.S. territories as the result of natural biological or ecological
processes and is currently, or was previously listed as, a species or part of a family protected
by one of the four international treaties or their amendments.
2. Revised taxonomy results in it being newly split from a species that was previously on the
list, and the new species occurs in the United States or U.S. territories as the result of natural
biological or ecological processes.
3. New evidence exists for its natural occurrence in the United States or U.S. territories resulting
from natural distributional changes and the species occurs in a protected family.
This list was updated in 2020 and can be found at under CFR Title 50 Part 10.13 (10.13 list;
88 FR 49310). Another list, updated 2020, identifies species belonging to biological families referred
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-29
July 2024
to in treaties the MBTA implements but are not protected because their presence in the United States
or U.S. territories is solely the result of intentional or unintentional human -assisted introductions
(85 FR 21262).
Native birds are protected by the California Fish and Game Code render it unlawful to take native
breeding birds, and their nests, eggs, and young.
Project Impacts
Direct impacts breeding and nesting birds would result from vegetation and tree removal, including
but not limited to grubbing, mowing, and disking. Indirect impacts to breeding and nesting birds
could occur from increased noise, vibration, and dust during construction, which could adversely
affect the breeding behavior of some birds, and lead to the loss (take) of eggs and chicks, or nest
abandonment. Impacts to breeding and besting birds protected by the MBTA and California Fish and
Game Code would potentially be significant without implementation of a WSP FEIR mitigation
measure and project design features.
Significance Conclusion for Impacts to Migratory Bird Species Based on Existing FEIR
FEIR Mitigation Measure D-5 requires that the project applicant shall implement pre-construction
nesting bird surveys if construction activities are scheduled to occur during nesting season.
Migratory bird species are protected by the MBTA, and by § 3503 and § 3513 of the FGC; and
therefore, pre-construction nesting bird surveys are required to avoid impacts to this species.
Implementation of Action D5.2 would achieve the less than significant impact on migratory bird
species as determined in the Certified FEIR.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-30
July 2024
Figure 4.4-4
CNDDB KNOWN OCCURRENCES: WILDLIFE SPECIES
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-31
July 2024
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse impact to any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
The BSA does not support habitats that are considered sensitive natural communities (CDFW, 2022).
Vineyard is the primary land cover occurring within the BSA and contains disturbed soils of low-
quality habitat value for sensitive plant species. on the western side of the BSA does not support
riparian communities or individual riparian plant species.
The BSA contains the following five land cover types (see Table 4.4-2 and Figure 4.4-5):
Developed
Developed land cover primarily consists of man-made structures, paving and other impermeable
surfaces that cannot support vegetation. Developed lands also include ornamental and non -native
landscaping around residences. Developed lands within the BSA consist of SR-210, paved streets,
driveways, sidewalks, residential areas, transmission line towers, and other permanent structures.
These developed areas provide virtually no habitat for wildlife species. Landscaped (ornamental
trees, shrubs, turf, etc.) areas associated with the developed lands within the BSA provide virtually
no habitat for wildlife species; however, birds could use the ornamental trees for foraging and
nesting. This land cover is not considered sensitive (CDFW, 2023).
Developed land cover occupies approximately 22.7 acres of the BSA. The project site contains no
Developed land cover.
Disturbed
The Disturbed land cover type is characterized by areas that are either barren, and thus completely
lacking vegetation (e.g., dirt/gravel roads or gravel-covered staging areas), or low-lying ruderal
vegetation including native and non-native shrubs, forbs, and/or grasses. Many areas in the
Disturbed land cover type, such as the dirt/gravel service road of the transmission line towers and
other dirt access roads interspersed throughout the vineyards and uncultivated fields within the BSA,
contain highly compacted soils, which do not support vegetative cover.
Weed abatement activities such as disking and mowing throughout vegetated areas of Disturbed land
cover adversely affect habitat value by reducing vegetative cover. Vegetation within Disturbed land
cover primarily consists of non-native annual grass and forb species. Disturbed land cover within the
BSA does not fit any classification described in A Manual of California Vegetation Second Edition
(Sawyer et al., 2009) or Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Communities of California (Holland,
1986). This land cover type is not considered a sensitive habitat on CDFW’s California Sensitive
Natural Community List (CDFW, 2023).
The Disturbed land cover occupies approximately 20.1 acres of the BSA and 4.0 acres of the project
site.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-32
July 2024
Caltrans Landscaping
The Caltrans landscaping land cover occurs in landscaped sections between the Highland Channel
and the Cherry Avenue onramp to SR-210, between the Cherry Avenue onramp and SR-210, and
adjacent to the east- and westbound lanes of the SR-210. The tree species used in this landscaping
include kurrajong (Brachychiton populenus), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and Fremont
cottonwood (Populus fremontii). While coast live oak and Fremont cottonwood are both native
species, kurrajong is a non-native ornamental. The understory consists of native shrubs, such as
California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica),
deerweed (Acmispon glaber), Pomona milkvetch (Astragalus pomonensis), and doveweed (Croton
setiger). Acacia (Acacia sp.), a non-native ornamental species, has also been planted within the shrub
layer. Various herbaceous weeds such as telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora) and stinkwort
(Dittrichia graveolens) occur within these sites as well. The trees in this land cover type are sparsely
distributed, covering approximately ten percent of the area. There is dense shrub cover in most areas
of this land cover. This land cover is not considered sensitive (CDFW, 2023).
The Caltrans Landscaping land cover type occupies approximately 8.2 acres of the BSA and 0.1 acre
of the project site.
Eucalyptus Grove (Eucalyptus [globulus, camaldulensis] Association)
The Eucalyptus Grove land cover type occupies is located adjacent the southbound lane of San
Sevaine Road. Eucalyptus groves are characterized by Eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus spp.) which
dominate the tree canopy. These species were originally planted as individual trees, groves, and
windbreaks, later becoming naturalized on uplands, bottomlands, and adjacent to stream courses,
lakes, or levees. Stands in this alliance occur in agricultural and urban land use areas as well as widely
beyond these, typically in disturbed areas including roadside verges and upper terraces of
floodplains (CNPS, 2023). This land cover is not considered sensitive by CDFW (CDFW, 2023).These
trees are considered windrow trees as defined by the City of Fontana municipal code (Chapter 28,
§28-63), as “a series of trees (minimum of four), usually a variety of eucalyptus, planted in a closely
spaced line no more than ten feet apart to provide a windbreak for the protection of property and/or
agricultural crops.”
According to the City of Fontana municipal code (Chapter 28, §28-63), “Protected” tree means any
heritage, significant or specimen tree subject to this article or other such tree identified by a federal
or state agency as endangered or sensitive species.
Eucalyptus windrows could be considered Heritage Trees per the City of Fontana municipal code
(Chapter 28, § 28-61 – 28-63). Heritage tree means any tree which:
(1) Is of historical value because of its association with a place, building, natural feature or
event of local, regional or national historical significance as identified by city council
resolution; or
(2) Is representative of a significant period of the city's growth or development (windrow
tree, European Olive tree); or
(3) Is a protected or endangered species as specified by federal or state statute; or
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-33
July 2024
(4) Is deemed historically or culturally significant by the city manager or his or her designee
because of size, condition, location or aesthetic qualities.
According to the owner of the property, these are 2nd or 3rd growth Eucalyptus trees. The original
trees were cut down, according to the owner’s knowledge of managing the vineyard near the
windrow (Lee, 2024b). Therefore, these Eucalyptus trees are not considered heritage trees.
These trees are also not considered “Significant” trees because Eucalyptus in not included on the list
of significant trees in the City of Fontana municipal code (Chapter 28, §28-63).
Based on the City of Fontana municipal code definitions (Chapter 28, §28-63). these Eucalyptus trees
are considered “Specimen” trees, which is defined as a mature tree (which is not a heritage or
significant tree) and is an excellent example of its species in structure and aesthetics and warrants
preservation, relocation, or replacement as provided in sections 28-66, 28-67 and 28-68. Specimen
trees shall not include any tree located on a private parcel of property of less than one acre zoned for
residential use.
The Eucalyptus Grove land cover occupies approximately 0.8 acre of the BSA and is completely within
the City ROW.
Vinyard/Disturbed Fiddleneck-Phacelia Fields
The Vineyard/Disturbed fiddleneck-phacelia fields land cover contains land that is used seasonally
as a vineyard to grow grapes (agriculture), without supplemental irrigation. The vineyards have been
cultivated since at least 1938 (NetrOnline 2023). Domestic grape (Vitis vinifera) is the dominant
shrub and its cover varies from approximately 10 percent in the late fall and winter in its deciduous
state to approximately 75 percent in late summer when its foliage matures. Annual forbs and grasses
characteristic of the Disturbed fiddleneck-phacelia fields land cover establish within the vineyard
rows and the understory of the vines, forming a dense vegetative cover of approximately 90 percent,
while the grapes are in their dormant state in the late winter and e arly spring. The dominant forb
species during this period are the native common fiddleneck, and non-native filaree species and
annual grass species such as ripgut brome. Co-dominant and common forb and annual grass species
observed during this period include oat species (Avena spp.), Sahara mustard (Brassica tournefortii),
red maids (Calandrinia menziesii), (Eulobus californicus), and annual lupine (Lupinus bicolor). Much
of the non-target vegetation within the vineyard rows is disturbed by cultivation practices during the
late winter to early summer as described below.
Vineyard maintenance crews were observed conducting monthly disking and blading of the vineyard
rows, both north-to-south and west-to-east rows, between late January and June. As a result, the only
vegetation other than the grape vines that persists in the late growing season is the vegetation that
grows beneath the vine’s canopies; ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) was the dominant species
growing within the grape vines’ canopies during the late growing season. This land cover is not
considered sensitive (CDFW, 2023).
The Vineyard/Disturbed fiddleneck-phacelia fields land cover occupies approximately 35.9 acres of
the BSA and 14.0 acres of the project site.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-34
July 2024
Figure 4.4-5
LAND COVER TYPES
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-35
July 2024
TABLE 4.4-2
ACREAGE OF MAPPED LAND COVER TYPES
Land Cover Type
Area Mapped within
BSA
(acres)
Area Mapped within
the Project Site
(acres)
Developed 22.7 -
Disturbed 20.1 4.0
Caltrans landscaping 8.2 0.1
Eucalyptus grove 0.8 0.0
Vinyard/Disturbed fiddleneck/phacelia fields 35.9 14.0
Total 87.6 18.1
The project site does not support riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, as defined
by CDFW, or regional or local plans, policies, or ordinance. There are no new changes or new
information regarding impacts to natural sensitive communities. Impact determination is consistent
with the WSP, and therefore no additional mitigation is required.
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands
as defined by § 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
No Impact
According to the literature review and biological surveys of the project site, one waterway, Highland
Channel, is located along the northern boundary of the project site (see Figure 4.4-6). The Highland
Channel is an intermittent drainage fed by urban runoff and stormwater generated north of SR -210,
and ultimately discharges into East Etiwanda Creek near Victoria Street; East Etiwanda Creek is a
known water of the U.S. which, by definition, makes Highland Channel a water of the U.S.
Highland Channel is protected by an access road and a fence that restricts unauthorized entrance;
the fence is paralleled by a power line from San Sevaine Road to the center of the SCE ROW. The
project, as designed, would not encroach into the powerline ROW or Highland Channel ROW and
would not result in direct or indirect impacts to waters of the U.S. and State (as defined by § 404 of
the Clean Water Act [CWA], by the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act [Porter-
Cologne], and by §§ 1600-1617 of the California Fish and Game Code) are anticipated through
hydrological interruption, or other means.
The project would not result in impacts to waters of the U.S. or State (including wetlands) and no
additional mitigation is required.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-36
July 2024
Figure 4.4-6
USGS SURFACE WATERS AND WATERSHEDS
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-37
July 2024
d) Could the project interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
A wildlife corridor is a connection of habitat, generally native vegetation, which joins two or more
larger areas of similar habitat that are otherwise separated by natural barriers, changes in vegetation
composition, or land permanently altered for human activities, such as farms; and infrastructure,
such as roads, railroads, residential development, or fencing. When native vegetation is cleared,
fragmented patches of open space or isolated islands of wildlife habitat are created. Fragmentation
and habitat loss are the two main contributors to continuing biodiversity decline. The main goal of
corridors is to facilitate movement of individuals, through dispersal, seasonal migration, and
movement for foraging, breeding, cover, etc. Corridors allow for physical and genetic exchange
between isolated wildlife populations and are critical for the maintenance of ecological processes,
including allowing for the movement of animals and the continuation of viable populations and
higher species diversity.
Habitat within a corridor generally contains biological and physical features that are needed to
temporarily support wildlife and allow avian and ground-dwelling wildlife to safely move through it.
Wildlife corridors may either be contiguous strips of vegetation and habitat, such as ridgelines or
riverbeds, or intermittent patches of habitat or physical features spaced closely enough to allow safe
travel. Corridors can be natural, such as a riparian corridor, or man-made, such as culverts, tunnels,
drainage pipes, underpasses, or overpasses. Man-made corridors are often referred to as wildlife
crossings and they allow wildlife to pass over, under, or through physical barriers that otherwise
hinder movement, such as roads or highways. Wildlife corridors also vary greatly in size, shape, and
composition. Generally, there are three types of wildlife corridors:
• Regional corridor: a primary landscape connection between larger important areas of habitat. They
are generally substantial in width (more than 2,000 feet) and not only provide for dispersal of
individual species, but also act as habitat in their own right for a range of sp ecies. These areas
provide adequate food, water, cover, and shelter to support wildlife within the corridor.
• Sub-regional corridor: a landscape connection not as wide as a regional corridor, but wide enough
(generally more than 1,000 feet) to provide species movement and dispersal. Sub-regional corridors
typically connect larger vegetated landscape features such as ridgelines and valley floors.
• Local movement corridor: smaller, shorter, less defined linkages that provide local connection of
remnant patches of vegetation and landscape features such as creek lines, gullies, and wetlands.
They may in some cases be less than 160 feet wide and thus may be influenced by edge effects.
Such wildlife crossings are considered local corridors.
In general, the wider and more safeguarded a wildlife corridor is from adjacent human activities,
including noise, traffic, and light, the better it functions for the movement of wildlife. To determine
the potential for the BSA to contain wildlife corridors, biologists reviewed the USGS 7.5-Minute
Topographic Maps Cucamonga Peak, Devore, and Fontana Quadrangles (USGS; 2021a, 2021b, 2021c)
and viewed aerial imagery to search for physical features that might serve as a wildlife corridor.
Biologists also reviewed CDFW Essential Connectivity Areas and Natural Landscape Blocks within
ten miles of the project site (see Figure 4.4-6). Essential Connectivity areas are large, relatively
natural habitat blocks (Natural Landscape Blocks) that support native biodiversity and areas
essential for ecological connectivity between them. CDFW has mapped a statewide network of 850
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-38
July 2024
relatively intact Natural Landscape Blocks (ranging in size from 2,000 to about 3.7 million acres)
connected by 192 Essential Connectivity Areas. The San Gabriel Mountains Essential Connectivity
Area is located approximately 2.5 miles north of the project site (see Figure 4.4-7). The BSA does not
overlap within mapped CDFW Essential Connectivity Areas, Natural Landscape Blocks, or Small
Natural Areas mapped within the San Gabriel Mountains.
Predators such as coyotes, and smaller mammals such as raccoons (Procyon lotor) and striped skunks
(Mephitis mephitis), are known to use residential, industrial and commercial areas, utility corridor
rights-of-way, and washes for hunting and foraging; these species also use washes (natural and
channelized), culverts, underpasses, and city streets for travelling, often but not necessarily limited
to overnight hours when human activity decreases (Baker and Timm, 1998; Grubbs and Krausman,
2009; Ng et al., 2004).
Urban areas provide a unique ecosystem with ecological opportunity in the form of anthropogenic
food sources such as discarded human food, pet food, human-associated fruits, and domestic animals
(Larson et. al., 2020). Due to urbanization of the project vicinity, the BSA is not likely to function as a
regional wildlife corridor; however, examination of aerial imagery indicates that the BSA functions
as a hunting, foraging, and local movement corridor, and the project site and BSA are suitable wildlife
movement corridors.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-39
July 2024
Figure 4.4-7
CDFW WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-40
July 2024
Due to the urbanized state of the area, it is unlikely that mammals unacclimated to human activities
or that require dense vegetative cover currently utilize the BSA for passage. Species that are less
restricted in movement pathway requirements or that are adapted to urban areas (raccoon, skunk,
coyote, birds) are likely to move through the BSA. The BSA supports habitat and physical features
that provide connectivity (via storm drain channels and roadways) to the San Gabriel Mountains. Due
to the presence of small mammals and burrowing owls, it is probable that the BSA serves as a local
movement corridor which could be used by larger wildlife species (e.g., coyotes, golden eagles) for
hunting and foraging. Construction of the project is not anticipated to significantly impact wildlife
movement, as the urban-adaptive species that already utilize the BSA for passage would likely be able
to adapt to the new development resulting from construction of the project. Impacts to wildlife
corridors would be less than significant in this regard.
The BSA provides potential nesting, hunting, and foraging habitat for special-status small mammal
species, bird species, and for bird species protected by the MBTA (some of which were observed
during the field survey) due to the presence of limited trees, shrubs and groundcover and active
burrowing owl habitat. Avian nesting activity typically occurs between February 15 to August 31
(January 15 to August 31 for raptors), but could vary depending on changes in climate or weather
conditions. Disturbing breeding birds, and disturbing or destroying bird eggs and nests is a violation
of MBTA (16 U.S.C 703 et seq.) and California fish and Game Codes § 3503, § 3503.5, and § 3513.
There are no new changes or new information regarding impacts to the movement of resident,
migratory fish, or wildlife species; with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or with
the use of wildlife nursery sites. Impact determination and recommended mitigation is consistent
with the WSP, and therefore no additional mitigation is required.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
The BSA contains a eucalyptus grove adjacent to San Sevaine Road (within City right-of-way [ROW]);
this grove is a remnant of a eucalyptus windrow. As described above, this windrow of Eucalyptus
trees is protected by the City because these trees are considered “Specimen” trees as defined by the
City of Fontana municipal code (Chapter 28, §28-3). The trees are third-generation trees sprouted
from stumps of second-generation trees that were removed. This windrow is within the City of
Fontana right-of-way for San Sevaine Avenue, and is not within the project site. Widening of San
Sevaine Avenue is planned within the right-of-way.
The project would remove the windrow trees in the City ROW along San Sevaine Road for
construction access. The City of Fontana does not require a permit for removal of specimen trees
which are determined to be within the ultimate right-of-way as shown within the circulation element
of the city's general plan (Fontana Municipal Code Section 28-65([6]). The project would therefore
not conflict with the City of Fontana tree preservation ordinance (Fontana Municipal Code Sections
28-61 et seq.).
There are no new changes or new information regarding conflicts with local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources. Impact determination is consistent with the WSP FEIR, and therefore
no additional mitigation is required.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-41
July 2024
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact
The BSA is not located within USFWS-designated Critical Habitat. The designated critical habitat
nearest to the project is that of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus), which
is located approximately one mile northwest from the project site (USFWS, 2023b; see Figure 4.4-8,
USFWS Critical Habitat). The BSA is not located in a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural
Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved HCP areas.
The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local,
regional, or state HCP approved. No mitigation is required.
❖ SECTION 4.4 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.4-42
July 2024
Figure 4.4-8
USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.5-1
July 2024
4.5 Cultural Resources
4.5.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR)
Analysis and Conclusions
The information below summarizes the analysis and conclusions in Section 4.E, Cultural Resources,
in the DEIR (2015). The analysis of cultural resources is derived from a technical report prepared by
PCR Services Corporation in April 2014. The Cultural Resources Assessment was provided in the
Westgate Specific Plan DEIR as Appendix D (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, Appendix D]).
Historical Resources - cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in §15064.5 (Impact 4.E-1):
The Hippard Ranch, which is located approximately one‐half mile west of the Approved Project site
was determined eligible for local listing. The Hippard Ranch is on the west side of I‐15 and is not
visible from the Approved Project site and therefore no di rect or indirect impacts to the historic
resource from any proposed project associated with the Approved Project would occur (WSP Draft
EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.E-20]).
Baseline Avenue (P‐36‐15,497/CPHI‐SBR‐12) is located outside but immediately adjacent to the
southern boundary of the project site and no remnants of the original road that was built by Hunt in
the 1850s exists today. The Approved Project would not cause a substantial adverse change to the
significance of Baseline Avenue since it is located outside the project site and; therefore, it would not
be directly impacted by any future development. In addition, the setting of Baseline Avenue has
already been altered by existing residential and commercial uses in the area; therefore, no indirect
impacts associated with the Approved Project will occur (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.E-
20-4.E-21]).
The vineyards and associated water tank, water system and a former farmstead site (CA‐SBR‐7324H)
are physically and historically associated components and may be contributing features of a potential
historic agricultural landscape. The vineyards and associated water tank, water system and/or
former farmstead site may be historically significant, therefore mitigation measure E-1 is required
for the preservation and recordation of known resources, and/or recovery and curation of buried
resources, as appropriate, in order to address potential impacts. However, even with implementation
of mitigation measure E-1 that requires recordation of affected resources, impacts to historic
resources would be considered significant and unavoidable, as future implementation of the
Approved Specific Plan could ultimately result in the demolition and removal of the vineyards a nd
associated water tank, water system and the former farmstead site (CA‐SBR‐7324H) (WSP Draft EIR
[PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.E-21]).
➢ Approved Project Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Impact after Mitigation.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: Refer to mitigation measure E-1.
Archaeological Resources - cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064 (Impact 4.E.2):
No recorded archaeological resources are within the Approved Project site. PCR performed a limited‐
coverage pedestrian survey of the project site and did not identify any previously unrecorded
archaeological resources. Before an adequate project‐level impact analysis can be performed, new
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.5-2
July 2024
comprehensive pedestrian surveys that examine the entirety of the project site will be required to
identify any previously unknown archaeological resources and to determine whether there is enough
potential to encounter a buried historic archaeological deposit at the former location of CA‐SBR‐
7324H that would warrant subsurface test excavations to identify its nature and extent. These
recommendations are included as mitigation measures E-2 through E-5 (WSP Draft EIR [PCR
Services, 2015, p. 4.E-21]).
The Approved Project could potentially include significant ground‐disturbing activities and could
have a significant impact on both existing and unidentified archaeological resources within the
project site. Relatively limited surface grading would be needed for parking lots, parks, and other
improvements requiring low‐intensity construction. For the majority of improvements and
development, however, such as residential and commercial development, schools, and their
associated utilities, deeper and more extensive ground disturbance would be required for
construction (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.E-21]). Components of the Plan that do not
require excavation activities such as grading, trenching, or boring will result in no impacts to
archaeological resources and therefore no additional analyses or mitigation is necessary. These
projects would include areas where an existing grade will be utilized or raised to a higher grade.
Other Plan components that include excavations into heavily disturbed soils or fill would also result
in no impact to archaeological resources as resources have likely been displaced from previous
disturbances and there is nearly no potential to encounter resources in fill soils (WSP Draft EIR [PCR
Services, 2015, p. 4.E-22]).
However, all components of the Plan that include excavations into native soils will require additional
analyses to identify any potential impacts to archaeological resources. The results of the cultural
resources records search through the CHRIS‐SBAIC revealed that there are numerous archaeological
resources located outside the project site but within the foothills and mountain areas to the north
and south of the one‐half mile search radius. These findings confirm prehistoric occupation in the
vicinity of the project and suggest that prehistoric archaeological resource may exist within the
project site on the surface or subsurface (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.E-22]).
The Approved Project has a moderate potential to impact archaeological resources. Future
archaeological sensitivity assessments will be performed on a project‐by-project basis and will take
into account previous land use/disturbances, project impacts (direct and indirect), and location of
known resources in the vicinity. Overall, however, with implementation of applicable mitigation
measures (E-2 through E-5), impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant (WSP
Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.E-22]).
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: Refer to mitigation measures E-2 to E-5.
Paleontological Resources - directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature (Impact 4.E-3): This section was moved and is addressed in
Section 4.6, Geology and Soils. of this document for consistency with the current 2024 CEQA
thresholds.
Human Remains - disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries (Impact 4.E.4):
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.5-3
July 2024
A Sacred Lands File search for the project site requested by PCR from the NAHC in Sacramento did
not indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the SLF database within the
project site. The NAHC results also noted, however, that the “NAHC [SLF] inventory is not exhaustive
and does not preclude the discovery of cultural resources during any project groundbreaking
activity.” The results of the SBAIC search showed no recorded human remains have been identified
within the project site or a half‐mile radius. The sensitivity of the project site regarding buried human
remains is low. If such resources are accidentally encountered during project implementation,
mitigation measure E-9 will ensure that potential impacts to the resources are reduced to a less than
significant level.
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: Refer to mitigation measure E-9.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
The following cultural resources mitigation measures in the Final EIR are relevant to the modified
project.
No. Mitigation Measure
E-1
Historical
Resources
If the historic agricultural landscape and any associated contributing features including
the vineyards, water tank, water system, and farmstead site CA‐SBR‐7324H would be
affected by a future project component of the Plan that would cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of the historical resource, the applicant shall hire a qualified
historic preservation consultant to review the Project for conformance with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and the preservation consultant shall provide
preservation design consultation to assist the applicant to avoid or reduce potential
impacts to historical resources. If potentially significant impacts cannot be avoided, the
applicant shall prepare a Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS) to document the
historic agricultural landscape in accordance with the National Parks Service’s
Requirements for Heritage Documentation Programs. The HALS shall be prepared by a
qualified historian or architectural historian and include a discussion of the history of the
vineyards and associated structures and infrastructure, historic aerial photographs and
written descriptions illustrating the appearance and extent of the vineyards during the
historic period, as well as photographs of the remaining landscape and structural
features by a Historic American Landscape Survey (HALS)‐qualified photographer.
Furthermore, the applicant shall preserve a portion of the remaining vineyard within the
project boundaries for interpretive purposes, at a size determined appropriate by the
City, which shall be located in a publicly accessible area and shall include an interpretive
plaque and historic aerial photo or historic map and timeline to educate visitors
regarding the past use and significance of the property. If the former farmstead site CA‐
SBR‐7324H would be physically impacted by future ground disturbing activities, the site
shall be mitigated through archaeological data recovery by a qualified historical
archaeologist prior to commencement of construction activities, as discussed below in
Mitigation Measure E‐4.
E-2
Archaeological
Resources
The City shall conduct a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of the project to identify
any archaeological resources within the area of a proposed project component. The
Phase I assessment shall include cultural resources records searches through the San
Bernardino Archaeological Information Center (as needed), a Sacred Lands File search
through the Native American Heritage Commission and follow‐up Native American
consultation (as needed), and a comprehensive pedestrian survey of the project site. As
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.5-4
July 2024
No. Mitigation Measure
part of this assessment, the City shall also determine whether there is enough potential
to encounter a buried historic archaeological deposit at the former location of CA‐SBR‐
7324H that would warrant subsurface test excavations to identify its nature and extent.
• If resources are identified during the Phase I assessment, then a Phase II
assessment shall be required, as described in Mitigation Measure E‐2.
• If no resources are identified as part of the assessment, no further analyses or
mitigation shall be warranted, unless it can be determined that the project has a
high potential to encounter buried archaeological resources. This discussion will
be included in a technical report and the Cultural Resources Initial Study or EIR
Section.
• If it is determined that there is a moderate or high potential to encounter buried
archaeological resources, appropriate mitigation shall be developed and
implemented. Appropriate mitigation may include, redesign of the proposed
project to avoid the sensitive area, in which case no additional mitigation would
be required.
If avoidance is not possible, appropriate mitigation shall include but not be limited to the
following:
Archaeological Monitoring During Construction: A qualified archaeologist shall be
retained by the City prior to the commencement of the project. The archaeologist shall
monitor all ground‐disturbing activities and excavations within the project area. The
purpose of the monitoring is to inspect sidewalls and spoils piles of exposed excavation
trenches and pits for the presence or absence of archaeological resources and to
determine whether native soils are present at depth. The frequency of monitoring shall
be determined by PCR in coordination with the City and shall be based on the results of
the soil conditions and resource yields during construction. Such factors that will
determine monitoring frequency include rate of excavation and grading activities, the
materials being excavated (fill or native soils), the depth of excavation, and if found, the
abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. In addition, PCR shall
recommend appropriate treatment measures (i.e., avoidance, removal, or preservation
in place) to reduce or avoid impacts to buried resources, if encountered. If archaeological
resources are encountered during implementation of the project, ground‐disturbing
activities shall temporarily be redirected from the vicinity of the find. The archaeologist
shall be allowed to temporarily divert or redirect grading or excavation activities in the
vicinity in order to make an evaluation of the find and determine appropriate treatment
that may include the development and implementation of a testing/data recovery
investigation or preservation in place. Upon completion of the monitoring services, the
archaeologist shall prepare a final report about the find and the monitoring services to
be filed with the City to show satisfactory compliance with the archaeological mitigation
measures for a given project. The report shall include documentation and interpretation
of resources recovered. Interpretation will include full evaluation of the eligibility with
respect to the California Register of Historical Resources. The landowner, in consultation
with the City and archaeologist, shall designate repositories to curate any material in the
event that resources are recovered during construction.
E-3
Archaeological
Resources
If resources are identified during the Phase I assessment, a Phase II Cultural Resources
Assessment may be warranted if improvements or development is proposed in the
vicinity of such resource, or if an alternate alignment or plan is not selected. The Phase II
assessment shall evaluate the resource(s) for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources and to determine whether the resource qualifies as a “unique
archaeological resource” pursuant to CEQA. If enough data is obtained from the Phase I
assessment to conduct a proper evaluation, a Phase II assessment may not be necessary.
Methodologies for evaluating a resource can include, but are not limited to: subsurface
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.5-5
July 2024
No. Mitigation Measure
archaeological excavations, additional background research, and coordination with
interested individuals in the community. The methods and results of a Phase II
assessment shall be described in a technical report that will support the Initial Study or
EIR Section of the CEQA environmental document.
E-4
Archaeological
Resources
If, as a result of the Phase II assessment, resources are determined eligible for listing in
the California Register or are considered “unique archaeological resources,” potential
impacts to the resources shall be analyzed and if impacts are significant, mitigation
measures shall be developed and implemented to reduce impacts to the resources to a
level that is less than significant. The preferred mitigation of impacts to archaeological
resources shall be avoidance and/or preservation in place such as resource “capping”
(capping resource with a layer of clean fill soils before building on resource) or
incorporating the resource into a park plan or open space. Preservation in place or
avoidance would provide the least amount of impacts to the resource and wou ld likely
meet the interests of individuals or groups who are concerned with impacts to
archaeological resources such as Native American groups (if the resource is a prehistoric
or Native American resource). If avoidance and/or preservation in place are not feasible,
relocation of the resource shall be considered. If these mitigation options are not feasible
and/or do not meet the interests of the City or other interested individuals or groups,
then a Phase III archaeological assessment shall be implemented. Phase III assessments
typically include additional subsurface archaeological excavations (i.e., data recovery)
that serve to recover significant archaeological resources before they are damaged or
destroyed by the proposed improvement. Phase III assessments shall be considered and
implemented as a last resort if no other mitigation measures are feasible. The
aforementioned measures are typically recommended as mitigation measures in the
CEQA environmental document and are typically implemented after the CEQA
environmental document has been certified and prior to issuance of grading or building
permits. After the appropriate and feasible mitigation measure(s) has been selected and
implemented, the methodology and results of its implementation shall be described in a
technical report that shall be submitted to the City to show satisfactory compliance with
the archaeological mitigation measures for a given project.
E-5
Archaeological
Resources
If archaeological resources (including historic and prehistoric resources) are
encountered during implementation of the project, ground‐disturbing activities should
temporarily be redirected from the vicinity of the find. The City shall immediately notify
a qualified archaeologist of the find. The archaeologist should coordinate with the City as
to the immediate treatment of the find until a proper site visit and evaluation is made by
the archaeologist. Treatment may include the implementation of an archaeological
testing or salvage program. All archaeological resources recovered will be documented
on California Department of Parks and Recreation Site Forms to be filed with the CHRIS‐
SBAIC. The archaeologist shall prepare a final report about the find to be filed with the
City and the CHRIS‐SBAIC, as required by the California Office of Historic Preservation.
The report shall include documentation and interpretation of resources recovered.
Interpretation will include full evaluation of the eligibility with re spect to the California
Register of Historical Resources. The landowner, in consultation with the City and the
archaeologist, shall designate repositories to curate any material in the event that
resources are recovered during construction. The archaeologist shall also determine the
need for archaeological monitoring for any ground‐disturbing activities in the area of the
find thereafter.
E-9
Human
Remains
If human remains are encountered unexpectedly during implementation of the proposed
project, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance
shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and
disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of
Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.5-6
July 2024
No. Mitigation Measure
the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD may, with the permission of the land owner,
or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native
American remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the
excavation work means for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human
remains and any associated grave goods. The MLD shall complete their inspection and
make their recommendation within 48 hours of being granted access by the land owner
to inspect the discovery. The recommendation may include the scientific removal and
nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American
burials. Upon the discovery of the Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure
that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological
standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located, is not
damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed
and conferred, as prescribed in this mitigation measure, with the MLD regarding their
recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human
remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable
options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.
Whenever the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a
recommendation, or the landowner or his or her authorized representative rejects the
recommendation of the descendants and the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k)
of Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the
landowner or his or her authorized representative shall inter the human remains and
items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the
property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance.
Source: WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.E-24 – 4.E-29]; WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015b, pp. 4-30 to 4-43].
4.5.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
The modified project’s potential impacts on cultural resources have been evaluated in light of the
present environmental regulatory setting. A Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory was completed for
the Modified Project in January 2024 and is included as Appendix B to this Addendum.
4.5.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist responses compare the previous Approved Project analyzed under the
adopted Westgate Specific Plan FEIR with the modified project as described in this document, and
analyze the potential impacts resulting from the development of the modified project. The
information in this Section is based on the Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory for the PA 27 Medical
Office Building – Addendum 6, Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Project, City Of Fontana, San Bernardino
County, California completed by UltraSystems and dated January 2024. A complete copy of this report
is included as Appendix B to this Addendum.
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.5-7
July 2024
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in § 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
X
Background and Analysis
Cultural Resources Records Search. Based on the CHRIS cultural resource records search, it was
determined that there have been no prehistoric cultural resources recorded within the project site
boundary or the 0.5-mile radius of the project area. There have been historic sites recorded with in
the 0.5-mile buffer but none within the project boundary. Table 4.1-1 summarizes these resources.
The four historic sites that are within the 0.5-mile radius are the following: 36-007325, 36-009363,
36-009364, and 36-014190.
Site 36-007325 (CA-SBr-7325H) is 20th century residential/commercial site. According to the site
record, the property is estimated to have been built in 1925. “The site consists of several structural
foundations, a small cobblestone reservoir (fishpond?), a driveway with cobble-concrete pillars, a
rock alignment, a sparse scatter of artifacts, a tree ladder, and landscape vegetation”. In addition, the
site consists of 8 features and several artifacts. Feature 1 is the remnants of the structure, a slab
foundation. Feature 2 is a remnant of the structure, another slab foundation. Feature 3 consists of
two cobble-concrete pillars. Feature 4 is a cobble-concrete oval reservoir, most likely a fishpond.
Feature 5 consists of remnants of a cobble-concrete structure with a foundation and a sidewalk.
Feature 6 is a cobble alignment. Feature 7 is a tree ladder and Feature 8 is the dirt driveway that
leads up to the property running along the west and south ends of the site. Artifacts that were found
at the site include glass fragments such of bottles; ceramic material was also noted consisting of a
porcelain bowl and a stoneware teapot; and metal material in the form of crown bottle caps.
Site 36-009363 is the remains of the H.E. Miller Property (ca. 1939) and consist of two concrete
foundations. The site also includes some refuse and debris which is considered modern and
associated with later development in the area in 1966. The Miller property includes numerous trees.
The original structure has been demolished. However, since the property has an ownership record
dating to pre-1892, there exists the potential for buried remains at the property site. No artifacts
associated with the structure were noted.
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.5-8
July 2024
Site 36-009364 is the Biocima residential structure that dates to 1936 and consists of two
foundations. There is also a reservoir that dates to 1932. A survey conducted in 1996 showed that
the Biocima Residence was no longer present and had been demolished. However, since the property
has an ownership record dating to pre-1892, there exists the potential for buried remains at the
property site and recommendations for monitoring were made. No artifacts associated with the
structure were found.
Site 36-014190 is “a large, square reservoir with rounded corners. It is constructed partially above
grade on a corner site which slopes gently to the south. The surrounding embankment is steeper and
higher to the south. The perimeter walls are of two different types of stone: fieldstone set in concrete,
and a large section of cobblestone at the northeast corner. The interior is lined with concrete. The
reservoir wall has been breached at several points, and evidence of associated pumping equipment
no longer remains. The reservoir lot has pepper and eucalyptus trees along the fence on the south
and east sides. A modern residence, built in 1978, is located on the south half of the property”. The
property was evaluated and determined to not be of historical significance for entry into the National
Register. There were no artifacts associated with the structure were noted.
Sacred Lands File Search and Follow-Up – Native American Outreach. On September 23, 2022,
UltraSystems contacted the NAHC via email notifying them of project 7170B adjacent to the current
project 7170G with a search buffer area that encompassed the current project site, requesting a
search of their SLF and asking for a list of local tribal organizations and individuals to contact for
project outreach.
The results of the SLF search request were received February 22, 2023, at the office of UltraSystems
from Ms. Cameron Vela, Cultural Resources Analyst. The NAHC letter stated that “A record search of
the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the
information submitted for the above referenced project. The results were positive [emphasis in the
original]. Please contact the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation on the attached list for
information.”
On January 9, 2024 Mr. Jacobo prepared and mailed letters with accompanying maps to all 30 tribal
contacts on the NAHC list, representing 21 tribal organizations, and also emailed identical letters and
maps to each of the 29 tribal contacts for which email addresses were known, requesting a reply if
they have knowledge of cultural resources in the area, and asked if they had any questions or
concerns regarding the project.
Of the 21 tribes that were contacted only six responded to the initial email and letter. These were the:
Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians, Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, Gabrielino
Tongva Indians of California Indian Council, Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians, the
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians.
An email response received from Claritsa Duarte, Cultural Resources Analyst for the Agua Caliente
Band of Mission Indians on January 16, 2024, indicated that the project is not located within the
Tribe’s Traditional Use Area, and they defer to the other tribes in the area. An email response was
also received from Luz Salazar, Cultural Resources Analyst for the Agua Caliente Band of Mission
Indians on January 10, 2024, indicated that the project is not located within the Tribe’s Traditional
Use Area, and they defer to the other tribes in the area. An email response was received from Ana
Rios, Administrative Assistant for the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians on January 16,
2024, indicating that the tribe is unaware of specific cultural resources that may be affected by the
proposed project; however, in the event of discoveries any cultural resources during the
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.5-9
July 2024
development of this project the tribe would like to be informed for further evaluation. An email
response was received from Ms. Conley for the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Indian Council
on January 10, 2024, indicating that they have no comment. An email response received from
Dorothy Willis on January 10, 2024, for the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians
indicating that the project is not located within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area, and they defer to the
other tribes in the area. An email response was received from Deneen Pelton, Cultural Resources
Department Coordinator for the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians on January 16, 2024, indicating that
the project is not located within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area, and they defer t o the other tribes
in the area. An email response was received from Raylene Borrego, Cultural Resources Technician
for the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians on January 19, 2024, indicating the proposed project site
is considered culturally sensitive by the Tribe due to its proximity to previously recorded sites. As
the area is of concern, the Tribe will wish to engage in government-to-government consultation
pursuant to AB 52 with the Lead Agency for the project. Ms. Borrego also noted that Jessica Mauck is
no longer working for the tribe and to direct all matters pertaining to cultural resources to Alexandra
McCleary, Senior Manager of Cultural Resources Management.
Following a three-week waiting period, January 26, 2024, telephone calls were placed to the
remaining tribes that had not yet responded. When there was no answer a voicemail message was
left describing he project and requested as reply. The following tribes were called but did not answer
and so a message was left: the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, the Kizh Nation, the
Gabrielino/Tongva Nation, the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe, The Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the
Pala Band of Mission Indians, the Pechanga Band of Indians, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla, the Santa
Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Serrano Nation of Mission Indians, and the Torres-Martinez Desert
Indians. The Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation, did not initially answer when a phone call
was made on January 26, 2024, but did back that same day -- Mr. Scott, Acting Chairman stated that
the tribe has no comment and would refer to the more local tribes in the area.
The following tribes did answer: The Cahuilla Band of Indians, the Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel
Band of Mission Indians, and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. With the Cahuilla Band of Indians,
the receptionist noted that Mr. Salgado was not in and the call was transferred to the Cultural
Department where Ms. Gregory asked that the letter be forwarded to her for review and comment;
the letter was sent to her email the same day but there has been no response to date. The
Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Mr. Morales, Chairperson, indicated that
area has religious and cultural significance found in the tribe’s oral history; therefore, he
recommends tribal monitoring and a qualified archeologist on site when ground disturbance begins.
He mentioned that he would personally like to assist with monitoring when development begins and
requests that the tribe be kept updated and notified of any potential discoveries. Native American
monitoring during construction shall be conducted in accordance with City of Fontana Standard
Condition 1, Cultural Conditions.
For the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, Mr. Ontiveros of the tribe’s cultural resource department,
indicated that the tribe would defer to San Manuel and the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians.
City of Fontana Standard Condition
Cultural Conditions
1. Upon discovery of any tribal cultural or archaeological resources, cease construction activities in
the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural and archaeological
resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.5-10
July 2024
archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant. If the resources are Native American in origin,
interested Tribes (as a result of correspondence with area Tribes) shall coordinate with the
landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request
preservation in place or recovery for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the
project while evaluation takes place.
Preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not
feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavation to
remove the resource along the subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. All Tribal Cultural
Resources shall be returned to the Tribe. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native
American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the
materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the
archaeological material, they shall be offered to the Tribe or a local school or historical society in the
area for educational purposes.
Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects shall
be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary
disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary objects
shall be taken. Principal personnel shall meet the Secretary of the Interior standards for archaeology
and have a minimum of 10 years’ experience as a principal investigator working with Native
American archaeological sites in southern California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that
all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified.
Pedestrian Survey Results. A pedestrian survey of the PA 27 project site along South Highland
Street in the city of Fontana was conducted on December 13, 2023 by Mr. O’Neil and Ms. Stoddard.
The survey location consisted of a single parcel containing a vineyard along South Highland Avenue
between Cherry Avenue to the west and San Sevaine Road to the east, and bounded by the SR -
210/Foothill Freeway to the north. The survey methods consisted of walking, visually inspecting, and
photographing the exposed ground surface of the project site using standard archaeological
procedures and techniques.
The project parcels consist of open flat land approximately 1,750 by 600 feet with the length
east/west paralleling South Highland Avenue. The parcel is an active vineyard with rows situated
east/west. Survey of the ground surface was conducted in transects 10 meters apart started at the
southwest corner of the parcel immediately north of South Highland Avenue, working east to the
southeast corner of the rows of vines. Transects were continued west to east, then back east to west,
onward until the entire parcel had been surveyed. The west edge of the parcel is adjacent to but
excludes the Southern California Edison transmission line that runs from the north -east to the
southwest. The east edge of the parcel has a row of trees and concrete debris at the base
approximately ten feet out from San Sevaine Road.
During the survey, the project site was carefully inspected for any indication of human activities
dating to the prehistoric or historic periods (i.e., 50 years or older). The project site has been
disturbed by previous agricultural use as a vineyard and other past agricultural uses. Photographs
of the project site were taken documenting the cultural resources survey. The result of the
pedestrian survey was negative for prehistoric cultural resources.
The survey did locate a several piles of concrete debris situated along the south and east side of the
parcel that appeared to have been dumped there. There are access features to underground water
lines at the edge of South Highland and in the northwest corner of the parcel maintained by the San
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.5-11
July 2024
Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District. There was a feature consisting of numerous large (up to five
feet in length) and small (approximately one foot in length) grey and reddish pieces of concrete, some
with flat sides and many of amorphous shape. There was also a wooden beam (railroad tie) within
the pile, but no historic artifacts (i.e., work or domestic trash) were observed. This feature
encompassed an area of approximately 48 feet by 33 feet and is located approximately 36 feet from
South Highland Avenue. There was no indication that the concrete had formed a foundation or was
the remains of a structure. It seems to appear in aerial photos from 2010 to the present but not as a
recognizable feature. It was determined to not be of historical significance.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
Results of the cultural resources records search and the pedestrian survey indicated that there are
no significant historic resources present on the modified project site. Modified project development
would involve removal of the active organic vineyard covering the whole site. The removal of the
vineyards was determined to be a significant and unavoidable impact in the Certified EIR. The
vineyard is dry-land agriculture, and the vines appear to be dead or nearly so most of the year; the
vines leaf, flower, and produce fruit all within a few months during and after the rainy season. EIR
mitigation measure E-1 would still be carried out respecting the vineyard. The modified project
would not affect any historical resources, and no new impact would occur.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
The prior Approved Project results of the cultural resources records search indicated that there are
no recorded archaeological resources within the Westgate Specific Plan area, including the modified
project site. A full‐coverage pedestrian survey of the modified project site did not identify any
previously unrecorded archaeological resources. It is not anticipated that cultural resources would
be encountered at the modified project site. There would be no changes or new information and thus
the proposed project would still have a less than significant impact on archaeological resources with
implementation of Certified EIR mitigation measures E-2 through E-5.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
Due to the level of past disturbance at the modified project site through agricultural use, it is not
anticipated that human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, would be
encountered during earth removal or disturbance activities. No records of human remains onsite
were found in the cultural resources records search. As with the Approved Project,
ground-disturbing activities on the modified project site, such as grading or excavation, have the
potential to disturb as yet unidentified human remains. There are no changes or new information
regarding this site.
❖ SECTION 4.5 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.5-12
July 2024
Grading activities associated with development of the modified project would cause new subsurface
disturbance and could result in the unanticipated discovery of unknown human remains, including
those interred outside of formal cemeteries. In the event of an unexpected discovery, those remains
would require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. State of California Public
Resources Health and Safety Code §§ 7050.5-7055, and § 5097.98 of the California PRC, describe the
general provisions for human remains. Following compliance with state regulations, which detail the
appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are encountered, and with mitigation
measure E-9 required for the Approved Project, impacts would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.6 – ENERGY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.6-1
July 2024
4.6 Energy
4.6.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR)
Analysis and Conclusions
The certified Westgate Specific Plan EIR did not include a separate section for energy because the
document predates the official mandatory inclusion of the energy impact determinations (questions
4.6 a) and 4.6 b) under Section 4.6.3 below) into the CEQA Appendix G Checklist. Nevertheless, the
approved project would incorporate several design features, summarized below in Table 4.6-1, that
are consistent with the California Office of the Attorney General’s recommended measures to reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The project would incorporate sustainable practices which include
water, energy, solid waste, land use, and transportation efficiency measures. As shown in Table 4.6-
1, the Approved Westgate Specific Plan is consistent and compliant with the Attorney General’s
Recommendations relating to energy use and efficiency.
Table 4.6-1
APPROVED PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S
(ENERGY-RELATED) RECOMMENDATIONS
Attorney General’s Recommended
Measures
Compliance with Attorney General’s
Recommendations
Percent
Reductiona
Efficiency
Design buildings to be energy efficient. Site
buildings to take advantage of shade,
prevailing winds, landscaping and sun
screens to reduce energy use.
Consistent. Westgate Specific Plan
development regulations include green
building incentives, which would increase
project energy efficiency. Also, Goal 13.3.7 of
the General Plan encourages energy
efficiency in buildings and requires
compliance with Title 24, providing
incentives to go beyond these guidelines. The
incorporation of energy efficiency measures
would contribute to a reduction in GHG
emissions.
3.5
Install light colored “cool” roofs and cool
pavements, and strategically placed shade
trees.
Limit the hours of operation of outdoor
lighting.
Consistent. Specific Plan design guidelines
require buildings to be oriented to take
advantage of passive solar design. Also,
design guidelines specify the use of energy
efficient lighting.
1
Renewable Energy
Install solar and wind power systems, solar
and tankless hot water heaters, and energy-
efficient heating ventilation and air
conditioning. Educate consumers about
existing incentives.
Consistent. Westgate Specific Plan
development regulations prohibit the
construction of any feature that would
obstruct more than 10 percent of the
absorption area of a solar energy system on
an adjacent lot. Development regulations also
include provisions for wind energy systems.
2
❖ SECTION 4.6 – ENERGY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.6-2
July 2024
Attorney General’s Recommended
Measures
Compliance with Attorney General’s
Recommendations
Percent
Reductiona
Water Conservation and Efficiency
Create water-efficient landscapes. Consistent. Future projects within the
project area would be required to comply
with Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 28
Article IV, Landscaping and Water
Conservation, which includes standards
related to landscape and maintenance water
conservancy.
The City’s General Plan encourages the
development and implementation of water
conservation programs to encourage the use
of water conserving technologies, for indoor
and outdoor applications. General Plan Goal
9.3.1 encourages water use efficiency.
0.5
Install water-efficient irrigation systems and
devices, such as soil moisture-based
irrigation controls.
Devise a comprehensive water conservation
strategy appropriate for the project and
location. The strategy may include many of
the specific items listed above, plus other
innovative measures that are appropriate to
the specific project.
a Emissions reductions obtained from Appendix B of the CEQA and Climate Change white paper, prepared by CAPCOA
(January 2008).
Source: State of California Department of Justice, Attorney General's Office, The California Environmental Quality Act
Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level, updated May 21, 2008. (RBF, 2011, pp. 4.2-43 to 4.2-47)
4.6.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
No comparison can be made, as the Westgate Specific Plan did not include an energy analysis.
4.6.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist analyzes the potential impacts resulting from the development of the
modified project, consisting of medical office use, in planning area 27.
❖ SECTION 4.6 – ENERGY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.6-3
July 2024
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
SWIP PEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
SWIP PEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
X
4.6.3.1 Thresholds of Significance
The Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines includes two
questions relating to energy consumption, which have been utilized as the thresholds of significance
in this section. A project would result in potentially significant environmental effects if it would (1)
result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation or (2) conflict with or
obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
4.6.3.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during
project construction or operation?
No Changes or New Information
Construction
The following forms of energy and associated units of measure are anticipated to be expended during
construction of the modified project.
Electricity
During project construction, energy would be consumed in the form of electricity associated with the
conveyance and treatment of water used for dust control and, on a limited basis, powering lights,
electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power. Due to the fact
that electricity usage associated with lighting and construction equipment that utilizes electricity is
not easily quantifiable or readily available, the estimated electricity usage during project
construction is speculative.
❖ SECTION 4.6 – ENERGY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.6-4
July 2024
Lighting used during project construction would comply with Title 24 standards/requirements (e.g.,
wattage limitations). This compliance would ensure that electricity use during project construction
would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. Lighting would be used in
compliance with applicable Fontana Municipal Code Section 30-508(f)(1) requirements to create
enough light for safety.
Transportation Energy
Project construction would consume energy in the form of petroleum-based fuels associated with the
use of offroad construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction workers’ travel
to and from the project site, and delivery and haul truck trips hauling solid waste from and delivering
building materials to the project site.
During project construction, trucks and construction equipment would be required to comply with
the ARB’s anti-idling regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Section 2485). ARB’s In-
Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets regulation (California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449
et seq.) would also apply. Vehicles driven to or from the project site (delivery trucks, construction
employee vehicles, etc.) are subject to fuel efficiency standards requirements established by the
Federal Government (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Section 531.5). Therefore, project
construction activities regarding fuel use would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use
of energy.
Natural Gas
Construction activities, including the construction of new buildings and facilities, typically do not
involve the consumption of natural gas. Therefore, the modified project is not anticipated to generate
demand for natural gas during project construction.
Operation
Energy would be consumed during modified project operations related to lighting, space and water
heating, water conveyance, solid waste disposal, and vehicle trips of employees and customers.
Modified project operational energy demands are anticipated to be lower than those of Approved
Project development within the modified project site due to the reduced building area of the modified
project compared to what the Approved Project proposed within this site. No new significant impact
would occur.
Lighting for the modified project would comply with the requirements of Fontana Municipal Code
Chapter 30. Wall-mounted LED lighting fixtures would be installed on the exteriors of the buildings.
The Westgate Specific Plan promotes energy conservation with requirements for energy -efficient
lighting and appliances, as well as incentives for green buildings and passive solar design. Therefore,
the modified project’s implementation would result in less than significant impacts on energy
resources. There would not be any inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy usage in comparison
to similar development projects of this nature regarding construction-related fuel consumption.
Further, the roadway network in the vicinity of the project site is served by Omnitrans, the public
transit agency serving the San Bernardino Valley (Omnitrans, 2019). Omnitrans has 10 bus routes in
the city (City of Fontana General Plan Community Mobility Circulation Element, 2018, p. 9.7).
Employees and visitors would be able to access the project site via the public transit system, thereby
❖ SECTION 4.6 – ENERGY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.6-5
July 2024
reducing transportation-related fuel demand. The availability of public transit (Omnitrans bus
routes) would help ensure that the project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or
unnecessary consumption of transportation energy.
The project would adhere to, and exceed, applicable federal, state, and local requirements for energy
efficiency, including Title 24 of the CCR regarding building energy efficiency standards. It would not
result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy. Therefore, the
project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar
developments in the region. Thus, impacts of the modified project would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency?
No Changes or New Information
City of Fontana General Plan
Chapter 12, Sustainability and Resilience, of the City of Fontana General Plan, focuses on
sustainability and resilience regarding resource efficiency and planning for climate change. It
includes policies for new development promoting energy-efficient development in Fontana, meeting
state energy efficiency goals for new construction, promoting green building through guidelines,
awards and nonfinancial incentives, and continuing to promote and implement best practices to
conserve water (City of Fontana, 2018b, p. 12.5).
The modified project would include photovoltaic solar panels on carport -type structures above two
of the proposed parking lots onsite. In addition, the modified project would adhere to the Westgate
Specific Plan measures identified in Table 4.6-1.
Significance Determination
The modified project would adhere to the City of Fontana General Plan and the Approved Westgate
Specific Plan; therefore, impacts regarding conflicts with energy efficiency plans would be less than
significant. No new significant impact would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.7-1
July 2024
4.7 Geology and Soils
4.7.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR)
Analysis and Conclusions
Ground Shaking/Seismicity (Impact 4.F-1): Implementation of the previous Approved Project
would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, January
2015, p. 4.F-7]).
The previous Approved Project is located within a seismically active region, with a number of
regionally active or potentially active faults traversing or near the Approved Project site, including
the Cucamonga fault, San Jacinto fault zone, and the San Andrea s fault zone. The intensity of ground
shaking depends on the magnitude of the earthquake, distance to the epicenter, and the geology of
the area between the epicenter and the Approved Project site. The possibility of moderate-to-high
ground acceleration or shaking in the city may be considered as approximately similar to that of the
Southern California region as a whole. A maximum magnitude earthquake on any major fault could
result in significant structural damage or collapse, and potentially even human casualties. Adherence
to standard engineering practices and design criteria prescribed by the California Building Code
(CBC) would reduce the significance of potential impacts of seismic and geologic hazards. The CBC
also includes detailed design requirements, structural design, soils and foundations considerations,
along with grading requirements to ensure that public safety risks due to earthquakes are minimized.
With implementation of mitigation measure F-1, structures would be designed to resist or
accommodate ground movement to current design standards. Therefore, impacts associated with
seismic ground shaking would be less than significant with applicable mitigation measures.
Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated.
Soil Erosion and Loss of Top Soil (Impact 4.F-2): Clearing and grading for Approved Project
implementation could result in short-term soil erosion by wind and water, and loss of topsoil. In
addition, site analysis indicates granular, sandy soils with gravel, cobbles and boulders. Sandy soils
typically have a higher susceptibility to erosion, slope, and degree of exposure to weather, especially
wind and rain. Erosion of soils that could result in a significant loss of topsoil would largely depend
on the location of that development, the properties of underlying soils, the extent of vegetative cover,
and the prevailing weather patterns. Given the potential for erosion to occur during development of
the Approved Project, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared
incorporating Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion control in accordance with the Santa
Ana Regional Water Quality Board (RWQCB). Design elements would be incorporated to reduce soil
erosion through appropriate design and reduced runoff. Adherence to the erosion requirements set
forth by the RWQCB, along with implementation of applicable mitigation measures, would make
impacts associated with soil erosion less than significant.
Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: Refer to mitigation measure F-1.
Compressible/Collapsible Soils (Impact 4.F-3): Implementation of the previous Approved Project
would not result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.7-2
July 2024
(WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, January 2015, p. 4.F-9]). The previous Approved Project would result
in no geologic risks associated with landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse. Although the project area is composed of sandy, alluvial sediments that have a risk of
settlement or collapse, a soils assessment will be performed prior to design and construction of
Approved Project improvements. Therefore, ground settlement impacts will be appropriately
mitigated and reduced to less than significant levels.
a) Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: Refer to mitigation measure F-1.
Paleontological Resources - directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature (Impact 4.E-3):
Results of the paleontological resources records search through the San Bernardino County Museum
(SBCM) indicated that there are no recorded fossil localities within the project site or within the
surrounding vicinity. The nearest paleontological resource from older Pleistocene sediments is
located approximately 10 miles southwest of the project site. It is unlikely that shallow excavations
associated with the proposed project will encounter these fossiliferous paleontological deposits.
However, there is a moderate to high potential to encounter these deposits during deeper
excavations. Thus, impacts to paleontological resources are considered potentially significant.
However, mitigation measures are provided below to address impacts to paleontological resources.
With implementation of applicable mitigation measures, impacts to paleontological resources would
be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.E-22]).
b) Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
No. Mitigation Measure
F-1
To evaluate the potential for direct and secondary effects related to ground shaking
(including liquefaction, ground settlement, or collapse) to affect the approved project
components, surface reconnaissance and subsurface evaluation shall be performed for
each future development. During the detailed design phase of each project, site‐specific
geotechnical evaluations shall be performed by a qualified geotechnical engineer to
assess the settlement potential of the onsite nat ural soils and undocumented fill. This
may include detailed surface reconnaissance to evaluate site conditions, and drilling of
exploratory borings or test pits and laboratory testing of soils, where appropriate, to
evaluate site conditions. Examples of possible design construction techniques for soils
with potential for settlement include removal of the compressible/collapsible soil layers
and replacement with compacted fill; surcharging to induce settlement prior to
construction of improvements; allowing for a settlement period after or during
construction of new fills; thickened concrete for structural members; additional metal
reinforcement for structural members; strengthened structural connections; structural
shear walls; flexible connections for utility lines; and specialized foundation design
including the use of deep foundation systems to support structures. Varieties of in‐situ
soil improvement techniques are also available, such as dynamic compaction (heavy
tamping) or compaction grouting.
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.7-3
July 2024
No. Mitigation Measure
E-6
Paleontological
Resources
If construction excavations will reach depths of five feet or greater, a qualified
paleontologist shall attend a pre‐grading/excavation meeting and develop a
paleontological monitoring program for excavations into older Pleistocene‐aged
Quaternary Alluvium deposits. A qualified paleontologist is defined as a paleontologist
meeting the criteria established by the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology. The qualified
paleontologist shall supervise a paleontological monitor who shall be present at such
times as required by the paleontologist during construction excavations below five feet
or greater into older Pleistocene‐aged Quaternary Alluvium deposits. Monitoring shall
consist of visually inspecting fresh exposures of rock for larger fossil remains and, where
appropriate, collecting wet or dry screened sediment samples of promising horizons for
smaller fossil remains. The frequency of monitoring inspections shall be determined by
the paleontologist and shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, the
materials being excavated, and the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and
type of fossils encountered.
E-7
Paleontological
Resources
If a potential fossil is found, the paleontological monitor shall be allowed to temporarily
divert or redirect grading and excavation activities in the area of the exposed fossil to
facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage. At the Paleontologist’s discretion and to
reduce any construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor shall assist in
removing rock samples for initial processing. Any fossils encountered and recovered
shall be prepared to the point of identification and catalogued before they are donated to
their final repository. Any fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non‐profit
institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Bernardino County
Museum or the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Accompanying notes,
maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository.
E-8
Paleontological
Resources
The paleontologist shall prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring and
salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, as well as a description of the
fossils collected and their significance. The report shall be submitted by the Applicant to
the lead agency, the San Bernardino County Museum, the Natural History Museum of Los
Angeles County, and other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory
completion of the project and required mitigation measures.
Source: WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.E-27 – 4.E-28].
4.7.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
Impacts of modified project development concerning geology and soils have been evaluated in light
of the present environmental regulatory setting, the impacts identified in the Westgate Specific Plan
FEIR, and site-specific baseline conditions. The modified project would be similar to the previous
Approved Project in that the proposed land use would be consistent with land use plan provisions of
the Westgate Specific Plan. Therefore, modified project impacts would be similar to those of
implementation of the previous Approved Project, no additional significant impacts beyond those
identified for the previous Approved Project were identified, and no additional mitigation measures
would be required.
4.7.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist compares the geology and soils impacts of the previous Approved Project
analyzed in the Certified FEIR with those of the modified project in Planning Area 27. The information
in this Section is based on the Geotechnical Investigation and Water Infiltration Test Report
completed by Converse Consultants dated November 3, 2023; a complete copy of this Report is
included as Appendix C to this Addendum.
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.7-4
July 2024
The comparative conclusions provided in the following table are based on the discussions
immediately thereafter.
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
Prior
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
Prior
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on or offsite
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1 B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
X
f) Would the project directly or indirectly
destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
X
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.7-5
July 2024
a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
Less than Significant Impacts/No Change or New Information
The Alquist-Priolo Zones Special Studies Act defines active faults as those that have experienced
surface displacement or movement during the last 11,000 years. Although several Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zones are present in and near the City, none p ass beneath or near the modified
project site. As shown in Figure 4.6-1, the nearest Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone to the site is the
Cucamonga Fault approximately 1.8 miles to the north (CGS, 2023; refer to Figure 4.6-2). Since no
known earthquake faults are beneath the project site, the potential for loss, injury, or death due to
fault rupture on the modified project site is considered to be low (Appendix C, p. 10) and no new
impact would occur.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Change or New Information
The modified project site is in an area subject to strong earthquakes due to the presence of several
significant faults nearby including the Red Hill-Etiwanda, Cucamonga, San Jacinto, and San Andreas.
Strong ground shaking can collapse structures, buckle walls, and damage foundations. Seismic design
parameters for use in project design are included in the geotechnical investigation report prepared
in accordance with FEIR mitigation measure F-1 (see Appendix C, p. 10). The proposed buildings
would be designed and built in accordance with CBC seismic safety requirements. If the proposed
medical office buildings contain outpatient surgery facilities, then the buildings would be classified
as essential facilities under the California Building Code (CBC). Essential facilities shall be "designed
and constructed to minimize fire hazards and to resist the forces of earthquakes, gravity and winds"
(California Health and Safety Code Section 16001). Compliance with seismic design parameters and
CBC regulations would reduce risks from strong ground shaking to a less than significant impact.
Therefore, no new impact would occur.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Change or New Information
Liquefaction refers to loose, saturated sand or silt deposits that behave as a liquid and lose their load-
supporting capability when strongly shaken. Loose granular soils and silts that are saturated by
relatively shallow groundwater are susceptible to liquefaction. The geotechnical investigation for the
modified project included an assessment of liquefaction hazard onsite. The risk of liquefaction is
considered remote due to the dense soil conditions and depth of groundwater (greater than 372 feet
below surface [bgs]) (Appendix C, p. 11). Modified project development would not exacerbate
existing liquefaction risks onsite. No new significant impacts would occur compared to impacts
identified in the Certified FEIR.
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.7-6
July 2024
Figure 4.6-1
REGIONALLY ACTIVE FAULTS
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.7-7
July 2024
Figure 4.6-2
ALQUIST PRIOLO FAULT ZONES
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.7-8
July 2024
iv) Landslides?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Change or New Information
The modified project site is relatively flat, and no slopes—and thus, no landslide hazards—are
present on or next to the site. The potential for earthquake-induced landslides onsite is considered
to be very low (Appendix C, p. 11). The Certified EIR did not identify landslide hazards within the
WSP site, and modified project development would not cause any impacts beyond those identified in
the EIR.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Change or New Information
Ground surface disturbance, such as excavation, grading, and trenching, would occur during project
construction. These activities would disturb substantial amounts of soil and could cause soil erosion.
However, this potential will be reduced through erosion control measures. Modified project
construction would comply with the requirements of the City of Fontana and the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) as specified in the Preliminary Water Quality Management
Plan (WQMP). The project proponent would also have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) prepared, specifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) for minimizing construction
impacts (including erosion) to stormwater. The project construction contractor would implement
the SWPPP. The SWPPP is required by the Statewide Construction General Permit issued by the State
Water Resources Control Board. With adherence to the modified project WQMP and SWPPP, no new
significant impact would occur compared to impacts identified in the Certified EIR.
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or offsite
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Change or New Information
Refer to the discussions under Sections a)iii and a)iv above. They respectively conclude that
impacts related to seismically-induced landslides or liquefaction as a consequence of project
development would be less than significant. Lateral spreading is the rapid downslope movement of
surface sediment, in a fluid-like flow, due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. The potential for
lateral spreading onsite is expected to be low, as the potential for liquefaction onsite is considered
remote (Appendix C, p. 11)
Subsidence
The major cause of ground subsidence is the excessive withdrawal of groundwater. Soils with high
silt or clay content are particularly susceptible to subsidence. The modified project site is not in an
area of subsidence mapped by the US Geological Survey (USGS, 2023). The project site is over the
Chino Groundwater Basin (“Basin”); groundwater levels in the Basin are managed by the Chino Basin
Watermaster. The Watermaster has determined that management efforts are effective at controlling
subsidence (CVWD, 2021, p. 6-18). Impacts arising from ground subsidence would be less than
significant. No new significant impact would occur compared to those disclosed in the Certified EIR.
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.7-9
July 2024
Collapsible Soils
Collapsible soils shrink upon being wetted and/or being subject to a load. The geotechnical
investigation report for the modified project determined that shallow site soils are unsuitable for
supporting the proposed buildings and other improvements such as parking lots and driveways. The
geotechnical investigation report recommends removal of existing soils under footings of proposed
buildings to a depth of five feet below ground surface or two feet below footings, whichever is greater.
Existing on-site soils are unsuitable for use as engineered fill due to a high content of large particles
and low content of fine particles. On-site soils may be suitable for engineering and replacement onsite
as engineered fill (Appendix C, p. 14). The modified project would implement recommendations set
forth in the geotechnical investigation report. After regulatory compliance, no new significant impact
would occur.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Change or New Information
Expansive soils shrink and swell with changes in soil moisture. Soil moisture may change from
landscape irrigation, rainfall, and utility leakage. Expansive soils are commonly very fine-grained
with high to very high percentages of clay. Site soils are young alluvial fan deposits consisting
primarily of a mixture of gravel, sand, and silt (Appendix C, p. 5). The geotechnical investigation for
the modified project included expansion index tests of three samples of subsurface site soils, all of
which yielded expansion indices of 0, indicating a very low expansion potential (Appendix C, p. B-1).
The modified project would adhere to such recommendations, and no new significant impact would
occur.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
No Impact
The project site is in an urbanized area served by wastewater infrastructure. Therefore, the project
would not include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impacts
from septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems would occur. No new significant
impacts would occur compared to those disclosed in the Certified EIR.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Change or New Information
The Approved Project FEIR identified a moderate to high potential to encounter older Pleistocene
deposits—in which fossils have been found in the project region—during deeper excavations. The
FEIR concluded that Approved Project impacts to fossils would be potentially significant; required
several mitigation measures to reduce such impacts, and determined that impacts after mitigation
would be less than significant. The modified project; two 4-story medical office buildings with surface
parking, conforms with the development regulations for the MU-1 zone. Therefore, modified project
❖ SECTION 4.7 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.7-10
July 2024
development would not involve deeper excavations than Approved Project development would have.
Thus, modified project development would not cause greater impacts to fossil resources than
Approved Project development would have. Impacts of modified project development on fossils
would be less than significant after implementation of FEIR mitigation measures E-6 through E-8, as
was the case for the Approved Project. No new or more severe significant impact would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.8-1
July 2024
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.8.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR)
Analysis and Conclusions
Increase Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Impact 4.G-1): Implementation of the
Approved Project would result in the increased generation of greenhouse gases (GHGs); however,
implementation of applicable mitigation measures and design features, as well as implementation of
appropriate GHG Reduction Plan16 required design features and mitigation measures and feasible
GHG reduction strategies would reduce impacts to less than significant.
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated.
Conflicts with Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans (Impact 4.G-2): Implementation of the
Approved Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. With implementation of applicable
mitigation measures and design features, as well as implementation of appropriate Westgate SP GHG
Reduction Plan (City of Fontana, 2014)-required design features and mitigation measures and
feasible GHG reduction strategies, this impact would be less than significant.
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Westgate SP EIR Required Design Features:
No. Design Features
SF‐1 By providing jobs near housing, with retail, parks and schools within walking distance of
compact residential villages, the Westgate Specific Plan residents will have less reliance on the
automobile. This in turn will result in reduced vehicular emissions and an overall healthier
community.
SF‐2 The Westgate Specific Plan will become one of the first large scale planned communities in the
Inland Empire to meet one of the nation’s first mandatory green building standards code
(CALGreen, 2022). These comprehensive regulations were adopted by the State of California and
went into effect as of January 1, 2023. By adhering to these regulations, the Westgate Specific
Plan will achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and
water use. CALGreen, for example, requires that every new building constructed in California
reduce water consumption by 20 percent, divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills
and install low pollutant‐emitting materials. It also requires separate water meters for non‐
residential buildings’ indoor and outdoor water use, with a requirement for moisture‐sensing
irrigation systems for large scale landscape projects and mandatory inspections of energy
systems (e.g., heat furnace, air conditioner and mechanical equipment) for nonresidential
buildings over 10,000 square feet designed to ensure that all are working at their maximum
capacity and according to their design efficiencies.
16 A Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan was included in Appendix F to the Westgate Specific Plan Environmental
Impact Report. It includes a description of GHG; an inventory of existing and projected future GHG emissions; a
discussion of current GHG regulations; an emissions target to reduce “business as usual” emissions by 15.8 percent;
and goals, objectives and strategies to reduce existing emissions to meet the reduction target.
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.8-2
July 2024
Westgate SP EIR Mitigation Measures:
No. Mitigation Measures
G‐1 For future projects, the City shall establish a Westgate SP Area‐wide performance standard of
50 percent of all employees within the Specific Plan Area be eligible for participation in an
employee commute trip reduction program. To achieve this standard, future projects with
employers of 250 or more employees at a single location are required to implement an employee
commute trip reduction program as required by the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).
Future projects with employers of less than 250 employees at a single location are required to
implement an employee commute trip reduction program that meets the 50 percent eligibility
performance standard. The City may waive this requirement for businesses that are extremely
small, such as local shops with fewer than 10 employees, etc. to the extent that such a waiver
would not conflict with achievement of the performance standard (i.e., eligibility rate of
50 percent of all employees within the Specific Plan Area for participation in an employee
commute trip reduction program). Employee commute trip reduction programs shall
encompass a combination of individual measures which may include, but are not limited to, the
following:
• Provide ride‐sharing programs and designate a certain percentage of parking spaces for
ride sharing vehicles with adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas
for ride‐sharing vehicles that minimize on‐site circulation impacts and traffic impacts
on adjacent roadways;
• Allow telecommuting and alternative work schedules such as staggered start times,
flexible schedules, or compressed work weeks;
• Provide employer‐sponsored vanpools or shuttles for employee commutes, including
purchasing or leasing vans for employee use and subsidizing the cost of vanpool
program administration;
• Provide convenient access to bicycle parking facilities;
• Provide information on public or alternative transportation options;
• Provide access to employee break rooms with refrigerators and microwaves; and
• Require regular performance monitoring and reporting by employers to demonstrate
achievement, or absence of conflict with achievement, of the Specific Plan Area‐wide
performance standard.
G‐2 For future projects, the City shall recommend that schools (K‐12) located within the Westgate
Specific Plan Area implement a multi‐strategy school commute trip reduction program that
encompasses a combination of individual measures including, but not limited to, the following:
• Provide a school bus program within each school’s service area boundary;
• Implement ride‐sharing programs for students, faculty, and staff;
• Provide priority parking for carpools/vanpools; and
• Provide a designated passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas that minimize
on‐site circulation impacts and traffic impacts on adjacent roadways.
Westgate SP GHG Reduction Plan: Required Design Features
No. CAPCOA Measures (CAPCOA, 2010)
LUT-1 Increase Location Efficiency – Urban landscapes such as urban areas, infill, or suburban
centers are eligible for set percentage reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) due to the
efficiency and synergistic benefits of these landscapes.
SDT-1 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements – Providing a pedestrian access network to
link areas of a project site encourages people to walk instead of drive. This mode shift results
in people driving less and thus a reduction in VMT.
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.8-3
July 2024
No. CAPCOA Measures (CAPCOA, 2010)
SDT-2 Provide Traffic Calming Measures – Providing traffic calming measures that reduces vehicle
speeds and encourages people to walk or bike instead of using a vehicle. Traffic calming
features may include: marked crosswalks, count‐down signal timers, curb extensions, speed
tables, raised crosswalks, raised intersections, median islands, tight corner radii, roundabouts
or mini‐ circles, on‐street parking, planter strips with street trees, chicanes/chokers, and
others. This mode shift will result in a decrease in VMT.
TST-3 Expand Transit Network – Expanding the local transit network to enhance service near the
project site will encourage the use of transit and therefore reduce VMT.
WSW‐1 Use Reclaimed Water – Transporting and treating water requires significant amounts of
electricity. Using reclaimed water, which is water reused after wastewater treatment for
non-potable uses, significantly reduces this energy demand and therefore the associated
indirect GHG emissions.
WUW-2 Adopt a Water Conservation Strategy – Water use contributes to GHG emissions indirectly,
via the production of electricity that is used to pump, treat, and distribute the water. Reducing
water use reduces energy demand and associated indirect GHG emissions.
Westgate SP GHG Reduction Plan: Required Mitigation Measures
No. CAPCOA Reduction Measures (CAPCOA, 2010)17
BE-1 Exceed Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards by 15% – Title 24 Part 6
regulates energy uses including space heating and cooling, hot water heating, and ventilation.
By committing to a percent improvement over Title 24, a development reduces its energy use
and resulting GHG emissions.
TRT‐2 Commute Trip Reduction ‐ Monitoring & Reporting Required – The intent of this measure
is to reduce drive‐alone travel mode share and encourage alternative modes of travel. The
critical components of this strategy are: established performance standards, required
implementation, and regular monitoring and reporting.
TRT‐3 Provide Ride‐Sharing Programs – Increasing the vehicle occupancy by ride sharing will
result in fewer cars driving the same trip and thus a decrease in VMT.
TRT‐6 Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules – Encouraging
telecommuting and alternative work schedules reduces the number of commute trips and
therefore VMT traveled by employees.
TRT‐11 Provide Employer‐Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle – This project implements an
employer-sponsored vanpool or shuttle program that entails the purchase/leasing of vans and
subsidizing the cost of program administration.
Westgate SP GHG Reduction Plan: Optional Reduction Strategies
No. CAPCOA Reduction Measures (CAPCOA, 2010)18
AE-2 Establish On‐Site Renewable Energy Systems – Solar Power – Using electricity generated
from renewable or carbon‐neutral power systems displaces electricity demand which would
17 Includes only measures applicable to the Proposed Project.
18 Ibid.
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.8-4
July 2024
No. CAPCOA Reduction Measures (CAPCOA, 2010)18
normally by supplied by the local utility. Carbon‐neutral power systems, such as photovoltaic
panels, do not emit GHGs and will be less carbon intense than the local utility.
BE-2 Install Programmable Thermostat Timers – Residential programmable thermostat timers
allow users to easily control when the HVAC system will heat or cool a certain space, thereby
saving energy.
BE-3 Obtain Third‐Party HVAC Commissioning and Verification of Energy Savings – Ensuring
the proper installation and construction of energy reduction features is essential to achieving
high thermal efficiency in a house. However, HVAC systems often do not operate at the
designed efficiency due to errors in installation or adjustments. By obtaining third‐party HVAC
commissioning and verification of energy savings, a project will ensure that the energy and
GHG emissions reductions in intended design features are realized.
BE-4 Install Energy Efficient Appliances – Using energy‐efficient appliances reduces a building's
energy consumption as well as the associated GHG emissions from natural gas combustion and
electricity production. Typical appliances include refrigerators, clothes washers and
dishwashers for residential dwellings and refrigerators for commercial land uses such as
grocery stores.
LE-1 Install High Efficacy Public Street Area Lighting – Public lighting sources, including
streetlights, pedestrian pathway lights, area lighting for parks and parking lots, and outdoor
lighting around public buildings, contribute to GHG emissions indirectly, via the production of
the electricity that powers these lights. Different light fixtures have different efficacies, or the
number of lumens produced per watt of power supplied. Installing more efficacious lamps will
use less electricity while producing the same amount of light and therefore reduces the
associated indirect GHG emissions.
LE-3 Replace Traffic Lights with LED Traffic Lights – As mentioned above, lighting sources
contribute to GHG emissions indirectly, via the production of the electricity that powers these
lights. Installing high efficiency traffic lights reduces energy demand and associated GHG
emissions. Light‐emitting diodes (LEDs) consume about 90% less energy than traditional
incandescent traffic lights while still providing adequate light or lumens when viewed. The
energy savings and subsequent GHG emissions reductions are greatest when retrofitting
existing incandescent traffic lights with LEDs.
WUW-1 Install Low‐Flow Water Fixtures – Water use contributes to GHG emissions indirectly, via
the production of electricity that is used to pump, treat, and distribute the water. Installing
low‐flow or high‐efficiency water fixtures in buildings reduces water demand, energy demand,
and associated indirect GHG emissions. This strategy accounts for GHG emissions reductions
from the use of low‐flow water toilets, urinals, showerheads and faucets as well as
high-efficiency clothes washers and dishwashers in residential and commercial buildings.
WUW-3 Design Water Efficient Landscapes – As mentioned above, water use contributes indirectly
to GHG emissions. Designing water‐efficient landscapes for a development reduces water
consumption and the associated indirect GHG emissions. Examples of measures to be
considered when designing landscapes are: reducing lawn sizes, planting vegetation with
minimal water needs such as native Californian species, choosing vegetation appropriate for
the climate of the development site, and choosing complimentary plants wit h similar water
needs.
WUW-4 Use Water‐Efficient Landscape Irrigation Systems – As mentioned above, water use
contributes indirectly to GHG emissions. Using water‐efficient landscape irrigation techniques
such as "smart" irrigation technology reduces outdoor water demand, energy demand, and the
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.8-5
July 2024
No. CAPCOA Reduction Measures (CAPCOA, 2010)18
associated GHG emissions. "Smart" irrigation control systems use weather, climate, and/or soil
moisture data to automatically adjust watering schedules. Thus, excessive watering is avoided.
WUW-5 Reduce Turf in Landscapes and Lawns – As mentioned above, water use contributes
indirectly to GHG emissions. Turf grass (i.e., lawn grass) has relatively high-water needs
compared to most other types of vegetation. For example, trees planted in turf generally do
not need additional watering besides what is required for the turf. Reducing the turf size of
landscapes and lawns reduces water consumption and the associated indirect GHG emissions.
WUW-6 Plant Native or Drought-Resistant Trees and Vegetation – California native plants within
their natural climate zone and ecotype need minimal watering beyond normal rainfall, so less
water is needed for irrigating native plants than non‐native species. Drought‐resistant
vegetation needs even less watering. Thus, planting native and drought‐resistant vegetation
reduces water use and the associated GHG emissions. However, since few scientific studies
have quantified the actual water savings, this strategy should be adopted as a Best
Management Practice.
A-1 Prohibit Gas Powered Landscape Equipment – Electric lawn mowers, leaf blowers, and
vacuums, shredders, trimmers, and chain saws are available. When they are used in place of
conventional gas‐powered equipment, direct GHG emissions from natural gas combustion are
replaced with indirect GHG emissions associated with the electricity used to power the
equipment, which are typically less significant.
SW-1 Institute or Extend Recycling and Composting Services – The transport and decomposition
of landfill waste and the flaring of landfill gas all produce GHG emissions. Decomposition of
waste produces methane, and the transport waste from the site of generation to the landfill
produces GHG emissions from the combustion of the fuel used to power the vehicle. Increasing
recycling, reuse, and composting can all reduce landfill waste. Choosing waste management
practices which reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills will thus reduce GHG emissions.
V-1 Urban Tree Planting – Planting trees sequesters carbon dioxide (CO2) while the trees are
actively growing. The amount of CO2 sequestered depends on the type of tree. In most cases,
the active growing period of a tree is 20 years and after this time the amount of carbon
sequestered in biomass slows and will be completely offset by losses from clipping, pruning,
and occasional death.
GP-4 Plant Urban Shade Trees – Planting shade trees around buildings has been shown to
effectively lower the electricity cooling demand of buildings by blocking sunlight and reducing
heat gain through windows, walls, and roofs. By reducing cooling demand, shade trees help
reduce electricity demand from the local utility and therefore the indirect GHG emissions
associated with the production of that electricity.
GP-5 Implement Strategies to Reduce Urban Heat‐Island Effect – Urban areas tend to be warmer
than its surrounding rural areas due to increased land surfaces which retain heat. Strategies
such as planting urban shade trees, installing reflective roofs, and using light‐colored or
high-albedo pavements and surfaces have been shown to have a positive impact on reducing
localized temperatures and the electricity demand.
4.8.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
The modified project’s potential climate change impacts from GHG emissions have been evaluated
considering the present environmental regulatory setting.
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.8-6
July 2024
The modified project proposes medical office uses that are within the types and intensities of land
uses permitted on the modified project site by the Westgate SP . However, because trip generation
rates are higher for the modified project land uses than for the land uses for the Approved Project,
GHG emissions will be higher. Nevertheless, impacts associated with implementation of the modified
project would be similar to those of the previous Approved Project and no additional significant
impacts beyond those identified for the previous Approved Project would occur.
4.8.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate SP
EIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate SP
EIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
X
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
And
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The modified project land use type (medical office building) and intensity (208,000 square feet) are
within the uses and intensities permitted under the WSP MU-1 zone for the modified project site. The
main difference affecting GHG emissions is that the onroad trip generation would be higher for the
modified project. The traffic study for the Approved Project estimated that 3,474 trips would be
generated by the land uses in PA27 (Crawford et al., 2013, p. 26). According to the latest edition of
the ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition), the weekday daily rate for Land Use 720:Medical -
Dental Office Building (Stand-Alone) is 36.00 per 1,000 square feet. Using this trip generation rate
and the 208,000-square-foot building area results in an estimate of 7,488 trips per day (Tucker,
2024).
GHG emissions for construction and operation were calculated with CalEEMod 2020 (CAPCOA,
2022), Version 2022.1. Using standard industry practice, construction emissions were “amortized”
❖ SECTION 4.8 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.8-7
July 2024
over 30 years and added to the operational emissions. Table 4.8-1 shows unmitigated annual and
total construction GHG emissions and Table 4.8-2 shows mitigated annual operational emissions. All
applicable project design features, mitigation measures and CAPCOA-recommended measures were
taken into account in estimating the operational emissions.
GHG emissions for construction and operation were calculated with CalEEMod 2020 (CAPCOA,
2022), Version 2022.1. Using standard industry practice, construction emissions were “amortized”
over 30 years and added to the operational emissions. Table 4.8-1 shows unmitigated annual and
total construction GHG emissions and Table 4.8-2 shows mitigated annual operational emissions. All
applicable project design features, mitigation measures and CAPCOA-recommended measures were
taken into account in estimating the operational emissions.
Table 4.8-1
ANNUAL UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS
Year
Annual Emissions (metric tons)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerant
Carbon
Dioxide
Equivalent
2024 394 0.02 0.01 0.15 398
2025 421 0.02 0.02 0.26 428
Total 815 0.04 0.03 0.41 826
Three-year amortized value 27.5
Source: CalEEMod 2020 (CAPCOA, 2022), Version 2022.1.
Table 4.8-2
ANNUAL MITIGATED OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
Category
Metric Tons
CO2e
Per Year
Mobile 6,551
Area 4.2
Energy 275
Water 56.5
Waste 701
Refrigerant 0.88
Amortized Construction 27.5
Total 7,616
Source: CalEEMod 2020 (CAPCOA, 2022), Version
2022.1.
The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Approved Project estimated that Specific Plan
operations at full buildout would emit 126,895 metric tons of CO2e annually. According to the
calculations shown here, the modified project would be responsible for 6.0 percent of those
emissions. Given the sparse development of the Specific Plan area to date, it is uncertain that the full
126,895 metric tons of GHG emissions will be realized. Therefore, the finding for GHG emissions
remains less than significant with mitigation.
❖ SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-1
July 2024
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.9.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR)
Analysis and Conclusions
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the
environment (Impact 4.H-1): The Approved Project site is largely vacant, with the majority of the
property historically used for agricultural purposes, and the few urbanized portions of the site having
been developed with commercial retail and office uses. These existing urban uses do not present a
substantial risk relative to the release of hazardous materials into the environment, given the nature
of retail and office use operations, which typically don’t involve notable quantities of hazardous
materials. However, the construction of future uses throughout the undeveloped port ions of the
Specific Plan area could result in releases of hazardous materials related to various onsite conditions
that were noted in the Hazardous Materials Assessment (HMA; Ninyo and Moore, 2012) prepared for
the Approved Project (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p 4.H-14]).
The results of the HMA indicate that several environmental risks exist on the site of the Approved
Project or in the surrounding area that could pose a potential health risk to people living or working
within the project area if not properly addressed. Other observed conditions or database records are
not considered indicative of potential health hazards. The HMA provides recommendations, which
are included as mitigation measures below, regarding how to address those conditions representing
a health hazard in order to reduce these potential risks to acceptable levels. Additionally, various
mitigation measures addressing hazardous materials contained in the City’s 2003 General Plan EIR
(GP EIR), are also applicable to the proposed Specific Plan. With implementation of applicable GP EIR
and project‐specific mitigation measures, impacts related to accidental releases of hazardous
materials into the environment would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015,
p 4.H-15]).
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school (Impact 4.H-2): Four
schools are within 0.25 mile of the Specific Plan boundaries. In addition, the proposed Specific Plan
includes two ten‐acre elementary school sites and one 60‐acre high school site which would be
developed by the respective school districts in the future as local population growth demands (WSP
Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p 4.H-16]).
Hazardous materials could be used in the construction and operation of new light
industrial/commercial development within the Mixed Use portions of the Specific Plan, including the
use of standard construction materials (e.g., paints, solvents, and fuels), cleaning and other
maintenance products (used in the maintenance of buildings, pumps, pipes, and equipment), diesel
and other fuels (used in construction and maintenance equipment and vehicles), and the limited
application of pesticides associated with landscaping (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p 4.H-16]).
Construction‐related health hazards on future school sites would be minimized through adherence
to applicable local, state, and federal regulations regarding hazardous materials, as well as mitigation
measures provided below that require site‐specific hazardous materials investigations (and cleanup
if necessary) for proposed school sites. It is anticipated that prior to occupancy of future on‐site
schools, site investigation and remediation activities will have adequately addressed potential health
hazards and effectively eliminated associated risks. Therefore, with adherence to existing regulations
❖ SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-2
July 2024
and implementation of applicable mitigation measures, construction‐related health risks to existing
and proposed schools would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p 4.H-16]).
Although hazardous materials and/or waste generated from operation of future onsite land uses may
pose a limited health risk to nearby schools, all businesses that handle or have onsite transportation
of hazardous materials would be required to comply with the provisions of the Fontana Fire
Protection District/ San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD), the City of Fontana Municipal
Code, and additional state and federal regulatory requirements.
The Hazardous Materials Division of the SBCFD is designated by the State Secretary for
Environmental Protection as the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the County of San
Bernardino in order to focus the management of specific environmental programs at the local
government level. The CUPA is charged with the responsibility of conducting compliance inspections
for over 7000 regulated facilities in San Bernardino County. The CUPA program is designed to
consolidate, coordinate, and uniformly and consistently administer permits, inspection activities, and
enforcement activities throughout San Bernardino County (SBCFD, 2019).
As described previously, both federal and state regulations require all businesses that handle more
than a specified amount of hazardous materials to submit a Risk Management Plan to the CUPA. The
routine transport, use, and disposal of these materials would be subject to a wide range of laws and
regulations intended to minimize potential health risks associated with their use or the accidental
release of such substances; therefore, operational impacts of proposed uses on existing and proposed
schools would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p 4.H-16]).
Moreover, all of the proposed land use districts include development standards, landscape standards,
parking and loading standards, and design guidelines aimed to buffer sensitive uses (including
schools) from existing offsite and proposed onsite development (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015,
p 4.H-16]).
Overall, impacts on schools would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Location on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment (Impact 4.H‐3): Several properties located within or near the Specific
Plan boundaries are included in various hazardous materials database listings obtained as part of the
HMA process. While all but one of these properties are not considered potential environmental risks,
one property was determined to pose a potential health risk. This property is an existing dry
cleaner/laundry business within the onsite Falcon Ridge Town Center, which is listed in the state’s
Dry Cleaners database (as is required for all licensed dry-cleaning businesses in California). This
facility operates under various permits, including permits from the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD), which regulates hazardous air emissions from such facilities, and a
permit issued by the CUPA that regulates the use, handling, and storage of hazardous materials (WSP
Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p 4.H-17]).
Mitigation provided below would require that business records available at the SBCFD’s Hazardous
Materials Division be reviewed for compliance with the requirements of the CUPA permit issued for
❖ SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-3
July 2024
the facility. With adherence to existing permit conditions and implementation of applicable
mitigation, impacts related to listed hazardous materials sites would be less than significant.
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan (Impact 4.H‐4): The City’s Emergency Operations Plan anticipates
that all major streets within the project area would serve as evacuation routes. Construction activities
associated with future development could temporarily impact street traffic adjacent to the proposed
sites during the construction phase due to roadway improvements and potential extension of
construction activities into the right‐of‐way. This could reduce the number of lanes or temporarily
close certain street segments. Any such impacts would be limited to the construction period and
would affect only adjacent streets or intersections. With implementation of the recommended
mitigation, provided below, which would ensure that temporary street closures would not affect
emergency access in the vicinity of future developments, short‐term construction‐related impacts
would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp 4.H-17-18]).
The City of Fontana, including the entire proposed Specific Plan area, is subject to various City,
county, and state emergency management plans, as noted previously, which provide procedures,
communications protocols, and chains of command for emergency services and public agencies
during large‐scale disasters or other emergency events. While the Approved Project would involve
the addition of residents, employees, and shoppers to the project area, implementation of the
Approved Project would not have a notable impact on the function of established emergency
management and response plans. All future development projects would be required to provide
sufficient emergency access, as required by the City’s Zoning Code and/or the proposed Specific
Plan’s Development Regulations, as applicable. Furthermore, given that future onsite development
pursuant to the proposed Specific Plan would be subject to review and approval by the SBCFD, which
is most directly responsible for emergency response in the project vicinity, the systems and facilities
designed to protect public health and safety during emergencies would be adequate to effectively
implement emergency management procedures within the project area. Coordination with the
SBCFD would preclude the possibility of inadequate access for emergency vehicles at the project site.
As no apparent conflicts with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans would result from
project implementation, impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Therefore, operation
of future development within the Specific Plan boundaries would not interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan and/or the emergency evacuation plan and less than significant impacts
would occur (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp 4.H-17-18]).
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands (Section 6.0 [F][5], page 6-11-6-12 and Initial Study [VIII][h]: This
threshold was discussed in the DEIR Chapter 6, Other Mandatory CEQA Considerations, and the
Initial Study. The FEIR determined that impacts would be less than significant. The Approved Project
site is not located in an area that has a significant amount of vegetation and is characterized by
relatively flat topography. Although sloped areas with extensive vegetation are located to the north
of the project site in the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains, these areas are located at a
sufficient distance from the project area that they do not pose a substantial risk to people or
structures on‐site. Furthermore, future development on‐site would be subject to all applicable
standards and regulations related to fire protection and prevention such that wildland fire hazards
❖ SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-4
July 2024
would be less than significant. Further analysis of this issue in the EIR was not required (WSP Draft
EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 6-11 to 6-12 and Appendix A, Initial Study, p. B-10]).
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
No. Mitigation Measure
H-1
The City shall require that new proposed facilities involved in the production, use, storage,
transport or disposal of hazardous materials be located a safe distance from land uses that
may be adversely impacted by such activities. Conversely, new sensitive facilities, such as
schools, child‐care centers, and senior centers, shall not to be located near existing sites
that use, store, or generate hazardous materials. [GP EIR Mitigation Measure HM‐1]
H-2
The City shall assure the continued response and capability of the SBCFD/Fontana Fire
Protection District to handle hazardous materials incidents in the City and along the
sections of freeways that extend across the City. [GP EIR Mitigation Measure HM‐2]
H-3
The City shall require all businesses that handle hazardous materials above the reportable
quantity to submit an inventory of the hazardous materials that they manage to the SBCFD
– Hazardous Materials Division in coordination with the Fontana Fire Protection District.
[GP EIR Mitigation Measure HM‐4]
H-4
The City shall identify roadways along which hazardous materials are routinely
transported. If essential facilities, such as schools, hospitals, child care centers or other
facilities with special evacuation needs are located along these routes, identify emergency
response plans that these facilities can implement in the event of an unauthorized release
of hazardous materials in their area. [GP EIR Mitigation Measure HM‐5]
H-5
Development of school sites within the project area shall include Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment in accordance with ASTM Standard 1527‐05 and the DTSC’s school site
evaluation program.
H-6
Due to the potential that concentrations of commercial pesticides likely applied on portions
of the Specific Plan area may still be present in onsite soils, soil samples shall be collected
and analyzed for the presence of organochlorine pesticides and Title 22 Metals. Sampling
and analysis shall be conducted in accordance with appropriate California guidelines (e.g.,
Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2008, Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural
Properties). Soils with elevated organochlorine pesticides or metals compared with these
guidelines shall be removed and disposed offsite in accordance applicable federal, state,
and local regulations.
H-7
Because aerially dispersed lead (ADL) may be present in the soil as a result of historical
vehicle emissions during the era of leaded gasoline, an ADL survey shall be conducted
within areas of exposed soil which will be disturbed during construction within 50 feet of
the Interstate 15 Freeway and the Interstate 210 Freeway. Sampling and analysis shall be
conducted in accordance with appropriate California guidelines (e.g., Department of
Transportation, 2007, Caltrans Aerially Deposited Lead Guidance). Soils with elevated lead
shall be removed and disposed offsite in accordance applicable federal, state, and local
regulations. ADL borings shall be located at no more than 300‐foot horizontal intervals
along the shoulders and medians where earth will be disturbed. The borings shall be
advanced up to 4 feet below ground surface or the maximum anticipated construction
depth, whichever is shallower.
H-8
Construction contractors shall develop a soil management plan (SMP) prior to construction
activities to address potentially impacted soils that may be uncovered during the
construction phase of each future development project. SMPs shall include: potential
chemicals of concern, a health and safety plan, identification of individuals responsible for
the implementation of the SMP, dust and odor suppression control methods, procedure for
❖ SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-5
July 2024
No. Mitigation Measure
notification and identification of unknown environmental features, site specific soil‐
management protocols, cleanup criteria, and soil reuse options.
In accordance with the SMP, such soil generated during construction activities shall be
characterized for disposal using new laboratory data representative of the soil being
excavated and disposed.
H-9
Piles of dumped materials, including soil, brick and concrete pieces, wood, and other trash
and construction debris, were observed on the southeast corner of Westgate Center study
area along Sierra Lakes Parkway. Soil piles and construction debris shall be analyzed for
volatile organic compounds, total petroleum hydrocarbons, and Title 22 Metals to
characterize the disposal of the unknown debris on the study area. Sampling and analysis
shall be conducted in accordance with appropriate California guidelines (e.g., Department
of Toxic Substances Control, 2001, Information Advisory, Clean Imported Fill Material). A
minimum of four samples shall be collected and analyzed under an assumed
residential/commercial land use. Sample results shall be compared to residential land use
regional screening levels specified by the Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2005,
Use of California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs) in Evaluation of Contaminated
Properties, or latest available Regional Screening Levels provided by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Soils or debris with elevated concentrations
shall be removed and disposed offsite in accordance applicable federal, state, and local
regulations.
H-10
Due to the presence of a former railroad alignment within project boundaries, any
construction in which the soil around the railroad is to be disturbed shall be conducted
under the purview of the Fontana Fire Protection District to identify proper handling
procedures. Once the soil around the railroad has been removed, a visual inspection of the
areas beneath and around the removed area shall be performed. Any stained soils observed
underneath the area shall be sampled. Sampling and analysis shall be conducted in
accordance with appropriate California guidelines (e.g., Department of Toxic Substances
Control, 2001, Information Advisory, Clean Imported Fill Material). Samples shall be
collected and analyzed at one‐foot intervals to a depth of four feet at a 300‐foot horizontal
distance. Samples shall be analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons, polychlorinated
biphenyls, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and Title 22 Metals, in accordance with
appropriate US EPA Methods specified in SW‐846. Sample results shall be compared to
residential land use regional screening levels specified by Department of Toxic Substances
Control, 2005, Use of CHHSLs in Evaluation of Contaminated Properties, or latest available
Regional Screening Levels provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9. Soils with elevated concentrations shall be removed and disposed offsite in
accordance applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
H-11 Records available for the Falcon Ridge Cleaners & Shirt Laundry (15218 Summit Avenue)
at the SBCFD Hazardous Materials Division shall be reviewed for compliance with this
facility’s Consolidated Unified Program Agency (CUPA) permit.
H-12 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, future developers shall prepare a Traffic Control
Plan (TCP) for implementation during the construction phase. The TCP may include, but is
not limited to, the following provisions:
• At least one unobstructed lane shall be maintained in both directions on
surrounding roadways.
• If at any time only a single lane is available, the developer shall provide a temporary
traffic signal, signal carriers (i.e., flagpersons), or other appropriate traffic controls
to allow travel in both directions.
❖ SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-6
July 2024
No. Mitigation Measure
• If construction activities require the complete closure of a roadway segment, the
developer shall provide appropriate signage indicating detours/
alternative routes.
H-13 Prior to construction, the City of Fontana Engineering Department shall consult with the
City of Fontana Police Department to disclose temporary closures and alternative travel
routes, in order to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles when construction of
future projects would result in temporary lane or roadway closures.
Source: PCR 2015a, pp. 4H-19 – 4H-22.
4.9.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
The Modified project’s potential impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials have been
evaluated in light of the present environmental regulatory setting in relation to the impacts identified
in the Certified FEIR. No new hazardous materials sites in or next to the modified project site were
identified in a review of environmental databases compared to the Approved FEIR.19 The modified
project—medical office building use—is within the ranges of types and intensities of land use
permitted on the modified project site by the Certified FEIR. Therefore, modified project impacts
would be similar to those of the previous Approved Project.
4.9.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
With regard to hazards and hazardous materials the following checklist compares the impacts of the
Previous Approved Project analyzed in the Westgate Specific Plan FEIR with those of the Modified
Project described in this document. The comparative conclusions provided in the following table for
the Modified Project are based on the discussions immediately thereafter.
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
X
19 The one site identified during a search of several internet environmental databases, High School No. 9 at San Sevaine
Road at Walnut Avenue, is a case that was closed many years before certification of the Certified EIR.
❖ SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-7
July 2024
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
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?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
X
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
X
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
❖ SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-8
July 2024
Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information
Proposed project construction would involve use of hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants,
greases, degreasers, cleansers, paints and other architectural coatings, pesticides, and fertilizers.
Hazardous materials would be used in compliance with exi sting regulations of several agencies
including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), U.S. Department of Transportation
(USDOT), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC), Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), and Caltrans. Hazardous
materials would not be used or stored in quantities that could pose substantial hazards to public
health or the environment. After implementation of mitigation measures H-1 through H-5 set forth
in the Certified FEIR, incremental impacts of proposed project construction would be less than
significant.
Operation
Operation of the proposed medical office buildings would involve use of small amounts of hazardous
materials for cleaning and maintenance purposes, such as cleansers, paints, pesticides, and fertilizers.
Hazardous materials would be used and stored in compliance with existing regulations of agencies
listed above regarding construction impacts; for instance, materials would be stored in clearly
marked containers. The use, storage, and transport of such small amounts of hazardous materials
would not pose substantial hazards to the public or the environment, and no significant impact would
occur beyond the corresponding impact identified in the Certified FEIR.
Modified project operation would also generate medical waste. The Approved Project included
planning areas designated for medical use (for instance, Planning Area 14). Therefore, the medical
office use proposed in the modified project would not be a new use not included in the Approved
Project. Operation of the medical office use comprising the modified project would comply with state
and federal regulations governing storage, transport, and disposal of medical waste.
The San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, Division of Environmental Health Services
(EHS) regulates medical waste generators, transporters, transfer stations, and treatment facilities
within the County under the authority of the Medical Waste Management Act (California Health and
Safety Code Sections 117600 et seq.). Medical waste generators producing 200 pounds or more of
medical waste per month are classified as Large Quantity Generators (LQGs), who must obtain a
permit from EHS. The Medical Waste Management Act sets forth requirements governing
containment and storage, transport, and treatment of medical wastes. LQGs, medical waste haulers,
and treatment facilities are required to register or obtain permits from EHS (EHS, 2023). Eight
medical waste transporters located in San Bernardino County are currently registered with the
California Department of Public Health (CDPH, 2023a). The CDPH lists one medical waste transfer
station, and one medical waste treatment facility, in San Bernardino County (CDPH, 2023b).
State regulations governing medical waste are also issued and enforced by the California Division of
Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) and Caltrans. Federal regulations governing medical waste
are also issued and enforced by Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.
The Approved Project also included proposed medical and medical office uses that would be required
to comply with laws and regulations governing medical waste. No new impact would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-9
July 2024
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information
Construction
Construction contractors on the modified project would train workers on safe containment and
cleanup of small spills of hazardous materials; and would maintain equipment and supplies onsite
for such containment and cleanup. Contractors would notify the San Bernardino County Fire
Department Hazardous Materials Division immediately in the event of a release of hazardous
materials of quantity and/or toxicity that on-site workers could not safely contain and cleanup. After
compliance with existing regulations and implementation of mitigation measures H-1 through H-5
set forth in the Certified FEIR, modified project construction would not cause substantial impacts
arising from accidental release of hazardous materials. Incremental impacts of modified project
construction would be less than significant.
Operation
The analysis in Section 4.9.a applies to accidental releases of hazardous materials as well. Hazardous
materials would be used in small amounts during operation of the proposed medical office buildings;
thus, potential accidental releases of such materials would not pose substantial hazards to the public
or the environment. Medical wastes would be stored, transported, and disposed of in accordance
with state and federal regulations as described above in Section 4.9.3.a. No new significant i mpacts
would occur.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information
No existing schools are within 0.25 mile of the modified project site. The Approved Project includes
a proposed high school in Planning Area 39 about 700 feet south of the modified project site.
Use of hazardous materials in modified project construction would be conducted in accordance with
existing regulations of several agencies, as described above in Section 4.9.3.a. Proposed project
construction would generate diesel emissions, which are considered hazardous. However, the project
construction period would be temporary. Health risk is based upon the conservative assumption that
exposure is continuous and occurs over a 70-year lifetime. A determination of risk is not appropriate
for short-term construction activities. Exposure to diesel exhaust during the construction period
would not pose substantial hazards to persons at schools. No new significant impact would occur.
Modified project operation would involve use of small amounts of hazardous materials for cleaning
and maintenance purposes. Such use would not pose substantial hazards to the public or the
environment, as substantiated above in Section 4.9.a. Handling of medical waste during modified
project operation would comply with state and federal regulations. Therefore, operational impacts
of proposed uses on existing and proposed schools would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-10
July 2024
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information
Per Government Code § 65962.5, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
compiles and at least annually updates lists of the following:
• Hazardous waste and substances sites from the DTSC EnviroStor database.
• Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites by county and fiscal year in the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database.
• Solid waste disposal sites identified by SWRCB with waste constituents above hazardous
waste levels outside waste management units.
• SWRCB Cease and Desist Orders (CDOs) and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAOs).
• Hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to § 25187.5 of the Health
and Safety Code, identified by DTSC.
The database search conducted for the FEIR was updated by searching the following hazardous
materials site databases on November 11, 2023:
• GeoTracker
• EnviroStor
• Solid Waste Information System (SWIS), California Department of Resources Recovery and
Recycling
• EnviroMapper, US Environmental Protection Agency
Search radii varied from the project site to one mile from the site boundary, depending on the type
of site. Kaiser Steel Corporation, at 9400 Cherry Avenue about 2,800 feet north of the modified
project site, is listed on the GeoTracker database as a cleanup program site. Groundwater other than
drinking water was listed as contaminated with other inorganic contaminants and/or salt. The case
was closed in 2009 (SWRCB, 2023). That site is not an environmental concern for the modified
project site due to the case closure.
One site was listed on the EnviroStor database: High School No. 9 at San Sevaine Road at Walnut
Avenue, about 1,400 feet east of the modified project site; see Figure 4.9-1. This site is a school
investigation site; the DTSC issued a No Further Action (NFA) determination for the site in 2004
(DTSC, 2023). That site is not an environmental concern for the modified project because the
investigation was closed with an NFA determination.
No other hazardous materials sites were identified in the database searches. No new significant
impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.
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?
❖ SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-11
July 2024
No Impact
The project site is not within the boundary of an Airport Influence Area (AIA), or within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport. Ontario International Airport, approximately 7 miles southwest
of the project site, is both the nearest public airport and the nearest public use airport to the project
site (refer to Figure 4.9-2). Therefore, project implementation would not expose people to safety
hazards due to proximity to a public airport, and no impacts are anticipated.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact
Two private heliports are in the city of Fontana:
The Fontana Police Heliport at 17005 Upland Avenue approximately 3.6 miles southeast of the
project site; and the Kaiser Hospital Heliport at 9961 Sierra Avenue approximately 5 miles southeast
of the project site (Airnav.com, 2023). Helicopters flying over the project site would not be landing
or taking off from either heliport and would be flying at altitudes over urban areas required by
Federal Aviation Administration regulations; and thus, would not pose dangers to people onsite. No
new impact would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-12
July 2024
Figure 4.9-1
LISTED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
❖ SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-13
July 2024
Figure 4.9-2
NEAREST AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA
❖ SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-14
July 2024
g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information
The City of Fontana, including the Modified Project site, is subject to various City, county, and state
emergency management plans, as noted previously, which provide procedures, communications
protocols, and chains of command for emergency services and public agencies during large‐scale
disasters or other emergency events. While the Modified Project would involve the development of
medical office use on the project site, project development would not have a notable impact on the
function of established emergency management and response plans. All future development projects
would be required to provide sufficient emergency access, as required by the City’s Fire Code (City
of Fontana Municipal Code Sections 5-425 et sec.). Furthermore, given that future onsite
development pursuant to the Modified Project would be subject to review and approval by the
SBCFD, which is most directly responsible for emergency response in the project vicinity, the systems
and facilities designed to protect public health and safety during emergencies would be adequate to
effectively implement emergency management procedures within the project area.
Implementation of Approved Project FEIR Mitigation Measures H-12 and H-13, provided above,
would preclude the possibility of inadequate access for emergency vehicles, or interference with
established emergency management and response plans. No new significant impact would occur.
h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) developed Fire Hazard Severity
Zones (FHSZ) for State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) and Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs); SRAs and
LRAs are where state and local governments, respectively, are responsible for the costs of wildfire
prevention and suppression. The modified project site is not in an SRA (CALFIRE FRAP, 2023). The
site is in an LRA and is outside a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The nearest LRA VHFHSZ to
the project site is approximately 0.5 mile to the northwest, as depicted in Figures 4.9-3 and 4.9-4.
Very High fire hazard designation refers to either:
a) wildland areas supporting fuels typified by well-developed surface fuels (e.g., mature
chaparral) or forests where crown fire is likely. Additional site elements include steep and
mixed topography and dry seasons with strong winds.
OR
b) developed/urban areas typically with high vegetation density (>70% cover) and associated
high fuel continuity, allowing for frontal flame spread over much of the area to progress
impeded by only isolated non-burnable fractions. Often where tree cover is abundant, these
areas look very similar to adjacent wildland areas. Developed areas may have less vegetation
cover and still be in this class when in the immediate vicinity (0.25 mile) of wildland areas
zoned as Very High (see above).
❖ SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-15
July 2024
Modified project development would include required fire suppression design features (i.e., fire
resistant building materials, where appropriate, smoke detection and fire alarm systems, automatic
sprinkler systems, portable fire extinguishers, and emergency signage in all buildings) identified in
the latest edition of the City of Fontana Fire Code. If the proposed medical office buildings contain
outpatient surgery facilities, then the buildings would be classified as essential facilities under the
California Building Code (CBC). Essential facilities shall be "designed and constructed to minimize
fire hazards and to resist the forces of earthquakes, gravity and winds" (California Health and Safety
Code Section 16001). The project site is in an urbanized area where the Fontana Fire Department
provides fire protection and emergency medical services. No new significant impact would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-16
July 2024
Figure 4.9-3
STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREA FOR FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY
❖ SECTION 4.9 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.9-17
July 2024
Figure 4.9-4
LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA FOR FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.10-1
July 2024
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.10.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR)
Analysis and Conclusions
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements (Impact 4.I-6): For the
Approved Project, impacts related to water quality would occur during three different periods: 1)
during the earthwork and construction phase, when the potential for erosion, siltation, and
sedimentation would be greatest; 2) following construction, prior to the establishment of ground
cover, when the erosion potential may remain relatively high; and 3) after completion of the
Approved Project, when impacts related to sedimentation would decrease markedly, but those
associated with urban runoff would increase.
The Approved Project FEIR provides an extensive analysis of potential water quality impacts and
best management practices (BMPs) that will be incorporated into the project design to minimize or
avoid such impacts, including but not limited to low impact de sign (LID) features (WSP Draft EIR
[PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.I-19 through 4.I-32]). The Approved Project anticipates infiltration of the
entire design capture volume (DCV) based on highly permeable soil conditions. The infiltration of the
entire DCV ranks as the most effective BMP strategy for pollutant removal. It would also result in
infiltration of the increased volume of stormwater between existing and proposed two‐year storm
events based on preliminary calculations, thus satisfying the Hydrologic Condition of Concern
(HCOC) requirements (i.e., post‐development stormwater flow volumes entering off-site drainage
facilities would not exceed predevelopment volumes).
➢ Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted) (Impact 4.I‐5): The Approved Project will not use local groundwater wells for water
supply. However, as noted in the Water Supply Assessments (WSAs) for the Approved Project (WSP
Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015. Appendix K]), potable water will be provided for proposed future uses
by the Fontana Water Company (FWC) and the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), which
utilize groundwater sources in Chino Basin, Cucamonga Basin, Rialto Basin, Lytle Basin, and the No‐
Man’s Land Basin (an unnamed basin between the Chino Basin and the Rialto Basin), for a substantial
portion of domestic water supplies within their respective service areas. Although these
groundwater basins are used by these and other water purveyors in the area for a portion of their
water supplies, each respective agency is limited to the amount of water that can be extracted from
each basin without substantially reducing the productivity of water supply wells, otherwise referred
to as the “safe yield” the limit of which are regulated through various agreements between agencies,
adjudicated rights from court decisions, and other mechanisms that preclude overdraft of
groundwater resources. Furthermore, given these established extraction limits, as well as limits on
other sources of water, such as surface water from Lytle Creek, fluctuations in water demand in each
respective service area of FWC and CVWD are met primarily through imported water supplies from
the State Water Project (SWP) and Colorado River. Therefore, since future demand for water supply
would be addressed through increased import water delivery and groundwater extractions are
strictly limited to safe yield volumes, the project‐related water demand would not have the potential
to result in excessive groundwater withdrawals such that a decrease in the local groundwater table
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.10-2
July 2024
would occur. The impacts associated with the depletion of groundwater supplies due to increased
demand for groundwater resources are considered less than significant.
Under existing conditions, groundwater recharging occurs through pervious surfaces and highly
permeable soils. Under the proposed conditions, LID BMPs and features will be required to infiltrate
the 85th percentile storm event for the entire development area to ensure that groundwater recharge
occurs after the implementation of the project. Infiltration BMPs are discussed below under Post‐
Construction Activities. The use of infiltrating LID BMPs and features will result in a less than
significant impact on groundwater recharge (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.I-35/36]).
➢ Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site (Impact 4.I‐7): For the Approved Project, under existing conditions, runoff from the
project area generally flows southwest via sheet flow towards existing interim debris basins before
entering into existing regional flood control facilities (e.g., Summit Avenue Storm Drain, Highland
Avenue Storm Drain, Baseline Avenue Storm Drain, etc.). The soil erosion potential is generally
classified as high, given the type of alluvial soil, and interim basins help reduce erosion and siltation
off-site. Under the proposed conditions, runoff from development areas will be collected in a local
storm drain network and conveyed to downstream regional flood control facilities. The drain pattern
will be largely preserved, and the flow will continue to drain in a south-west direction. The increase
in impervious surfaces will serve to reduce the potential for erosion and siltation downstream, and
interim debris basins will no longer be needed. In the southern portion of the site, there are two
existing earthen channels. However, one no longer serves as a flood conveyance channel, and the
second has been channelized downstream (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.I-41]).
In the proposed condition, the channels will be abandoned and filled for development and
downstream improvements will be extended upstream of the project. Implementing the project will
reduce the potential for erosion and siltation on site to reach downstr eam. Additionally, all project
runoff drains into hardened regional flood control channels or reinforced box culverts, eliminating
the potential for downstream erosion or siltation. Potential impacts related to erosion or siltation
due to hydromodification are considered less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p.
4.I-41]).
➢ Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alternation
of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site (Impact 4.I‐1): The Approved Project will
substantially increase the rate and volume of runoff compared to existing conditions. To safely
convey runoff to downstream facilities and prevent flooding on and off site, both on - and off‐site
storm drain systems must be properly sized for expected rates and volumes. A preliminary analysis
was performed, and storm drain facilities were sized for a 25‐year storm event consistent with local
drainage criteria. Detailed storm drain and hydrology analysis including hydraulic modeling will be
performed as part of the final engineering documents to confirm pipe sizes, connections, and 100‐
year flood conveyance. Furthermore, a detailed hydrological analysis will be required to confirm that
the regional downstream flood control facility has the capacity to accept projected runoff conditions,
and if the capacity is limited, the Approved Project will have to control peak flows on site to
downstream capacity. This scenario is not anticipated as the existing regional flood control facilities
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.10-3
July 2024
were sized based on the full build‐out of the General Plan which includes the Westgate property.
Impacts related to on‐site and off‐site flooding are considered less than significant (WSP Draft EIR
[PCR Services, 2015. p 4.I-34]).
➢ Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff
(Impact 4.I-2): All runoff water will be collected and discharged into existing regional flood control
facilities that were sized upon full build-out of the General Plan which includes the Westgate
property. Furthermore, the Approved Project was required to develop detailed storm drain and
hydrology analyzes to confirm that regional flood control facilities can accommodate projected peak
flow events. The implementation plan includes a series of LID BMPs and features that will use highly
permeable native soil to infiltrate the first 85th percentile storm event and prevent the “first flush”
pollutants from leaving the project site and entering downstream facilities.
➢ Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality (Impact 4.1-8): As discussed previously, under
Impact 4.I-1, given the proposed construction-related site design, LID, and source control BMPs and
the reliance on infiltration BMPs, water quality exceedances are not anticipated, and pollutants are
not expected in project runoff that would adversely affect beneficial uses in downstream receiving
waters.
➢ Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map, or Place within
a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows (Impact
4.I-3): The Westgate Specific Plan does not propose housing within a 100-year floodplain according
to the FIRM map or flood hazard delineation maps. Furthermore, no proposed improvements
associated with the project would be located within a 100-year floodplain that would impede or
redirect flood flows.
➢ Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam (Impact 4.I -4): The Westgate
Specific Plan is not subject to flooding as a result of a failure of a levee or dam as there are no major
dams or levees upstream or within the project vicinity.
➢ Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow (Section 6.0 [F][6], page 6-12): A seiche is an
oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed or semi-enclosed basin, such as a reservoir, harbor, lake,
or storage tank. A tsunami is a great sea wave, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, produced by a
significant undersea disturbance, such as tectonic displacement of the sea floor associated with large
and shallow earthquakes. Mudflows are downslope movements of saturated soils and/or rock with
the consistency of wet cement.
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.10-4
July 2024
The project area is not subject to tsunami hazards given the distance from the Pacific Ocean and the
elevation of the project area. Therefore, the project would not be subject to flood hazards associated
with seiches. Furthermore, despite the steep hills in the foothills north of the project area, the
potential for mud flows to affect the proposed uses would be negligible given the distance of the
mountains from the project and the amount of intervening development.
➢ Previous Approved Project Determination: No Impact.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: None are required.
4.10.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
Modified project impacts to hydrology and water quality have been evaluated in light of the present
environmental regulatory setting. Certified Draft EIR Section 4.I.6, Hydrology and Water Quality,
concluded that impacts on hydrology and water quality attributable to the Approved Project would
be less than significant after compliance with NPDES requirements and with project design features
set forth in the DEIR, and that mitigation measures are not required. Draft EIR Section 6-F concluded
that Approved Project development would not cause adverse impacts associated with inundation by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflows. The absence of any mitigation measure requirements assumed that
each subsequent implementing project would be required to comply with and/or adhere to
established codes, ordinances, and other requirements that specifically address hydrology and water
quality. The modified project site is located within the boundaries of the Westgate Specific Plan and
constitutes one of the subsequent implementing projects alluded to above and is therefore required
to comply with the aforementioned NPDES requirements and project design features. Therefore, the
impacts on hydrology and water quality due to modified project development would be equal to or
less than those of the Approved Project.
4.10.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist responses compare the Approved Project analyzed under the certified WSP
FEIR with the project as described in this document and analyze the potential impacts resulting from
the development of the modified project.
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.10-5
July 2024
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i) result in a substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; X
ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
X
iii) create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
X
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan?
X
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.10-6
July 2024
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information
Impacts related to water quality standards or waste discharge would occur during two periods: 1)
during the excavation and construction phase, when the potential for erosion, siltation, and
sedimentation would be greatest; and 2) after completion of the project, when impacts related to
sedimentation would decrease markedly, but those associated with urban runoff (e.g., pathogens, oil
and grease, pesticides and herbicides, metals, and metalloids) would increase.
The modified project would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) requirements of the federal Clean Water Act during both construction and operation, as
detailed in the Westgate Specific Plan. Dischargers whose projects disturb one or more acres of soil
or whose projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development
that in total disturbs one or more acres are required to obtain coverage under the Statewide
Construction General Permit, SWRCB Order 2009-0009-DWQ.
Construction
Modified project construction activities subject to this permit include clearing, grading, and
disturbance to the ground such as stockpiling or excavation, but do not include regular maintenance
activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility (SWRCB, 2023). The
permit requires that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) be prepared; the SWPPP
would mandate the implementation of site-specific BMPs that would minimize potential off-site
water quality impacts. BMPs prescribed under a SWPPP are grouped in six categories: erosion
controls, sediment controls, wind erosion controls, tracking controls, non-stormwater management
controls, and waste management and controls.
Operation
According to the municipal stormwater permit for the portion of San Bernardino County and the
within the Santa Ana Region (MS4 Permit), and the County of San Bernardino Technical Guidance
Document for Water Quality Management Plans (CDM Smith, 2013), new development and
redevelopment projects are required to implement site design BMPs to minimize directly connected
impervious areas and promote infiltration of runoff. The Technical Guidance Document for WQMPs
identifies examples of site design BMPs that can be implemented where applicable and feasible.
Preventive measures associated with site planning and site design BMPs that apply to the modified
project include (but are not limited to):
• Disconnect impervious areas. Plan site layout and mass grading to allow runoff to be
directed to permeable areas, such as natural retention areas, open spaces, medians, parking
islands and planter boxes. Design roof downspouts to drain to pervious areas. Use alternative
permeable or porous building materials allowed by the code (Fuscoe Engineering, 2012, p.
31).
• Preserve Existing Drainage Patterns and Increase the Time of Concentration. This
includes avoiding channelization of natural drainage, using mild slopes and using pervious
channel linings to increase infiltration.
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.10-7
July 2024
• Minimize Impervious Area & Maximize Natural Infiltration Capacity. Selecting areas and
designing to take advantage of the natural infiltration capacity of a site. Examples include
reducing development footprints by building vertically rather than horizontally, reducing
road and sidewalk widths to the maximum extent practicable, clustering construction
elements to preserve open space, and minimizing lot setbacks to reduce driveway length
(Fuscoe Engineering, 2012, p. 31). The modified project includes landscaping along the site
perimeter; extensive landscaping surrounding the two proposed buildings; and in the
medians of each double row of parking spaces (except for those rows of parking spaces that
would be covered by structures supporting photovoltaic panels). The modified project also
includes a triangular infiltration basin in the southwest corner of the project site that would
be 15 feet deep; have preliminary capacity of 165,048 cubic feet; and the top of the basin
would extend about 300 feet east-west by 235 feet north-south (DEA, 2023).
Hydrologic Source Controls (HSCs) are a class of LID features that can be considered a hybrid
between site design practices and LID BMPs. HSCs are distinguished from site design BMPs in that
they do not reduce the tributary area or the imperviousness of a drainage area; rather, they reduce
the runoff volume that would result from a drainage area with a given degree of impermeability
compared to what would result if HSCs were not used.
HSCs that would retain runoff and are considered applicable to the project include the following
(Fuscoe Engineering, 2012, p. 31):
• Impervious Area Dispersion
• Localized on-lot infiltration.
• Street trees
With the implementation of construction and operational BMPs, the potential impacts on water
quality standards or waste discharge would be minimal. Therefore, modified project impacts would
be less than significant, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of an EIR.
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supply or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information
The 17.5-acre modified project site is currently vacant and completely pervious. Modified project
development would involve covering most of the site with impervious surfaces. The modified project
would be required to infiltrate all stormwater originating onsite from an 85th-percentile storm, as
would the entire Approved Project. The modified project includes an infiltration basin described
above in Section 4.10.3.a. Therefore, the impact of the project would be less than significant and no
changes or new information would require the preparation of an EIR.
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.10-8
July 2024
c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
d) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
e) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site;
f) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
g) impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information
Drainage
The modified project site is relatively level, slopes gently from northeast to southwest, has no
substantive topographic relief, and is currently vacant. Drainage within the project site is sheet flow
from north to south, discharging into curb and gutter on South Highland Avenue. Un-channelized
streams or rivers are not located on or near the modified project site.
Approved Project storm drainage plans relevant to the modified project include a 42 -inch storm
drain in Highland Avenue, and a storm drain in a segment of Cherry Avenue extending from Highland
Avenue south to Walnut Avenue that would be 42 inches along part of its length and 60 inches along
the remainder. The planned storm drain in Cherry Avenue would discharge into an existing 60-inch
storm drain in Cherry Avenue extending south to Baseline Avenue wh ere it would discharge into an
existing double 14-foot by 8-foot storm drain that extends west till it discharges into San Sevaine
Channel (Westgate Specific Plan [JHA Consulting, 2017, figure 4.I-3]).
The modified project storm drainage plan includes a storm drain in Highland Avenue fronting the
west part of the modified project site that would have segments of diameters 24 inches and 42 inches
from east to west. The storm drain would turn southwestward next to the southwest corner of the
project site, extending to Cherry Avenue. Just northeast of Cherry Avenue the storm drain would
increase to 54 inches diameter; and would then discharge into a storm drain in Cherry Avenue.
The stormwater runoff within the modified project will be collected and treated during and after
construction in conformance with the requirements of the general permits of the MS4 Permit and the
San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for WQMPs.
The modified project includes an infiltration basin described above in Section 4.10.3.a; and
underground stormwater storage pipes that would be eight feet in diameter and total 270 feet in
length. The infiltration basin plus the storage pipes would have combined capacity to detain the net
increase in stormwater runoff from the modified project site from a 100-year storm (DEA, 2023).
The effective size of the drainage of the modified project is approximately 17.5 acres. The drainage
area of the San Sevaine-Etiwanda Channel area covers a total of 12,622 acres and includes areas
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.10-9
July 2024
within the cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana, as well as unincorporated areas of the County
of San Bernardino (City of Fontana, 1989. p. 20).
Water Quality and Erosion
The modified project will generate a number of pollutants due to development, but there will be
minimal impact on the Chino Basin Watershed Management Area, as the receiving waters are hard -
lined channels that are regularly maintained. Implementation of erosion control BMPs during project
construction, as described above in Section 4.10.3(a), would minimize erosion during construction.
At project completion the entire modified project site would consist of buildings, hardscape, and
landscaping, and thus would not be susceptible to substantial erosion.
Flood Risks
The inclusion of drainage improvements into the modified project design is intended to prevent
flooding within the modified project from a 100-year flood event (see Figure 4.10-1), and it is not
anticipated that the discharge from the modified project site would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems. Additionally, the inclusion of such drainage improvements is
a component of the development plan within the Approved Project. This would ensure that the
drainage infrastructure is adequate for future development and does not substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area. Therefore, modified project impacts would be less than
significant, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of an EIR.
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.10-10
July 2024
Figure 4.10-1
FEMA FIRM MAP
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.10-11
July 2024
h) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
No Impact
The modified project site is located more than 40 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and at elevation
ranging from about 1,389 to 1,425 feet above mean sea level (amsl); thus, project development would
not exacerbate flood hazards due to tsunamis. Furthermore, the site is not close to any significant
bodies of water, except the Victoria Recharge Basin and the San Sevaine Basins (see Figure 4.10-2).
However, the water capacity of these basins is not sufficient to generate a seiche triggered by an
earthquake or other natural phenomena. Modified project development would not exacerbate risks
of release of pollutants due to flooding. Therefore, no new significant adverse impacts are identified
or anticipated, and no changes or new information would require the preparation of an EIR.
i) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact
The water quality control plan (“Basin Plan”) for the Santa Ana Watershed was issued by the Santa
Ana RWQCB in 2019. In the portion of San Bernardino County within the Santa Ana Basin, compliance
with the Basin Plan is implemented through conformance with the MS4 permit and the technical
guidance document.
No sustainable groundwater management plan is in effect for the project region. The modified project
site is over the Chino Groundwater Basin. Groundwater withdrawals within the Chino Groundwater
Basin are managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster pursuant to a court judgment.
The San Gabriel Valley Water Company Fontana Division (“Fontana Division”) would provide water
to the modified project site. In 2020, the last year for which data are available, Fontana Division water
supplies comprised about 59 percent groundwater, 25 percent imported water, 15 percent surface
water from Lytle Creek, and 1 percent recycled water (SGVWC, 2021). The modified project would
infiltrate all stormwater originating from the project site from an 85th-percentile storm. Thus,
modified project development would not conflict with a groundwater management plan. Therefore,
no new significant adverse impacts are identified, and no changes or new information would require
the preparation of an EIR.
❖ SECTION 4.10 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.10-12
July 2024
Figure 4.10-2
GROUNDWATER BASINS, SUBBASINS, AND RECHARGE BASINS MAP
❖ SECTION 4.11 - LAND USE AND PLANNING ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.11-1
July 2024
4.11 Land Use and Planning
4.11.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR)
Analysis and Conclusions
Physically Divide an Established Community (Section 6.0 [F][7], page 6-12 and Initial Study
[X][a]: The Approved Project is not expected to divide an established community because while there
are several developed residential, commercial, and public facility uses within the project vicinity, no
established communities are located within the project area that could be physically divided by
Specific Plan implementation (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.J-6 and Appendix A, Initial
Study, p. B-13]).
➢ Previous Approved Project Determination: No Impact
Conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect
(Impact 4.J-1): Implementation of the modified project would not conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.J-
8]).
The analysis provided in Section J, Land Use and Planning, of the Westgate Specific Plan EIR,
concluded that the Approved Project is in compliance with all relevant policies and specific actions of
the City’s General Plan and with the land use plans, policies and regulations of the City’s Zoning and
Development Code. Overall, future development associated with the Approved Project would be
subject to review through the development application process and would be analyzed by the City to
ensure that the development is consistent with the development regulations and requirements. The
Approved Project would not result in any potentially significant impacts regarding land use
consistency, and therefore no mitigation measures are required (PCR, 2015b, p. 4.J-21).
➢ Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan (Section 6.0 [F][7], page 6-12 and Initial Study [X][c]: The impacts to this threshold question
were discussed in Section 6.0 of the DEIR and in the Initial Study (included in Appendix A of the
DEIR). In Chapter 6.0, it states that the approved project would have no potential to conflict with any
Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plans, since no such plans have been
prepared for the project area. As such, no impact would occur in this regard (WSP Draft EIR [PCR
Services, 2015, p. 6-12]). The Initial Study text states the Previously Approved Project would have no
impact and refers to Response No. IV.f, which also states the project would have no potential to
conflict with any Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plans, since no such
plans have been prepared for the project area. Therefore, no impac t would occur in this regard and
further evaluation of this issue in an EIR is not required (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015,
Appendix A, p. 4.J-6 and Initial Study, p. B-13]).
To further support this conclusion of no impact, the following text is from the DEIR (Impact 4.D-6,
pp. 4.D-42 to 43): The northern portion of the study area is within the proposed North Fontana
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) areas, which cover approximately 7.69 acres.
As outlined in the North Fontana Interim MSHCP Policy, a tiered development mitigation fee is
❖ SECTION 4.11 - LAND USE AND PLANNING ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.11-2
July 2024
proposed for new development in North Fontana based on its potential for supporting sensitive
species. However, the 7.69 acres of habitat within the proposed North Fontana MSHCP comprise Non‐
Native Grassland, which is consistent with the mapping provided in the North Fontana Interim
MSHCP Policy. Since Non-Native Grassland is not within the habitat tiers defined under the North
Fontana Interim MSHCP Policy, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation would be
required (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.D-43]).
➢ Previous Approved Project Determination: No Impact
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: None are required.
4.11.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
The potential impacts of the modified project and potential impacts on land use have been evaluated
in light of the current environmental regulatory setting. It would be similar to the Approved Project
in that it would have a less than significant land use impact.
4.11.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist responses compare the Approved Project analyzed under the adopted
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR with the modified project as described in this document and analyze the
potential impacts resulting from its implementation.
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impact/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
i) Physically divide an established
community? X
j) Would the project cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
X
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
No Impact
The modified project site is currently vacant and approximately a 17.5-acre portion of the 964-acre
Westgate Specific Plan area. It is bounded by vacant land opposite San Sevaine Road to the east and
South Highland Avenue to the south; a utility corridor to the west; and SR -210 to the north. The
❖ SECTION 4.11 - LAND USE AND PLANNING ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.11-3
July 2024
project site is not used for transiting between nearby land uses particularly since the nearby lands
are currently vacant. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no
mitigation measures are required. No new impact would occur.
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any
land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
The modified project proposes medical office use; see Section 3.0, Project Description, for further
details. The Approved Project allows for a broad range of business, commercial retail, medical,
educational, entertainment, commercial services, and other complementary uses, on the modified
project site. The proposed medical office use is within the range of uses permitted by the Approved
Project under the MU-1 zoning for the modified project site.
The modified project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Fontana General
Plan (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 1-7]). The General Plan land use designation for the
modified project site is Regional Mixed Use (RMU; see Figure 4.11-1). The modified project zoning
designation is the Westgate Specific Plan, with designations of Mixed-Use 1 (MU-1) (Westgate
Specific Plan [JHA Consulting, 2017. p. 3-20]); see Figure 4.11-2.
The modified project has been reviewed for consistency with the City’s General Plan, the Westgate
Specific Plan, and other applicable plans, policies, and regulations, and determined that the modified
project would not conflict with any plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purposes of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Furthermore, and as noted in the Approved Project,
the project site is not subject to any state, local, or regional habitat conservation plans or community
preservation plans. Therefore, the impact of the project on land use would be less than significant,
and no changes or new information require the preparation of an EIR.
❖ SECTION 4.11 – LAND USE AND PLANNING ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.11-1
July 2024
Figure 4.11-1
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
❖ SECTION 4.11 – LAND USE AND PLANNING ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.11-2
July 2024
Figure 4.11-2
ZONING DESIGNATION MAP
❖ SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.12-1
July 2024
4.12 Mineral Resources
4.12.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR)
Analysis and Conclusions
Mineral Resources (Section 6.0 [F][8], page 6-12 and Initial Study [XI][a and b]): The Westgate
Specific Plan FEIR stated that no known local mineral resources and no known State‐designated
mineral resource areas have been identified within the Approved Project site. Therefore, the
approved project would have no impact regarding mineral resources (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services,
2015, p. 6-12 and Appendix A, Initial Study, pp. B-13 to B-14]).
➢ Approved Project Determination: No Impact.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: None Required.
4.12.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
Modified project development would not cause any impacts on mineral resources (see the analysis
below in Section 4.11.3), as was determined for the Approved Project.
4.12.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist responses compare the Previous Approved Project analyzed under the
adopted Westgate Specific Plan FEIR with the modified project as described in this document.
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
X
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the State?
and
❖ SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.12-2
July 2024
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
No Impact
The modified project site is located in Mineral Resource Zone-2 (MRZ-2) mapped by the California
Geological Survey, which are areas known to or likely to contain significant aggregate mineral
resources (CGS, 2008; refer to Figure 4.12-1). The modified project site is surrounded by land uses
incompatible with mining—residential uses, a utility easement, and roadways—and is thus
unavailable for mining. The utility easements next to the modified project site are unavailable for
mining due to the presence of underground utility mains (water and natural gas) and overhead
electric transmission lines. Additionally, as mentioned in the Westgate Specific Plan FEIR, it was
determined that no impacts would occur to mineral resources as a result of Approved Project
development. No known deposits of precious gemstones, ores, or unique or rare minerals have been
identified within the Approved Project Area (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 6-12]).
The City of Fontana General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element omits mineral resource
conservation because no active sand and gravel mines are within city limits and no new mines had
been proposed for the City. In addition, it is expected that any proposed mine would be vigorously
opposed due to anticipated conflicts with existing land uses (City of Fontana, 2018a, p. 7.6)
According to the Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR),
no active or idle oil or gas wells are present within the city; only plugged wells. The closest active oil
and gas well is located 13 miles to the north; see Figure 4.12-2. Additionally, no geothermal wells
exist within the City; the nearest active geothermal well is 12 miles to the east (refer to
Figure 4.12-3).
Thus, modified project development would not cause any impact to the availability of mineral
resources.
❖ SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.12-3
July 2024
Figure 4.12-1
MINERAL RESOURCES
❖ SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.12-4
July 2024
Figure 4.12-2
OIL AND GAS WELLS
❖ SECTION 4.12 – MINERAL RESOURCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.12-5
July 2024
Figure 4.12-3
GEOTHERMAL WELLS
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.13-1
July 2024
4.13 Noise
4.13.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR)
Analysis and Conclusions
Violation of Noise Standards (Impact 4.K-1): Implementation of the Approved Project could
significantly impact adjacent noise-sensitive receptors in the project area. Implementation of the
prescribed mitigation measures [see below] would ensure that potentially significant noise impacts
to onsite sensitive uses are reduced to a less than significant level. However, noise impacts on
sensitive receivers from offsite traffic noise would be significant and unavoidable (PCR, 2015, p. 4.K-
18).
The significance threshold for this impact was:
Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
For this threshold, the Westgate Specific Plan FEIR analyzed offsite roadway noise. Daily traffic
volumes estimated elsewhere in the FEIR were used in conjunction with a traffic noise model to
estimate community noise equivalent (CNEL) values along 29 roadway segments throughout the
Westgate Specific Plan area. Five scenarios were modeled: existing traffic; future (2018) traffic
without Approved Project Phase I traffic; buildout year (2038) traffic without Approved Project
buildout traffic; future traffic with Approved Project Phase I traffic; and buildout year with Approved
Project buildout traffic. For all these scenarios, the increment in CNEL due to the project was
estimated.
In Phase 1, Approved Project-related traffic would increase offsite residential exposures along
certain segments by up to 5.3 dBA CNEL. At buildout, Approved Project-related traffic would increase
offsite residential exposures by 3.2 to 4.4 dBA CNEL (PCR, 2015, p. 4.K-24). Because the City of
Fontana does not have a statutory threshold for the significance of traffic noise impacts, the FEIR uses
a conservative threshold of 3 dBA CNEL, which is an increase perceivable by humans (PCR, 2015, p.
4.K-17).
➢ Approved Project Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
Groundborne Noise and Vibration (Impact 4.K-2): Construction and operation of future land uses
under the proposed Specific Plan would produce groundborne noise and vibration. However,
vibration velocities would not exceed allowable levels at the nearest vibration sensitive uses. Thus,
construction‐related and operational vibration impacts would be less than significant.
The significance threshold for this impact was:
Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
To evaluate the significance of groundborne vibration and noise from the Approved Project, the FEIR
estimated vibration velocities in five residential neighborhoods within 50 feet of construction
activities for the Approved Project site. The significance levels used were 0.5 inch per second for
damage to residential structures and 0.04 inch per second for human annoyance. The estimated
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.13-2
July 2024
vibration exposure for the nearest residences was 0.031 inch per second, which is below both criteria
(PCR, 2015, p. 4.K-27). Thus, vibration impacts during construction would be less than significant.
For the Approved Project’s operational phase, vibration sources would include typical residential
and commercial‐grade stationary mechanical and electrical equipment such as air handling units,
condenser units, exhaust fans, and electrical emergency power generators, which would produce
vibration. Ground‐borne vibration generated by each of the abovementioned activities would be
similar to the vibration generated by existing sources (i.e., traffic on adjacent roadways) in the project
area. The potential vibration impacts from all proposed project sources at the closest structure
locations would be less than the significance threshold 0.04 inches per second peak particle velocity
(PPV) for perceptibility. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with operation of the project would
be below the significance threshold and impacts would be less than significant (PCR, 2015, p. 4.K-27).
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Permanent Noise Level Increases (Impact 4.K-3): Project implementation would have a minimal
effect on the existing noise environment adjacent to the project area. Thus, long‐term noise impacts
would be less than significant.
The significance threshold for this impact was:
Would the project have a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project above levels existing without the project?
Future residents of the Westgate Specific Plan area would generate and would be exposed to onsite
noise sources typical of residential neighborhoods. The same types of noise generation and exposure
would occur in offsite residential areas near the Approved Project site (PCR, 2015, p. 4.K-27).
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Temporary Noise Level Increases (Impact 4.K-4): Construction activities associated with project
implementation would be conducted within the allowable hours specified in the City’s Municipal
Code. Compliance with the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code would ensure that construction
noise impacts are less than significant.
The significance threshold for this impact was:
Would the project have a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
The FEIR presents a generalized analysis of construction noise impacts, listing typical types of
construction equipment, their reference noise levels at 50 feet, and their estimated usage factors.20
Using “worst-case” assumptions, such as the concentration of construction equipment at the site
boundary, near sensitive receptors, results in estimated exposures of about 85 to 88 dBA hourly Leq.21
20 Usage factors are fractions of the time that given types of equipment are actually generating noise. In the FEIR analysis,
they range from 10% to 50%.
21 Leq, the equivalent noise level, is an average of sound level over a defined time period, such as one hour. The Leq of a
time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during
exposure.
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.13-3
July 2024
These levels are considerably higher than the measured short-term ambient noise levels in
surrounding residential areas (PCR, 2015, p. 4.K-12). However, construction activities would be
required to comply with the City’s allowable hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays (Fontana Municipal Code Section 18-63[7]) and would be
temporary in nature. Since temporary construction noise is exempt from the City’s noise ordinance
requirements,22 construction‐related noise would result in a less than significant noise impact (PCR,
2015, p. 4.K-30).
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:23
No. Mitigation Measure
K-1
Prior to approval of design review permits for sensitive uses, such as residential uses, libraries,
daycare facilities, neighborhood parks and playgrounds, planned for areas forecasted to exceed
an exterior noise level of 65 CNEL (based on Table 4.K-13 of this Draft EIR), the following shall
occur.
a) An acoustical analysis shall be performed for residential structures to ensure that interior
noise levels due to exterior sources would be at or below 45 [dBA] CNEL. For these
residential use areas, it may be necessary for the windows to be able to remain closed to
ensure that interior noise levels meet the interior design standard of 45 [dBA] CNEL.
Consequently the design for these units may need to include mechanical ventilation or air
conditioning systems to provide a habitable interior environment with the windows closed
based on the results of the interior acoustical analysis.
b) To reduce exterior noise levels to 65 [dBA] CNEL or lower at outdoor sensitive uses (i.e.,
residential courtyards, parks, and passive recreation areas), a combination of sound barrier
walls, earthen berms, and landscaping shall be designed and implemented by a qualified
acoustical consultant. Alternatively, outdoor uses shall be located behind buildings (not
facing traffic corridors) in a manner that shields outdoor sensitive uses from roadway noise
and reduces the exterior noise level to 65 [dBA] CNEL or below.
c) Prior to occupancy of residential uses in Planning Areas 2, 6, and 8, the project applicant
shall construct a 20‐foot‐high sound wall or equivalent physical barrier at the residential
property line along the east side of the I‐15 Freeway in order to reduce mobile‐source noise
to acceptable levels. The specific type and design of the physical barrier to be employed at
this location shall be determined by the results of the design‐specific acoustical analysis
noted above.
d) Prior to occupancy of proposed residential uses in Planning Areas 24 and 26, the project
applicant shall construct a 15‐foot‐high sound wall or equivalent physical barrier at the
residential property line along the north side of the Route 210 Freeway in order to reduce
mobile‐source noise to acceptable levels. The specific type and design of the physical
barrier to be employed at this location shall be determined by the results of the design‐
specific acoustical analysis noted above.
4.13.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
The modified project’s potential noise impacts have been evaluated considering the present
environmental regulatory setting. The modified project—two medical office buildings—would be
compatible with the Westgate SP. The modified project site is a very small portion of the 964-acre
Approved Project site. Therefore, impacts of modified project development would be similar to those
22 City of Fontana Municipal Code, §18-63(a)(7).
23 PCR, 2015, pp. ES 53-55.
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.13-4
July 2024
of the previous Approved Project and no additional significant impacts beyond those identified for
the previous Approved Project would occur.
4.13.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist responses compare the previous Approved Project analyzed under the
adopted Westgate Specific Plan FEIR with the modified project as described in this document, and
analyzes the potential impacts resulting from the development of the Modified Project.
Would the project result in:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise level in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
X
4.13.3.1 Existing Noise
Existing conditions are similar to those of 2017 when the Approved Project EIR was certified. The
project site and surroundings consist of vacant land opposite San Sevaine Road to the east and South
Highland Avenue to the south; a utility corridor to the west; and SR-210 to the north. The nearest
sensitive receptors to noise are residences to the southeast opposite the intersection of San Sevaine
Road and South Highland Avenue, the same as existed in 2017. The primary noise source near the
project site is the SR-210 freeway.
4.13.3.2 Regulatory Setting
There have been no changes to federal, state or municipal noise laws or regulations applicable to the
modified project since adoption of the Approved Project FEIR.
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.13-5
July 2024
4.13.3.3 Evaluation of Impacts
a) Would the project expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
The modified project would include construction activities and operating characteristics similar to
those described for the Westgate Specific Plan area in the latter’s FEIR, albeit at a much smaller scale.
Construction would not include exceptionally noisy equipment, such as impact pile drivers, as they
are excluded by the Specific Plan. To estimate construction noise impact on the surrounding
community, exposures at three nearby sensitive receivers, all single-family residences, were
estimated by methods prescribed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA, 2018, Section 7.1).
Table 4.13-1 lists the sensitive receivers and gives their distances from the project boundary.24
Table 4.13-1
SENSITIVE RECEIVERS FOR CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
No. Location
Distance
(feet)
SR-1 Directly east of project site, across San Sevaine Road 385
SR-2 Southeast corner of San Sevaine Road and South Highland
Avenue 148
SR-3 Southeast corner of San Sevaine Road and Preston Drive 609
Types and populations of construction equipment for each construction phase (site clearance,
grading, building construction, etc.) were estimated by the California Emission Estimator Model
(CalEEMod) (CAPCOA, 2022), which was used to calculate criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas
emissions. Being the closest sensitive receiver to the construction activity, SR-1 would ordinarily
have the highest noise exposure, However, a seven-foot-high concrete block wall shields its location
from noise from the west. Hourly average exposures25 at the unshielded sensitive receivers would
range from 50.8 to 56.3 dBA Leq, which is typical for residential neighborhoods. A frequently used
significance threshold for construction noise is 80 dBA Leq (FTA, 2018, p. 179). Therefore,
construction noise would be less than significant, Furthermore, the argument that construction activities
during certain hours are exempt from Municipal Code requirements (Fontana Municipal Code Section 18-
63[7]), which was advanced in the Approved Project FEIR, applies equally to the modified project.
Therefore, there would be no change to the FEIR’s conclusion of a less than significant impact from
construction.
24 The distances used in the noise exposure calculations were from the centers of onsite construction activity to outdoor
areas on each property where residents would spend time.
25 Leq, the equivalent noise level, is an average of sound level over a defined time period (such as 1 minute, 15 minutes, 1
hour or 24 hours). Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same
acoustic energy to the ear during exposure.
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.13-6
July 2024
The traffic generated by the modified project would increase over the amount estimated for the Approved
Project development within the modified project site. The traffic study for the Approved Project estimated
that 3,474 trips would be generated by the land uses in PA27 (Crawford et al., 2013, p. 26). According to
the latest edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition), the weekday daily rate for Land Use
720: Medical-Dental Office Building (Stand-Alone) is 36.00 per 1,000 square feet. Using this trip
generation rate and the 208,000-square-foot building area results in an estimate of 7,488 trips per day
(Tucker, 2024). Since traffic noise generation is approximately proportional to traffic volume, noise
exposures to residential receivers in the project area, such as those on San Sevaine Road and Highland
Avenue would be higher than those estimated for the Approved project.
The certified Westgate SP EIR (PCR, 2015, pp. 4.K-36 and 4.K-37) found that “off-site traffic-related noise
impacts would be significant and unavoidable for the existing residential uses in the surrounding area since
no additional mitigation measures would be feasible (i.e., sound walls are already in place).” In addition,
the Approved Project would contribute to a cumulative impact that is significant and unavoidable. The
proposed project’s traffic noise impacts therefore would not change conclusions regar ding the significance
of mobile source noise.
b) Would the project expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
It is expected that groundborne vibration from the modified project’s construction activities would
cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. The project’s construction activities most likely to cause
vibration impacts are:
• Heavy Construction Equipment: Although all heavy, mobile construction equipment has the
potential of causing at least some perceptible vibration while operating close to buildings, the
vibration is usually short-term and is not of sufficient magnitude to cause building damage. It is
not expected that heavy equipment such as large bulldozers would operate close enough to any
sensitive receivers to cause vibration impact.
• Trucks: Trucks hauling building materials to construction sites can be sources of vibration
intrusion if the haul routes pass through residential neighborhoods on streets with bumps or
potholes. Repairing the bumps and potholes almost always eliminates the problem.
As discussed in Section 4.13.1, the Approved Project FEIR analyzed vibration impact to nearby
sensitive receptors during both construction and operational phases, and concluded that impacts
would be less than significant. Construction of the modified project will not use major sources of
groundborne vibration or noise, such as impact pile drivers. It will therefore not add any new impacts
or intensify those from the Approved Project. Impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
As discussed in Section 4.13.1, the Approved Project FEIR concluded that future residents of the
Westgate Specific Plan area would generate and would be exposed to onsite noise sources typical of
residential neighborhoods. The same types of noise generation and exposure would occur in offsite
❖ SECTION 4.13 – NOISE ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.13-7
July 2024
residential areas near the Approved Project site. Because the modified project would conform to the
Westgate Specific Plan, and would neither generate nor be exposed to substantially different noise
sources than those evaluated by the Westgate Specific Plan EIR, the project covered by this
addendum would not cause a substantial increase in ambient noise level in its vicinity. Operational
noise generation by the modified project—both traffic noise and stationary mechanical noise—
would be reduced compared to that of Approved Project development on the modified project site
due to the reduction in building area. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
Construction activities for the modified project would comply with the City’s allowable hours of
7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays (City of Fontana
Municipal Code, Section 18-63[7]). and would be temporary in nature. In addition, construction noise
generation by the modified project would be lower compared to that of the Approved Project on the
modified project site due to the reduced construction effort. Thus, impacts on noise levels in the
project vicinity would be less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.14 - POPULATION AND HOUSING ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.14-1
July 2024
4.14 Population and Housing
4.14.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR)
Analysis and Conclusions
Induce Substantial Population Growth (Impact 4.L-1): The Approved Project would increase the
population and housing in the city by approximately 21,478 people and 5,410 homes. Approved
Project buildout is estimated to generate 3,485 jobs consisting of 2,330 jobs by office uses, 145 by
retail uses, 651 by light industrial uses, and 359 from schools. It is expected that population and
housing in the city would increase by 66,100 people and 18,100 homes by 2035; and that
employment in the city would increase by 21,400 jobs by 2035 (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015,
p. 4.L-8]). Therefore, Approved Project development would not exceed the forecasted population,
housing, or employment growth for the city and impacts would be less than significant.
➢ Approved Westgate Specific Plan Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Displace Existing People or Housing ( Section 6.0 [F][10], page 6-13 and Initial Study [XIII][b
and c]): There are no existing housing or residents on the project site. Therefore, Approved Project
development would not displace existing housing or people (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p.
6-13 and Appendix A, Initial Study, p. B-15]).
➢ Approved Westgate Specific Plan Determination: No Impact.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: None Required.
4.14.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
The modified project’s potential impacts on population and housing have been evaluated in light of
the present environmental regulatory setting. The modified project would develop two medical office
buildings with 208,000 total square feet of building area. The two medical office buildings are
estimated to generate 200 jobs. The medical office use proposed in the modified project is within the
range of uses permitted in PA 27 by the Approved Project. Therefore, the 200 jobs that would be
generated by modified project operation are within the estimate of 3,485 jobs in the entire WSP. The
Modified project does not propose development of housing. No new impact would occur.
4.14.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist responses compare the Approved Project analyzed with the modified project
as described in this document, and analyze the potential impacts resulting from the modified project.
❖ SECTION 4.14 - POPULATION AND HOUSING ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.14-2
July 2024
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New Information
Showing Ability
to Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects Compared
to the Certified
Westgate Specific
Plan FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of an
MND or EIR
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial population
growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers
of existing housing,
necessitating the construction
of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
c) Displace substantial numbers
of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
X
a) Would the project induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
The modified project would develop two medical office buildings with 208,000 total square feet of
building area. The employment density estimate used in the Certified EIR was 2,417,403 square feet
of office uses generating 2,330 jobs, for an average of 1,038 square feet per job. Therefore, the two
medical office buildings are estimated to generate 200 jobs. PA 27 w as designated for MU-1 zoning
in the WSP, permitting a broad range of business, commercial retail, medical, educational,
entertainment, and commercial services. The medical office use proposed in the modified project is
within the range of land uses permitted in PA 27 by the WSP. Therefore, the 200 jobs that would be
generated by modified project operation are within the estimate of 3,485 jobs in the entire WSP. No
new impact would occur.
Modified project development would not cause any new indirect operational impact on housing
growth (that is, employment onsite inducing households to move into the city of Fontana), because
modified project employment would be within employment estimated for the Approved Project.
Modified project construction would not cause a new significant employment impact for the same
reason—modified project construction would be part of construction of the entire WSP analyzed in
the Certified EIR.
❖ SECTION 4.14 - POPULATION AND HOUSING ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.14-3
July 2024
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact
The modified project site is vacant and does not have any existing housing. Therefore, no new impact
would occur.
c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact
There are no existing residents on the modified project site. Therefore, the modified project would
not displace people and would not require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No
new impact would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.15 - PUBLIC SERVICES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.15-1
July 2024
4.15 Public Services
4.15.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR)
Analysis and Conclusions.
Fire Protection (Impact 4.M-1):
Fire Protection Services and Facilities: The Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD) provides fire
protection and emergency medical services to the city of Fontana, and to areas of the unincorporated
San Bernardino County within the city of Fontana Sphere of Influence, under contract between the
City of Fontana and the San Bernardino County Fire Department. Future development occurring
under the Approved Project may create impacts on fire and emergency medical services. Fire stations
79, 78, and the relocated/upgraded Fire Station 73 would enhance the ability of FFPD/SBCFD to
provide fire protection and emergency medical services within the
Approved Project boundaries in the long‐term. The approved project would not require the provision
of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, and therefore project‐related impacts to fire
protection facilities would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.M-13-
4.M-14]).
All development projects in accordance with the Approved Project would be required to pay the
City’s Development Fee for fire facilities ($164.00 per residential dwelling unit, $0.25 per square foot
of commercial development, and $0.10 per square foot of industrial development). These fees would
be utilized to fund additional services and improvements that may be determined to be required to
provide adequate fire protection to the Approved Project (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.M-
14]).
Upon the implementation of the Approved Project FEIR Mitigation Measures M -1 through M-3 and
the payment of applicable developer fees for fire facilities, impacts would be less than significant
(WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.M-14]).
Fire Flow: Additional FFPD review of project engineering plans would be necessary to ensure that
adequate fire flows are achieved. With FFPD plan review to ensure that adequate water pressure
would be provided, impacts related to fire flow would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR
Services, 2015, pp. 4.M-14-4.M-15]).
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation
Incorporated.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
No. Mitigation Measure
M-1 The City shall maintain an average fire response time of 4 to 5 minutes. [GP EIR MM FS-1].
M-2 The City shall continue to maintain an ISO fire rating of Class 3. [GP EIR MM FS-2].
M-3 The City shall ensure that new fire stations are built in areas of new development so that
response times are not eroded. [GP EIR MM FS-3].
Source: WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.M-27 – 4.M-28].
❖ SECTION 4.15 - PUBLIC SERVICES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.15-2
July 2024
Police Protection (Impact 4.M-2):
The Fontana Police Department (FPD) provides law enforcement service to the city. Public safety
improvements, such as street lighting, roadway improvements, and enhanced site design
requirements would be implemented as part of the proposed Specific Plan, and it is unlikely that any
individual future project or even the buildout of the entire Approved Project would result in the need
to construct new police facilities. The City currently collects Development Fees on behalf of the Police
Department in the amounts of $526.52 per single‐family dwelling unit, $710.80 per multi‐family
dwelling unit, $0.526 per square foot of commercial development, and $0.131 per square foot of
industrial development. These fees would be utilized to fund additional police services and
improvements that may be determined to be required to provide adequate police protection for the
Approved Project. Upon the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and payment
of developer fees, impacts related to police projection would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR
[PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.M-16]).
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation
Incorporated
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
No. Mitigation Measure
M-4 The City shall continue to work towards a ratio of 1.4 sworn officers per 1,000 residents. [GP
EIR MM P-1].
M-5 The Fontana Police Department shall continue to expand its Area Commander Program to more
effectively serve specific areas of the City. [GP EIR MM P-2].
M-6 The Fontana Police Department shall expand its Contact Stations to more effectively serve
outlying areas. [GPEIR MM P-3].
M-7 The Fontana Police Department shall continue its School Resource Officer Program on all
current and future middle school campuses. [GP EIR MM P-4].
M-8 The Fontana Police Department shall continue its extensive volunteer crime prevention
programs, including Citizen Volunteers, Explorers, Citizens on Patrol, Neighborhood Watch,
Police Reserves, and Community Emergency. [GP EIR MM P-5].
M-9 The Fontana Police Department shall continue its bilingual incentive program to more
effectively serve the Latino community more. [GP EIR MM P-6].
M-10 The City shall maintain an average police and fire response time of 4 to 5 minutes. [GP EIR MM
P-7].
M-11 The City shall continue to promote the establishment of Neighborhood Watch programs in
residential neighborhoods, aimed at encouraging neighborhoods to form associations to patrol
or watch for any suspicious activity. [GP EIR MM P-8]
M-12 The City shall incorporate appropriate staffing levels in the annual
budget process keyed to City growth in population and employment. [GP EIR MM P-9]
Source: WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.M-28].
Schools (Impact 4.M-3): The Approved Project site is within the Etiwanda School District and the
Chaffey Joint Union High School District. The Approved Project would generate population growth
and associated demands for schools.
❖ SECTION 4.15 - PUBLIC SERVICES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.15-3
July 2024
School facilities are either available, planned, or under construction within the Approved Project area
and would have sufficient capacity to handle additional numbers of students generated by
development in the Approved Project Area. More specifically, the Westgate Specific Plan includes the
development of three school sites within the project boundaries, including two elementary schools
and one high school.
To reduce the potential effects of future development on the City’s ability to provide public education
services, all future development projects within the Approved Project area would be required to pay
school impact fees in effect at the time of development. (SB 50, 2019), SB 50 permits school districts
to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirements against any development project within its
boundaries, to fund the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. SB 50 also sets the
maximum level of fees a developer may be required to pay. Pursuant to the Government Code Section
65995, the payment of these fees by a developer serves to mitigate all potential impacts on school
facilities that may result from the implementation of a project. Accordingly, the Approved Project’s
impact on public school facilities would be less than significant with the implementation of Westgate
Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures M-13 through M-18 (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp.
4.M-16 - 4.M-17-4.M]).
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation
Incorporated
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
No. Mitigation Measure
M-13 Planning and development in the City shall continue to be integrated with the needs of school
districts for new facilities. [GP EIR MM S-1].
M-14 The City shall continue to support local school districts in their efforts to obtain additional
funding sources, including special assessment districts and supplementary state and federal
funding. [GP EIR MM S-2].
M-15 The City shall establish and maintain effective joint-use agreements with school districts
serving the community to achieve optimum, cost effective use of school facilities. [GP EIR MM
S-3].
M-16 The City shall continue to withhold building permits until verification that applicable school
fees have been collected by the appropriate school district. [GP EIR MM S-4]
M-17 The City shall collaborate with school districts in designing adjacent school/recreation facilities
to achieve maximum usability and cost-effectiveness for both the City and the school districts.
[GP EIR MM S-5].
M-18 The City shall collaborate with school districts in expanding educational opportunities and
programs that benefit from City facilities. [GP EIR MM S-6].
Source: WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.M-28 – 4.M-29]
Parks and Recreation (Impact 4.M-4): The Approved Project area is served on a local level by the
City’s Community Services and Recreation Department and on a regional level by the County’s
Regional Parks Department. Although no City parks are currently located within project boundaries,
the Approved Project includes an extensive network of public and private parks, open spaces, trails,
and various pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Specifically, the Westgate Specific Plan includes ten
planning areas, totaling 47.8 acres, designated for public parks (OS/P1), and 14 planning areas,
totaling 9.15 acres designated for private parks (OS/P2). In addition to these onsite recreational
facilities, residents would also have limited use of school‐related recreational facilities and sports
❖ SECTION 4.15 - PUBLIC SERVICES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.15-4
July 2024
leagues through existing joint‐use agreements with ESD and CJUHSD, and potential future
agreements for onsite school facilities.
The City currently collects Development Fees to fund new and expanded public facilities, including
parks and recreational facilities, in the amount of $796.26 per single‐family residential unit, $358.32
per multi‐family residential unit, and $0.398 per square foot of commercial and industrial
development. These fees would be utilized to fund additional services and improvements that may
be determined to be required to provide adequate parks and recreational facilities to serve the
Specific Plan area. Although such fees may be utilized to fund the construction or expansion of
additional parks and recreational facilities to serve future development, the nature and location of
such facilities is not known at this time, and as such evaluation of the environment al impacts
associated with the construction and operation of these facilities is not currently possible. However,
as is the case for future development within the Specific Plan area, individual projects (including
parks and recreational facilities) would be subject to future environmental review, as determined
necessary and appropriate by the City, in order to evaluate the specific impacts at a level of detail not
possible in this Draft EIR. Additionally, mitigation measures M-19 through M-25 would be
implemented, as appropriate, to ensure that impacts are minimized. As such, with implementation of
applicable mitigation measures and payment of required Development Fees to support City public
facilities, impacts related to parks and recreation would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR
Services, 2015, pp. 4.M-16 - 4.M-17]).
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation
Incorporated
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
No. Mitigation Measure
M-19 A wide variety of parks and recreation facilities, including regional, community, neighborhood
and sub-neighborhood parks, shall be provided throughout the City. [GPEIR MM PR-1].
M-20 The design of all parks shall meet the particular needs of the specialized populations they serve,
such as seniors, young adults, families, and children. [GPEIR MM PR-2].
M-21 Barrier-free access to all parks shall be provided. [GPEIR MM PR-3].
M-22 The park standards for the City shall be two acres per thousand residents for community parks
and three acres per thousand for neighborhood parks. [GPEIR MM PR-4].
M-23 Each park within the City shall provide a variety of activity options for users, including active
and passive uses. [GPEIR MM PR-5].
M-24 The City shall reevaluate the design of each of its parks as part of the periodic update of its
Parks, Recreation, and Trails Master Plan. [GPEIR MM PR-6].
M-25 Each park within the City shall be evaluated for safety on a periodic basis. [GPEIR MM PR-7].
Source: WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. M.4-29]
Other Public Services - Libraries (Impact 4.M-5):
Two San Bernardino County Library facilities in the site vicinity serve the project area: Summit
Branch Library, located on the campus of Summit High School, adjacent to the project site boundaries
at 15551 Summit Avenue; and Fontana Lewis Library and Technology Center, located approximately
3.5 miles southeast of the project site at 8437 Sierra Avenue.
❖ SECTION 4.15 - PUBLIC SERVICES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.15-5
July 2024
Library facilities impact fees are collected by the city from new construction projects and would be
imposed on any new project within the Approved Project area. In addition, as development occurs in
the Approved Project area, the City-collected library fees would fund new improvements to either
expand existing library services in the vicinity or construct new facilities as required. Thus, upon
payment of the required fees, any impact would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services,
2015, pp. 4.M-6 – 4.M-7]).
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation
Incorporated
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
No. Mitigation Measure
M-26 The City shall continue to coordinate its library services with surrounding school districts. [GP
EIR MM LS‐2]
M-27 The City shall evaluate methods of expanding library services through staffing strategies,
technical advancements and facilities design. [GP EIR MM LS‐3]
Source: WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. M.4-29]
4.15.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts.
Fire Protection and Police Protection Services
Demands for fire protection and police protection are generated by the population and the total
building area in the respective agencies’ service areas. The modified project proposes medical office
uses that are within both the land use types and intensity permitted on the modified project site by
the WSP. Therefore, demands for fire and police protection that would be generated by modified
project development would be within those demands generated by WSP development. D evelopers
would pay fees to fund additional services and improvements that may be determined to be required
to provide adequate fire protection to the Westgate Specific Plan area. Therefore, regarding fire and
police protection services, impacts 4.M-1 and 4.M-2 through M-3 due to modified project
development would be similar to those of the Approved Project and no new impacts would occur.
Schools, Parks, and Libraries
Demands for schools are generated by the numbers of households in the schools’ service areas, and
demands for parks and libraries are generated by the population in the facilities’ service areas. The
modified project proposes medical office uses within the range and intensity of uses in the modified
project site analyzed in the Certified EIR, and does not propose development of housing. Therefore,
modified project development would not generate demands for schools, parks, or libraries, and no
impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR would occur.
4.15.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusion
The following checklist responses compare the Approved Project analyzed under the adopted
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR with the Modified project as described in this document and analyzes
the potential impacts resulting from modified project development.
❖ SECTION 4.15 - PUBLIC SERVICES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.15-6
July 2024
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or
EIR
No
Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
1) Fire protection? X
2) Police protection? X
3) Schools? X
4) Parks? X
5) Other public facilities? X
a) Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information
The modified project implements a portion of the Approved Project. The impacts of the Approved
Project on fire protection and emergency medical services were determined to be less than
significant. Mitigation measures M-1 through M-3 were identified in the Westgate Specific Plan FEIR
concerning this issue, which was programmatic and not specific to any incremental development
within the Westgate Specific Plan project area. The developers would be required to pay the City’s
development fee for fire facilities, and funding would provide additional services and improvements
necessary for the project. Thus, modified project development would not generate impacts on fire
protection and emergency medical services exceeding those analyzed in the Certified EIR and no new
mitigation measures would be required.
b) Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information
The modified project implements a portion of the Approved Project. The impacts of the Approved
Project on police protection were determined to be less than significant with the implementation of
mitigation measures. Mitigation measures M-4 through M-12 were identified in the Westgate Specific
Plan FEIR concerning this issue which was programmatic and not specific to any incremental
development within the project area. Demands for police services are generated by both the
population and the total building area in the police agency’s service area. The modified project
proposes 208,000 square feet of medical office uses that are within both the types and intensity of
land use proposed for the modified project site in the WSP. Thus, modified project development
would not generate demands for police services exceeding those that would be generated by
development of the WSP. The City currently collects development fees on behalf of the Police
❖ SECTION 4.15 - PUBLIC SERVICES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.15-7
July 2024
Department, and those fees would be utilized to fund additional police services and improvements
that may be determined to be required to provide adequate police protection for the Westgate
Specific Plan area. Therefore, no new impact to police protection would occur and no new mitigation
measures would be required.
c) Schools?
No Impact/No Change or New Information
Demands for school facilities are generated by the number of households in the facilities’ service
areas. The modified project proposes medical office use and would not involve development of
housing. Therefore, modified project development would not generate demand for schools. No new
impact would occur.
d) Parks?
No Impact/No Change or New Information
Demands for parks are generated by the population within the parks’ service areas. The modified
project proposes medical office use and would not involve development of housing. Therefore,
modified project development would not generate demand for parks. No new impact would occur.
e) Other public facilities?
Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information
Demands for libraries are generated by the population within the libraries’ service areas. The
modified project proposes medical office use and would not involve development of housing.
Therefore, modified project development would not generate demand for libraries. No new impact
would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.16 - RECREATION ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.16-1
July 2024
4.16 Recreation
4.16.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR)
Analysis and Conclusions
Parks and Recreation (Impact 4.M-4): Approved Project buildout is estimated to add 28,908 persons
to the Approved Project site. The City of Fontana’s parkland standard is five acres of parkland per
1,000 people. Therefore, Approved Project development would generate a demand for
approximately 144.54 acres of parkland. The Approved Project proposed 47.8 acres of public parks
and 9.15 acres of private parks, for a total of 56.95 acres of parks. Therefore, the Approved Project
would generate unmet demand for 87.59 acres of parks. Projects develo ped in accordance with the
Approved Project would pay development fees to the City of Fontana. In addition. mitigation
measures from the City’s 2003 General Plan EIR would be implemented as appropriate to ensure
impacts are minimized. This impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated
(WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.M-16 - 4.M-17]).
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
No. Mitigation Measure
M-19 A wide variety of parks and recreation facilities, including regional, community, neighborhood
and sub-neighborhood parks, shall be provided throughout the City. [GPEIR MM PR-1].
M-20 The design of all parks shall meet the particular needs of the specialized populations they serve,
such as seniors, young adults, families, and children. [GPEIR MM PR-2].
M-21 Barrier-free access to all parks shall be provided. [GPEIR MM PR-3].
M-22 The park standards for the City shall be two acres per thousand residents for community parks
and three acres per thousand for neighborhood parks. [GPEIR MM PR-4].
M-23 Each park within the City shall provide a variety of activity options for users, including active
and passive uses. [GPEIR MM PR-5].
M-24 The City shall reevaluate the design of each of its parks as part of the periodic update of its
Parks, Recreation, and Trails Master Plan. [GPEIR MM PR-6].
M-25 Each park within the City shall be evaluated for safety on a periodic basis. [GPEIR MM PR-7].
Source: WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. M.4-29]
4.16.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
The modified project proposes development of medical office uses, implementing the WSP within the
modified project site (PA 27). Demands for parks are generated by the population in the parks’
service areas. The modified project does not propose development of housing and thus would not
generate demand for parks. No new impact would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.16 - RECREATION ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.16-2
July 2024
4.16.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist responses compare the previous Approved Project analyzed under the
adopted Westgate Specific Plan FEIR with the modified project as described in this document, and
analyzes the potential impacts resulting from the development of the project.
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
X
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
The modified project proposes medical office uses totaling 208,000 square feet in building area. The
proposed uses are within the range of land use types, and land use intensity, proposed for PA 27 by
the WSP. Demands for parks are generated by the population in the parks’ service areas. The modified
project does not propose development of housing and thus would not generate demand for parks. No
new impact would occur.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
The modified project does not propose recreational facilities. No additional impact would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-1
July 2024
4.17 Transportation and Traffic
4.17.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR)
Analysis and Conclusions
Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non‐motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit (Impact 4.N-1): Implementation of the Approved Project
under Existing Plus Project, Phase 1 (Year 2018), and Buildout (Year 2035) conditions would not
conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including
mass transit and non‐motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including
but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit. With implementation of mitigation measures and/or payment of fair‐share
contributions for necessary traffic system improvements, this impact was considered less than
significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-16; PCR, 2015b, p. 3-29]).
Construction Impacts
Construction of each specific development phase within the various Westgate Specific Planning Areas
would commence with a site clearing stage. The next stage would involve on‐ and off‐site
infrastructure improvements, utility connections, site clearance, grading and site preparation,
followed by construction of structures (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-16]).
Construction trips associated with trucks and employees traveling to and from the site in the morning
and afternoon would result in some minor traffic delays on local streets in the area; potential traffic
interference caused by construction vehicles would create a temporary impact to vehicles using the
street system in the immediate area in the morning and afternoon hours. It is anticipated that a
majority of the construction‐related traffic would use both I‐15 and SR‐210 to access the site. Vehicle
trips would result from haul and/or material delivery truck trips as well as from construction
workers traveling to and from the site. While this would generally increase traffic on streets and
highways in the project area on a temporary basis during construction activities, construction‐
related traffic would be considerably less than the operational traffic. Traffic impacts to the adjacent
roadway network associated with project construction activities would be minimal and short‐term.
Therefore, aside from the nuisance traffic that would occur as a result of construction‐related traffic
(e.g., construction materials, construction workers, etc.), impacts resulting from construction traffic
would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.N-16 – 4.N-17]).
Project Operational Trip Generation/Distribution
Phase 1 of the Approved Project development was projected to generate a total of approximately
25,745 daily vehicle trips. At Approved Project buildout, a total of approximately 84,579 daily vehicle
trips would be generated (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-17]).
To quantify the land uses within the Approved Project site, the Westgate Specific Plan Area was
divided into four traffic analysis zones; A-Falcon Ridge, B-Westgate Central, C-Westgate East, D-
Westgate West. The trip distributions of the project traffic were based on the select zone evening
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-2
July 2024
peak period trip distribution from the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (WSP Draft
EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.N-16 – 4.N-17]).
Existing Plus Project Phase I: For Existing Plus Project Phase 1 traffic conditions (without
improvements/mitigation), study area intersections were projected to operate at unacceptable
Levels of Service during the peak hours (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.N-19 – 4.N-20]).
Under Existing Plus Project Phase 1 traffic conditions (with improvements/mitigation), the study
area intersections are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours
and would not cause any significant impacts, with implementation of improvements included as
mitigation below (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-20; PCR, 2015b, p. 3-30]).
Existing Plus Project Buildout: For Existing Plus Project Buildout traffic conditions (without
improvements/mitigation), study area intersections were projected to operate at unacceptable
Levels of Service during the peak hours.
Under The Existing Plus Project Buildout traffic conditions (with improvements/mitigation), the
study area intersections are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak
hours. The Approved Project would not cause any significant impacts, with implementation of
improvements included as mitigation below (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-22; PCR,
2015b, p. 3-30]).
Year 2018 With the Project Phase I. Without improvements/mitigation, for Year 2018 With Project
Phase 1 traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable
Levels of Service during the peak hours (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-24]).
For Year 2018 With Project Phase 1 traffic conditions (with improvements/mitigation), the study
area intersections were projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak
hours and would not cause any significant impacts, with improvements included as mitigation below
(WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-25; PCR, 2015b, pp. 3-30 to 3-31]).
Year 2035 with Project: Without improvements/mitigation, under Year 2035 With Project Buildout
traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable Levels of
Service during the peak hours (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-26]).
Under Year 2035 With Project Buildout (with improvements/mitigation), the study area
intersections are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours.
Therefore, the Approved Project would not cause any significant impacts, with implementation of
improvements included as mitigation below (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-28; PCR,
2015b, p. 3-31]).
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated.
Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to
level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways (Impa ct 4.N‐2):
Implementation of the Approved Project would not conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-3
July 2024
designated roads and highways. With implementation of applicable mitigation measures and/or
payment of fair‐share contributions to necessary traffic system improvements, this impact is
considered less than significant with mitigation (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-28]).
For the Year 2035 With Project Buildout, several thoroughfares within or abutting the Approved
Project site are CMP roadways including Baseline Avenue, Highland Avenue, Cherry Avenue, Citrus
Avenue, and the I‐15 and SR‐210 freeways (and associated on‐ and off‐ramps). However, since the
City of Fontana has a standard program (Circulation Development Fees) to fund regional
improvements, SANBAG considers the City exempt from CMP traffic impact analysis. Nonetheless, as
indicated above, all project‐related impacts to study area intersections and roadway segments,
including these CMP facilities, would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of
applicable mitigation measures provided below. In addition, future development of high-density
residential uses within Planning Area 24, if it were to occur, would be required to contribute funds
to the City as part of the Circulation Development Fee program, which would be applied to necessary
regional improvements, and thus no development‐specific CMP traffic analysis is required by
SANBAG. Therefore, CMP‐related traffic impacts would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR
Services, 2015, p. 4.N-28; PCR, 2015b, pp. 3-31 to 3-32]).
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses (Impact 4.N‐3): The Approved
Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). This impact is considered less
than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-29]).
Potential future development associated with the Approved Project may require considerable
construction and demolition. It may be necessary to completely restrict public access during brief
periods of construction to ensure public safety. Appropriate signage would be provided as
motorists/pedestrians approach the site to indicate access options. Construction vehicle traffic may
create temporary congestion and safety hazards for local residents, on‐site employees, motorists, and
pedestrians. Potential safety hazards and traffic congestion would be reduced to less than significant
levels through implementation of the standard construction safety measures, including use of flag
men, signage and appropriate construction area fencing (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-
29]).
With regard to long‐term project operation, the site circulation plans prepared for future onsite
development projects would be subject to review and approval by the City of Fontana and Fontana
Fire Protection District (FFPD)/San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD), which would
ensure that roadway and intersection designs meet appropriate requirements for site distance and
implement appropriate control mechanisms. With review and approval of future development plans
by the City of Fontana and FFPD/SBCFD, operational vehicular hazard impacts would be less than
significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-29]).
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-4
July 2024
Inadequate Parking Capacity (Impact 4.N-4): The Approved Project would not result in
inadequate parking capacity. With implementation of applicable mitigation measures, this impact is
considered less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-29]).
The Approved Project includes parking requirements for future development on‐site, which
generally relies on the parking standards contained in the FMC with various exceptions noted in the
Specific Plan text. Off‐street parking would be provided for future on‐site development in adequate
quantity to meet the combined demands of proposed uses. However, mitigation is provided below
that would serve to ensure that adequate parking is provided for all future on‐site development
projects, and thus no significant parking impacts would occur (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p.
4.N-29]).
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities
(Impact 4.N-5): The Approved Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities. This impact is considered less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services,
2015, p. 4.N-30]).
Public transit facilities, such as bus turnouts, shelters, and signage, would be provided for all future
development projects within the Specific Plan boundaries, to the satisfaction of affected public transit
agencies. The development of future projects pursuant to the Specific Plan will increase demands on
affected transit services and facilities, and such demands would be incrementally greater if
residential uses were developed within Planning Area 24 given the potential for up to
1,000 additional housing units. However, vehicles, routes, and facilities are anticipated to be
expanded to meet the growing needs of the community, funded by revenues from increased ridership
(WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-30]).
The Approved Specific Plan includes extensive pedestrian and bicycle‐related facilities, including
Class I and Class II bike lanes, paseos, and a pedestrian bridge, which would serve to minimize safety
hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists while maximizing non‐vehicular transportation opportunities
throughout the project area (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-30]).
Since the Approved Project includes extensive improvements that support alternative
transportation, and these improvements are subject to review and approval by the City of Fontana,
County of San Bernardino, Omnitrans, and/or other affected agencies, the Approved Specific Plan
would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities. Therefore, impacts related to alternative transportation would be less than
significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-30]).
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less than Significant Impact.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
The Approved Project EIR mitigation measures address on‐site improvements, off‐site
improvements and the phasing of all necessary study area transportation improvements. Although
most of these proposed improvements would be located within the City of Fontana, some of them are
located outside of the City’s jurisdiction in the Cities of Rialto and Rancho Cucamonga, in
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-5
July 2024
unincorporated San Bernardino County, or are State highway facilities under the jurisdiction of
Caltrans. While such mitigation measures located outside the City of Fontana’s jurisdiction would
address project‐related and cumulative traffic system impacts, the City of Fontana cannot compel
other affected jurisdictions to implement these improvements. However, the project applicant would
be required to pay “fair share” contributions to address the proposed project’s proportion of traffic
impacts at each facility, as summarized in Table 21 of the project’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
Report (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-41, Appendix J]; Kunzman Associates, Inc., 2013,
Table 21, p. 133).
Intersection Improvements
The intersection improvements required to mitigate all Approved Project impacts are summarized
in the Approved Project DEIR in Table 4.N‐3, Summary of Intersection Improvements, on page 4.N-42
through 4.N-46 (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.N-42 through 4.N-46]).
On‐Site Roadway Segment Improvements
On‐site roadway segment improvements and improvements adjacent to the site will be required in
conjunction with the proposed development to ensure adequate circulation within the project itself
(WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.N-41]). These on-site improvements are presented in the
DEIR (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015]) as mitigation measures N-1 through N-10 on pages 4.N-
41 and 4.N-47 and listed in the table below.
Intersection Improvements
Intersection improvements are presented in the DEIR (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015]) as
mitigation measure N-11 on page 4.N-47 and listed in the table below.
Traffic‐Related Hazards Mitigation
Traffic‐related hazards mitigation measures are presented in the DEIR (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services,
2015]) as mitigation measures N-12 and N-13 on page 4.N-48, and are listed in the table below.
Parking Capacity Mitigation
Parking capacity mitigation is presented in the DEIR (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015]) as
mitigation measure N-14 on page 4.N-48, and is listed in the table below.
No. Mitigation Measure
On‐Site Roadway Segment Improvements
N-1 Construct Heritage Circle from Victoria Avenue to Baseline Avenue at its ultimate cross‐section
width including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development.
N-2
Construct Cherry Avenue from the I‐15 Freeway to Walnut Avenue/Victoria Street at its ultimate
cross‐section width including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with
development. Construct Cherry Avenue from Walnut Avenue/Victoria Street to Baseline Avenue
at its ultimate half‐section width including landscaping and parkway improvements in
conjunction with development.
N-2a
Within five (5) years from the Certificate of Occupancy of any future warehouse in PA 41, the
Developer will, subject to eligible fee credits for the construction of master infrastructure
improvements, complete construction of Cherry Avenue from the I‐15 Freeway to Walnut
Avenue/Victoria Street at its ultimate cross‐section width, including the median, landscaping
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-6
July 2024
No. Mitigation Measure
and parkway improvements as well as the completion of construction of Cherry Avenue from
Walnut Avenue/Victoria Street to Baseline Avenue at its ultimate half‐section section width,
including the remaining portion of the median, landscaping and parkway improvements.
N-3
Construct Summit Avenue from San Sevaine Road to Sierra Lakes Parkway at its ultimate cross‐
section width including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with
development. Construct Summit Avenue from its western project boundary to Lytle Creek Road
at its ultimate half‐section width including landscaping and parkway improvements in
conjunction with development.
N-4
Construct San Sevaine Road from Summit Avenue to the northern boundary of Planning Area 21
and from Sierra Lakes Parkway to Walnut Avenue at its ultimate half‐section width including
landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development. Construct San
Sevaine Road from the northern boundary of Planning Area 21 to Sierra Lakes Parkway at its
ultimate cross‐section width including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction
with development.
N-5
Construct Lytle Creek Road from its northern project boundary to Summit Avenue at its ultimate
half‐section width including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with
development.
N-6
Construct Sierra Lakes Parkway from Cherry Avenue to San Sevaine Road at its ultimate cross‐
section width including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with
development. Construct Sierra Lakes Parkway from San Sevaine Road to its eastern pr oject
boundary at its ultimate half‐section width including landscaping and parkway improvements
in conjunction with development.
N-7 Construct Highland Avenue from Victoria Street to San Sevaine Road at its ultimate cross‐section
width including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development.
N-8 Construct Victoria Avenue from the I‐15 Freeway to Cherry Avenue at is ultimate cross‐section
width including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development.
N-9 Construct Walnut Avenue from Cherry Avenue to San Sevaine Road at its ultimate half‐section
width including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development.
N-10
Construct Baseline Avenue from its western project boundary to Cherry Avenue at its ultimate
half‐section width including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with
development.
Intersection Improvements
N-11
Necessary intersection improvement recommendations and proposed phasing of each
improvement, which are summarized above in Table 4.N‐3 shall be implemented as necessary
to address potential project‐related traffic impacts. As is the case for any roadway design, the
City of Fontana shall periodically review traffic operations in the vicinity of the project once the
project is constructed to assure that the traffic operations are satisfactory. The phasing of
improvements is summarized in Table 4.N‐3. The project shall provide on‐site roadways to
connect to the existing infrastructure in conjunction with development and consistent with the
alignment plan.
Traffic‐Related Hazards
N-12
Sight distance at each project access shall be reviewed with respect to the California Department
of Transportation/City of Fontana standards in conjunction with the preparation of final grading,
landscaping, and street improvement plans.
N-13 On‐site traffic signing and striping shall be implemented in conjunction with detailed
construction plans for the project.
Parking Capacity
N-14
Each future development within the Specific Plan boundaries shall provide sufficient parking
spaces to meet City of Fontana parking code requirements in order to service on‐site parking
demand.
Source: WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4.N-41 to 4.N-48]
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-7
July 2024
4.17.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
Impacts associated with implementation of the modified project would not require additional
mitigation beyond those already identified for the Approved Project in the Westgate Specific Plan
DEIR.
4.17.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist responses compare the previous Approved Project analyzed under the
certified FEIR with the modified project, and analyzes the potential impacts resulting from modified
project development.
Would the project:
New Information
Showing New or
Increased Effects
Compared to the
Certified
Westgate Specific
Plan FEIR
New Information
Showing Ability to
Reduce, but Not
Eliminate Effects
Compared to the
Certified
Westgate Specific
Plan FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New Information
Requiring the
Preparation of an
MND or EIR
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program,
plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation
system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines §
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase
hazards due to a
geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access? X
The information in this section is based on the Draft Traffic Impact Analysis, Westgate Medical Campus
(Planning Area 27 of the Westgate Specific Plan), dated July 17, 2024, prepared by David Evans and
Associates, Inc. A copy of this technical report is included as Appendix D.
a) Would the project Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
The following City and County plans, ordinances and policies would apply to the project.
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-8
July 2024
City of Fontana Active Transportation Plan (ATP)
The 2017 Fontana ATP is used to implement infrastructure improvements for better connectivity
throughout Fontana, to surrounding cities, and the region by providing safe and comfortable walking
and bicycling linkages (Stantec, 2018, p. 5.13-14). The modified project would be developed within
the modified project site except for utility improvements in roadways abutting the modified project
site, and would not involve improvements to the two roadways abutting the modified project site.
However, Approved Project plans include Class II (striped and signed) bikeways on South Highland
Avenue abutting the south side of the modified project site, and Class I (off-road) bikeways along the
segment of San Sevaine Road abutting the project site. It is expected that roadways next to the
modified project site would be improved to the configurations specified in the WSP before
development of the modified project. Therefore, modified project development would not conflict
with the Fontana ATP. No new impact would occur.
City of Fontana Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program
The City’s DIF program was adopted pursuant to Government Code § 66000 et seq. Fontana’s
Development Services Department oversees the use of the DIF fees, which fund projects in the City’s
capital improvement program (Stantec, 2018, p. 5.13-14). The modified project is not part of the DIF
program, and therefore, the modified project would not conflict with the DIF program.
San Bernardino Congestion Management Program (CMP)
The City of Fontana has a standard program (Circulation Development Fees) to fund regional
improvements; therefore, SANBAG considers the City exempt from CMP traffic impact analysis. Thus,
no CMP analysis is required for the modified project and no impact is anticipated (PCR, 2015, p. 4.N-
10).
City of Fontana General Plan
The level of service criteria for identifying transportation impacts is from the City of Fontana’s
General Plan polices at the time the DEIR was prepared. The General Plan identified a LOS C as the
minimum acceptable standard for intersection operations during the peak hours. Intersections
operating at a LOS D, E, or F are considered deficient and should be mitigated to a LOS C or better
where feasible. Where attaining LOS C is not feasible, particularly because of existing development,
then a LOS D may be considered acceptable (DEA, 2024, p. 4).
Construction
Construction trips associated with trucks and employees traveling to and from the site in the morning
and afternoon would result in some minor traffic delays on local streets in the project area; potential
traffic interference caused by construction vehicles would create a temporary/short‐term impact to
vehicles using the street system in the immediate area in the morning and afternoon hours. It is
anticipated that most construction‐related traffic would use I‐15 and/or SR‐210 to access the site.
Vehicle trips would result from haul and/or material delivery truck trips as well as construction
worker commute trips. However, construction would be temporary and the project would implement
a construction traffic control plan subject to review and approval by the City of Fontana Engineering
Department, which would reduce the potential for disruptions to existing circulation facilities during
the project construction phase. Additionally, the project would adhere to the city’s construction
hours, limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-9
July 2024
(with no construction on Sundays and holidays) (City of Fontana Municipal Code, Section 18-63[7]).
Therefore, with implementation of the traffic control plan, modified project construction would not
conflict with any applicable transportation plan, ordinance, or policy.
Operation
Intersection LOS was analyzed in several scenarios (both with and without modified project
implementation) in the Draft Traffic Impact Analysis, Westgate Medical Campus (Planning Area 27 of
the Westgate Specific Plan), dated July 17, 2024, prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc.(Draft
Traffic Study), and is included as Appendix D.
As discussed previously, the level of service criteria for identifying transportation impacts is from
the City of Fontana’s General Plan policies at the time the DEIR was prepared. The General Plan
identified a LOS C as the minimum acceptable standard for intersection operations during the peak
hours. Intersections operating at a LOS D, E, or F are considered deficient and should be mitigated to
a LOS C or better where feasible. Where attaining LOS C is not feasible, particularly because of existing
development, then a LOS D may be considered acceptable (DEA 2024, p. 4).
For facilities in the Congestion Management Program system such as roads and intersections
operated by Caltrans, the criteria defining a deficient facility is a LOS D during the peak hour with an
average delay not exceeding 45 seconds per vehicle (DEA 2024, p. 4).
Significant impact thresholds in the Westgate Specific Plan DEIR reference the city’s General Plan
circulation element stating that the General Plan transportation system and its impacts have been
evaluated, mitigated, and adopted in accordance with CEQA. Therefore, any roadway improvement
consistent with the General Plan is not considered a significant impact, so long as the project
contributes its “fair share” funding for improvements (DEA 2024, p. 4).
The threshold for identifying a significant impact to intersection level of service is for the project to
“substantially and adversely change the LOS at any off-site location projected to experience deficient
operations (a LOS D, E, or F) under foreseeable cumulative conditions.” (DEA 2024, p. 4).
For this study, the County’s LOS D standard is assumed to be the minimum level of service criteria
for the study intersections including the interstate ramp intersections controlled by Caltrans (DEA,
2024, p. 17).
Intersections Analyzed
The intersections analyzed are listed below and shown on Figure 4.17-1.
1. Cherry Ave (NS) at Beech Ave (EW)
2. Beech Ave (EW) at I-15 Southbound Ramps (NS)
3. Beech Ave (EW) at I-15 Northbound Ramps (NS)
4. Beech Ave (EW) at Summit Ave (NS)
5. Cherry Ave (NS) at I-210 Westbound Ramps (EW)
6. Cherry Ave (NS) at I-210 Eastbound Ramps (EW)
7. Cherry Ave (NS) at S Highland Ave (EW)
8. S. Highland Ave (EW) at San Sevaine Rd (NS)
9. S Highland Ave (EW) at Hemlock Ave (NS)
10. S Highland Ave (EW) at Beech Ave (NS)
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-10
July 2024
11. Cherry Ave (NS) at Victoria St (EW)
12. Cherry Ave (NS) at Walnut St (EW)
13. Baseline Ave (EW) at East Avenue (NS)
14. Baseline Ave (EW) at I-15 Northbound Ramps (NS)
15. Cherry Ave (NS) at Baseline Ave (EW)
16. Cherry Ave (NS) at Roanoke Rd (EW)
17. Cherry Ave (NS) at Meyer Canyon Rd (EW)
18. Cherry Ave (NS) at Foothill Blvd (EW)
19. S. Highland Ave (EW) at Project Driveway "A" (NS) (Future)
20. S. Highland Ave (EW) at Project Driveway "B" (NS) (Future)
21. San Sevaine Rd (NS) at Project Driveway "C" (EW) (Future)
The intersections of Cherry Ave at Beech Ave, Beech Ave at I-15 Southbound Ramps, Beech Ave at I-
15 Northbound Ramps, Beech Ave at Summit Ave, Cherry Ave at I-210 Westbound Ramps, Cherry
Ave at I-210 Eastbound Ramps, Cherry Ave at S Highland Ave, S Highland Ave at Beech Ave, Cherry
Ave at Victoria St, Baseline Ave at East Avenue is currently traffic signal controlled (DEA, 2024, p. 10).
The intersections of S Highland Ave at Hemlock Ave, and Cherry Ave at Walnut St are currently side
street stop-controlled intersections (DEA, 2024, p. 10).
The intersection of S Highland Ave at San Sevaine Rd is currently all-way stop controlled (DEA, 2024,
p. 10).
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-1
July 2024
Figure 4.17-1
INTERSECTIONS ANALYZED
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-1
July 2024
Analysis Scenarios
The Draft Traffic Study analyzes the five scenarios described below.
• Existing Conditions: This scenario evaluates the year 2024 typical weekday AM peak hour
occurring within the period between 7:00-9:00 AM and typical weekday PM peak hour occurring
between 4:00-6:00 PM. Counts conducted at different times of the year required adjustments for
consistency.
• Opening Year 2027 Baseline Conditions: This scenario evaluates conditions in the proposed
opening year of 2027 without implementation of the project. This scenario includes the
completion of the Cherry Avenue improvements (RAISE Grant project) expected to be
operational in the year 2027.
• Opening Year 2027 Baseline + Project Conditions: This scenario evaluates the Opening Year 2027
Baseline Conditions with the addition of the proposed Project.
• Future Year 2050 Baseline Conditions: This scenario establishes baseline cumulative conditions
representing the year 2050 without implementation of the project. This scenario assumes full
buildout of the Westgate Specific Plan except for the proposed project and includes the
completion of the Cherry Avenue improvements (RAISE Grant project) expected to be
operational in the year 2027.
• Future Year 2050 Baseline + Project Conditions: This scenario evaluates the Future Year 2050
Baseline Conditions with the addition of the proposed project (DEA, 2024, p. 1).
Methods of forecasting traffic volumes in the future (2027 and 2050) conditions are described in the
Draft Traffic Study (see Appendix D). Intersection operations were analyzed using the Highway
Capacity Manual 6th Edition; details of the analysis method for four intersection types (signalized,
all-way-stop, two-way-stop, and roundabout) are presented in the Draft Traffic Study (see Appendix
D). Intersection operation was analyzed in terms of LOS, a qualitative six-point scale (A through F)
based on control delay in average seconds per vehicle, where LOS A indicates free-flowing traffic and
LOS F indicates severe congestion (DEA, 2024). Turn movement counts were conducted in June 2023,
August 2023, and June 2024 (DEA, 2024, p. 11).
Analysis Results
2024 Existing Conditions
The existing conditions intersection capacity analysis is based on the existing intersection
geometrics and year 2024 typical weekday AM peak hour (hour between 7:00-9:00 AM with the
highest traffic volume) and PM peak hour (hour between 4:00-6:00 PM with the highest traffic
volume). Traffic counts conducted during the Summer when school was not in session were
adjusted to reflect non-summer conditions using a city-approved methodology. The results of the
2024 existing conditions analysis are shown in Table 4.17-1.
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-2
July 2024
Table 4.17-1
EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION CAPACITY
Intersection Control
Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Cherry Ave (NS) at Beech Ave (EW) TS 119.7 F 71.2 E
2. Beech Ave (EW) at I-15 Southbound Ramps
(NS)
TS 17.6 B 8.6 A
3. Beech Ave (EW) at I-15 Northbound Ramps
(NS)
TS 21.6 C 52.8 D
4. Beech Ave (EW) at Summit Ave (NS) TS 116.6 F 120.4 F
5. Cherry Ave (NS) at I-210 Westbound Ramps
(EW)
TS 44.0 D 34.8 C
6. Cherry Ave (NS) at I-210 Eastbound Ramps
(EW)
TS 25.2 C 46.8 D
7. Cherry Ave (NS) at S Highland Ave (EW) TS 34.0 C 27.5 C
8. S. Highland Ave (EW) at San Sevaine Rd (NS) AWSC 16.7 C 21.1 C
9. S Highland Ave (EW) at Hemlock Ave (NS) SSSC 12.7 B 16.1 C
10. S Highland Ave (EW) at Beech Ave (NS) TS 100.9 F 191.2 F
11. Cherry Ave (NS) at Victoria St (EW) TS 38.3 D 15.9 B
12. Cherry Ave (NS) at Walnut St (EW) SSSC 33.4 D 65.8 F
13. Baseline Ave (EW) at East Avenue (NS) TS 178.1 F 115.2 F
14. Baseline Ave (EW) at I-15 Northbound Ramps
(NS)
TS 20.9 C 29.3 C
15. Cherry Ave (NS) at Baseline Ave (EW) TS 192.8 F 279.7 F
16. Cherry Ave (NS) at Roanoke Rd (EW) TS 33.2 C 42.3 D
17. Cherry Ave (NS) at Meyer Canyon Rd (EW) TS 49.8 D 47.9 D
18. Cherry Ave (NS) at Foothill Blvd (EW) TS 193.5 F 214.3 F
Source: DEA, 2024, p. 4.
Abbreviations: TS – Traffic Signal Controlled Intersection, AWSC – All Way Stop Controlled Intersection, SSSC
– Side Street Stop Controlled Intersection, Delay – seconds per vehicle, LOS – Level of Service
Comparison of Opening Year 2027 Baseline and Opening Year 2027 + Project Conditions
Table 4.17-2 below compares opening year 2027 baseline conditions with Opening Year 2027 +
project conditions.
Table 4.17-2
COMPARISON OF OPENING YEAR 2027 BASELINE AND OPENING YEAR 2027 + PROJECT
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS CONDITIONS
Intersection Control
Type
Opening Year 2027
Baseline Conditions
Opening Year 2027
Baseline + Project
Conditions
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Cherry Ave (NS) at Beech Ave (EW) TS 122.3 F 74.8 E 127.8 F 75.1 E
2. Beech Ave (EW) at I-15 Southbound Ramps (NS) TS 21.4 C 9.1 A 28.6 C 9.4 A
3. Beech Ave (EW) at I-15 Northbound Ramps (NS) TS 22.8 C 65.3 E 23.5 C 73.4 E
4. Beech Ave (EW) at Summit Ave (NS) TS 127.1 F 120.5 F 129.1 F 124.0 F
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-3
July 2024
Intersection Control
Type
Opening Year 2027
Baseline Conditions
Opening Year 2027
Baseline + Project
Conditions
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
5. Cherry Ave (NS) at I-210 Westbound Ramps
(EW)
TS 47.9 D 35.6 D 53.4 D 38.6 D
6. Cherry Ave (NS) at I-210 Eastbound Ramps (EW) TS 35.1 D 36.6 D 35.9 D 41.0 D
7. Cherry Ave (NS) at S Highland Ave (EW) TS 25.8 C 23.3 C 27.7 C 29.1 C
8. S. Highland Ave (EW) at San Sevaine Rd (NS) AWSC 19.8 C 27.3 D 29.3 D 55.1 F
9. S Highland Ave (EW) at Hemlock Ave (NS) SSSC 14.1 B 20.3 C 15.4 C 24.6 C
10. S Highland Ave (EW) at Beech Ave (NS) TS 101.5 F 198.0 F 102.9 F 199.9 F
11. Cherry Ave (NS) at Victoria St (EW) TS Realigned Realigned
12. Cherry Ave (NS) at Walnut St (EW) SSSC 37.8 D 34.6 C 37.8 D 39.2 D
13. Baseline Ave (EW) at East Avenue (NS) TS 198.8 F 122.2 F 199.1 F 125.8 F
14. Baseline Ave (EW) at I-15 Northbound Ramps
(NS)
TS 22.3 C 33.6 C 26.3 C 34.9 C
15. Cherry Ave (NS) at Baseline Ave (EW) TS 210.9 F 298.1 F 216.7 F 301.0 F
16. Cherry Ave (NS) at Roanoke Rd (EW) TS 34.4 C 46.2 D 34.4 C 46.2 D
17. Cherry Ave (NS) at Meyer Canyon Rd (EW) TS 49.9 D 49.5 D 50.0 D 50.1 D
18. Cherry Ave (NS) at Foothill Blvd (EW) TS 212.8 F 228.3 F 215.5 F 233.9 F
19. S. Highland Ave (EW) at Project Driveway "A"
(NS)
SSSC
Not Applicable
12.8 B 16.6 C
20. S. Highland Ave (EW) at Project Driveway "B"
(NS)
SSSC 30.3 D 225.4 F
21. San Sevaine Rd (NS) at Project Driveway "C"
(EW)
SSSC 12.7 B 12.6 B
Source: DEA, 2024, p. 5.
Abbreviations: TS – Traffic Signal Controlled Intersection, AWSC – All Way Stop Controlled Intersection, SSSC – Side Street
Stop Controlled Intersection, Delay – seconds per vehicle, LOS – Level of Service
Comparison of Future Year 2050 Baseline and 2050 Baseline + Project Conditions
Table 4.17-3 below compares future year 2050 baseline conditions with future year 2050 + project
conditions.
Table 4.17-3
COMPARISON OF FUTURE YEAR 2050 BASELINE AND 2050 BASELINE + PROJECT INTERSECTION
CAPACITY ANALYSIS CONDITIONS
Intersection Control
Type
Future (Year 2050)
Baseline Condition
Future (Year
2050) Baseline +
Project Condition
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Cherry Ave (NS) at Beech Ave (EW) TS 138.4 F 112.0 F 148.7 F 117.7 F
2. Beech Ave (EW) at I-15 Southbound Ramps (NS) TS 120.5 F 13.8 B 121.1 F 15.2 B
3. Beech Ave (EW) at I-15 Northbound Ramps (NS) TS 23.7 C 136.5 F 24.2 C 144.5 F
4. Beech Ave (EW) at Summit Ave (NS) TS 182.3 F 386.4 F 182.6 F 387.3 F
5. Cherry Ave (NS) at I-210 Westbound Ramps
(EW)
TS 54.5 D 38.7 D 54.6 D 42.3 D
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-4
July 2024
Intersection Control
Type
Future (Year 2050)
Baseline Condition
Future (Year
2050) Baseline +
Project Condition
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
6. Cherry Ave (NS) at I-210 Eastbound Ramps
(EW)
TS 36.3 D 41.5 D 43.1 D 49.6 D
7. Cherry Ave (NS) at S Highland Ave (EW) TS 36.7 D 30.7 C 37.1 D 31.1 C
8. S. Highland Ave (EW) at San Sevaine Rd (NS) AWSC 86.1 F 127.9 F 112.2 F 157.7 F
9. S Highland Ave (EW) at Hemlock Ave (NS) SSSC 47.3 E 146.1 F 63.3 F 210.6 F
10. S Highland Ave (EW) at Beech Ave (NS) TS 113.5 F 201.1 F 115.3 F 211.4 F
11. Cherry Ave (NS) at Victoria St (EW) TS Realigned Realigned
12. Cherry Ave (NS) at Walnut St (EW) SSSC 47.5 D 41.6 D 48.4 D 43.9 D
13. Baseline Ave (EW) at East Avenue (NS) TS 341.5 F 162.0 F 342.2 F 163.5 F
14. Baseline Ave (EW) at I-15 Northbound Ramps
(NS)
TS 19.6 B 88.5 F 21.7 C 88.7 F
15. Cherry Ave (NS) at Baseline Ave (EW) TS 149.0 F 301.9 F 151.7 F 301.9 F
16. Cherry Ave (NS) at Roanoke Rd (EW) TS 34.6 C 47.1 D 34.9 C 50.9 D
17. Cherry Ave (NS) at Meyer Canyon Rd (EW) TS 50.2 D 50.6 D 50.8 D 51.8 D
18. Cherry Ave (NS) at Foothill Blvd (EW) TS 219.9 F 269.4 F 220.8 F 274.2 F
19. S. Highland Ave (EW) at Project Driveway "A"
(NS)
SSSC
Not Applicable
12.3 B 15.3 C
20. S. Highland Ave (EW) at Project Driveway "B"
(NS)
SSSC 39.8 E 129.5 F
21. San Sevaine Rd (NS) at Project Driveway "C"
(EW)
SSSC 17.6 C 20.7 C
Source: DEA, 2024, p. 6.
Abbreviations: TS – Traffic Signal Controlled Intersection, SSSC – Side Street Stop Controlled Intersection, Delay – seconds per
vehicle, LOS – Level of Service
Identification of Impacts and Mitigation of Intersection Level of Service Deficits
The Certified EIR sets forth 13 mitigation measures requiring improvements to roadways and
intersections; listed in Section 4.17.1 above. Mitigation measures analyzed in the following
scenarios presented below include signal timing optimization, traffic signal installation, all-way-stop-
control installation, and project driveways. These measures would be part of the implementation of
the approved mitigation measures for roadway improvement N-1 through N-10, and also part of the
implantation of the approved mitigation measure N-11 for intersection improvements.
Opening Year 2027 + Project Conditions with Mitigation
Table 4.17-4, presents intersections LOS with implementation of mitigation measures discussed
below. The last two columns in the table show the change in intersection delay in the peak hours. For
each intersection the first row shows the increase in delay with the project’s traffic added to the
opening year 2027 baseline conditions. The second row shows the change in delay with the project’s
traffic added to the opening year 2027 baseline conditions with implementation of feasible mitigation
measures. Negative changes in delay reflect an improvement in the intersection’s opening year 2027
baseline conditions meaning that the proposed mitigation offsets the delay caused by the addition of
the project’s traffic. Positive changes in delay are associated with implementation of traffic control
device mitigation measures (e.g., converting stop control to signal control) but which eliminates level
of service deficits altogether (e.g., LOS improves to LOS C or better) (DEA, 2024, p. 6).
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-5
July 2024
Table 4.17-4
COMPARISON OF OPENING YEAR 2027 BASELINE AND OPENING YEAR 2027 + PROJECT
CONDITIONS WITH MITIGATION
Intersection [a] Control
Type
Opening Year 2027
Baseline Conditions
Opening Year
2027 Baseline +
Project Conditions
Change in
Delay
(Seconds
) AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS AM PM
1. Cherry Ave (NS) at Beech Ave (EW) TS 122.3 F 74.8 E 127.8 F 75.1 E 5.5 0.3
Improvement: optimize timing 120.7 F 70.9 E -1.6 -3.9
3. Beech Ave (EW) at I-15 Northbound
Ramps (NS) TS 22.8 C 65.3 E 23.5 C 73.4 E 0.7 8.1
Improvement: optimize timing 22.7 C 64.7 E -0.1 -0.6
4. Beech Ave (EW) at Summit Ave (NS) TS 127.1 F 120.5 F 129.1 F 124.0 F 2.0 3.5
Improvement: optimize timing 123.4 F 120.0 F -3.7 -0.5
5. Cherry Ave (NS) at I-210 Westbound
Ramps (EW) TS 47.9 D 35.6 D 53.4 D 38.6 D 5.5 3.0
Improvement: optimize timing 51.2 D 35.5 D 3.3 -0.1
8. S. Highland Ave (EW) at San Sevaine Rd
(NS)
AWSC 19.8 C 27.3 D 29.3 D 55.1 F 9.5 27.8
Improvement: Install traffic signal with north/south protected left turn phasing
TS 29.0 C 33.7 C 9.2 6.4
10. S Highland Ave (EW) at Beech Ave (NS) TS 101.5 F 198.0 F 102.9 F 199.9 F 1.4 1.9
Improvement: optimize timing 100.0 F 183.0 F -1.5 -15.0
13. Baseline Ave (EW) at East Avenue (NS) TS 198.8 F 122.2 F 199.1 F 125.8 F 0.3 3.6
Improvement: optimize timing 191.7 F 115.4 F -7.1 -6.8
15. Cherry Ave (NS) at Baseline Ave (EW) TS 210.9 F 298.1 F 216.7 F 301.0 F 5.8 2.9
Improvement: optimize timing 207.3 F 277.4 F -3.6 -20.7
18. Cherry Ave (NS) at Foothill Blvd (EW) TS 212.8 F 228.3 F 215.5 F 233.9 F 2.7 5.6
Improvement: optimize timing 203.4 F 218.8 F -9.4 -9.5
20. S. Highland Ave (EW) at Project
Driveway "B" (NS)
SSSC
Not Applicable
30.3 D 225.4 F Not
Applicable Improvement: Install traffic signal with protected left turn phasing
TS 6.8 A 13.9 B
Source: DEA, 2024, p. 7.
Notes:
[a] Study intersections not included in this table have negligible or no project-related impacts or are included in the
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR - Addendum for the Cherry Avenue and Victoria Street Complete Streets Infrastructure
Project (RAISE) whose improvements have been integrated into this analysis.
Abbreviations: TS – Traffic Signal Controlled Intersection, SSSC – Side Street Stop Controlled Intersection, Delay – seconds
per vehicle, LOS – Level of Service
Signal Timing Optimization. Most of the study intersections are in built out areas of Fontana with
development fronting the streets approaching the intersection with no excess right of way in which
to add additional lanes. At these intersections—those which are signalized—the recommended
mitigation is to optimize the traffic signal timing while maintaining the city’s 130 second cycle length
requirement. As shown in Table 4.17-4, this measure reduces the project’s delay below the
intersection’s baseline delay, thus off- setting the project’s increase in delay and eliminating the
project’s impacts (DEA, 2024, p. 6).
Traffic Signal Installation. The project’s effect at the study intersection of S. Highland Avenue at San
Sevaine Road does “substantially and adversely change the LOS at an off-site location projected to
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-6
July 2024
experience deficient operations (a LOS D, E, or F) under foreseeable cumulative conditions”. The
addition of project traffic at this all-way-stop-controlled intersection changes the level of service
from a LOS C and LOS D to a LOS D and LOS F in the morning and afternoon peak hours respectively.
Further, this intersection meets warrants for the installation of a traffic signal.26 The proposed
mitigation measure for this intersection is for the project to contribute a fair-share to the cost of the
design and construction of the traffic signal (DEA, 2024, p. 7).
Project Driveways. The primary project access driveway on S. Highland Avenue—analyzed as a full-
access driveway with side-street stop-control—is projected to operate at a LOS D and a LOS F in the
morning and afternoon peak hours respectively. The deficient level of service can be mitigated with
the installation of a traffic signal. The driveway meets warrants for the installation of a traffic signal1.
A traffic signal at this driveway should be synchronized with the proposed traffic signal at S. Highland
Avenue at San Sevaine Road (DEA, 2024, p. 7).
Future Year 2050 + Project Conditions with Mitigation
Table 4.17-5 presents intersections levels of service with implementation of mitigation measures.
The table presents the same information as the previous table identifying the change in delay with
the addition of the project’s traffic to future year 2050 baseline traffic projections and the change in
delay after implementation of proposed improvements (DEA, 2024, p. 8).
Table 4.17-5
COMPARISON OF FUTURE YEAR 2050 BASELINE AND 2050 BASELINE + PROJECT CONDITIONS
WITH MITIGATION
Intersection [a] Control
Type
Future (Year 2050)
Condition
Future (Year 2050) +
Project Condition Change in
Delay
(Seconds)
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS AM PM
1. Cherry Ave (NS) at Beech Ave (EW) TS 138.4 F 112.0 F 148.7 F 117.7 F 10.3 5.7
Improvement: optimize timing 130.3 F 109.6 F -8.1 -2.4
3. Beech Ave (EW) at I-15
Northbound Ramps (NS) TS 23.7 C 136.5 F 24.2 C 144.5 F 0.5 8.0
Improvement: optimize timing 22.8 C 133.5 F -0.9 -3.0
6. Cherry Ave (NS) at I-210 Eastbound
Ramps (EW) TS 36.3 D 41.5 D 43.1 D 49.6 D 6.8 8.1
Improvement: optimize timing 36.0 D 39.9 D -0.3 -1.6
8. S. Highland Ave (EW) at San
Sevaine Rd (NS)
AWSC 86.1 F 127.9 F 112.2 F 157.7 F 26.1 29.8
Improvement: Install traffic signal with
north/south protected left turn phasing TS 41.2 D 54.9 D -44.9 -73.0
9. S Highland Ave (EW) at Hemlock
Ave (NS)
SSSC 47.3 E 146.1 F 63.3 F 210.6 F 16.0 64.5
Improvement: Convert to All-Way-
Stop-Control
AWSC 16.2 C 26.3 D -31.1 -119.8
10. S Highland Ave (EW) at Beech Ave
(NS) TS 113.5 F 201.1 F 115.3 F 211.4 F 1.8 10.3
Improvement: optimize timing 110.0 F 183.9 F -3.5 -17.2
13. Baseline Ave (EW) at East Avenue
(NS) TS 341.5 F 162.0 F 342.2 F 163.5 F 0.7 1.5
Improvement: optimize timing 336.4 F 160.1 F -5.1 -1.9
15. Cherry Ave (NS) at Baseline Ave
(EW) TS 149.0 F 301.9 F 151.7 F 301.9 F 2.7 0.0
Improvement: optimize timing 138.4 F 298.2 F -10.6 -3.7
26 Warrant 3 (Peak Hour) from the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD).
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-7
July 2024
18. Cherry Ave (NS) at Foothill Blvd
(EW) TS 219.9 F 269.4 F 220.8 F 274.2 F 0.9 4.8
Improvement: optimize timing 218.3 F 263.7 F -1.6 -5.7
20. S. Highland Ave (EW) at Project
Driveway "B" (NS)
SSSC
Not Applicable
39.8 E 129.5 F Not
Applicable Improvement: Install traffic signal with
protected left turn phasing TS 7.2 A 14.0 B
Source: DEA, 2024, p. 8.
Notes:
[a] Study intersections not included in this table have negligible or no project-related impacts or are included in the
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR - Addendum for the Cherry Avenue and Victoria Street Complete Streets Infrastructure
Project (RAISE) whose improvements have been integrated into this analysis.
Abbreviations: TS – Traffic Signal Controlled Intersection, SSSC – Side Street Stop Controlled Intersection, Delay – seconds
per vehicle, LOS – Level of Service
Signal Timing Optimization. In future year 2050 conditions, as traffic volumes and patterns change
over time, signal timing optimization remains an effective way to reduce the project’s delay to levels
less than the intersection’s baseline delay, thus off-setting the project’s increase in delay and
eliminating the project’s impacts (DEA, 2024, p. 8).
Traffic Signal Installation. No additional traffic signals are required under future year 2050
conditions (DEA, 2024, p. 8).
All-Way-Stop-Control Installation. The project’s effect at the study intersection of S. Highland
Avenue and Hemlock Avenue does “substantially and adversely change the LOS at an off-site location
projected to experience deficient operations (a LOS D, E, or F) under foreseeable cumulative
conditions”. The addition of project traffic at this side-street-stop-controlled intersection contributes
substantial delay to the baseline LOS F conditions in both peak hours. The proposed mitigation
measure for this intersection is for the project to pay the cost to implement all-way-stop-control and
associated pavement markings for the City of Fontana to install when warranted (DEA, 2024, p. 8).
Project Driveways. No additional mitigation is required beyond the proposed mitigation under
opening year 2027 conditions (DEA, 2024, p. 8).
As shown on Tables 4.17-4 and 4.17-5 above, implementation of approved WSR FEIR mitigation
measures N-1 through N-11, and especially N-11 for intersection improvements, the modified project
would have less than significant impacts and not result in additional impacts compared to the
Approved Project.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
The City of Fontana is exempt from congestion management program traffic impact analysis, as
described above in Section 4.17.1.
❖ SECTION 4.17 – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.17-8
July 2024
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
Construction
The Certified EIR determined that construction traffic hazard impacts were less than significant
through implementation of the standard construction safety measures, including use of flag men,
signage and appropriate construction area fencing.
Modified project construction would involve construction equipment and heavy trucks entering and
exiting the site to and from South Highland Avenue. Such movements could pose hazards to
motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists on South Highland Avenue. Modified project construction
would involve use of the same measures as those identified in the Certified EIR (such as use of flag
men, signage and appropriate construction area fencing; see discussion of Certified EIR Impact 4.N-
3 in Section 4.17.1 above) to reduce construction-phase traffic hazards. No new significant impact
would occur.
Operation
Modified project site access would be via three driveways: two from South Highland Avenue and one
from San Sevaine Road. Each of the intersections would be conventional and perpendicular or nearly
so. The proposed intersection designs would not create traffic hazards. Modified project site plans
include sidewalks along site frontages on both South Highland Avenue and San Sevaine Road, as do
the relevant roadway cross-sections in the WSP. No new impact would occur.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information
Construction
Modified project construction would involve temporary construction in South Highland Avenue for
utilities installation. The project proponent would be required to obtain a Traffic Control Permit from
the City of Fontana Engineering Department for work in roadway rights-of-way that would affect
traffic. The Engineering Department would ensure that emergency access to other properties was
maintained during review of the Traffic Control Permit application. No new impact would occur.
Operation
The modified project’s access points have been designed to accommodate emergency vehicles.
Modified project site access would be via three driveways: two from South Highland Avenue and one
from San Sevaine Road. Therefore, modified project operation would not result in inadequate
emergency access and no new impacts would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.18 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.18-1
July 2024
4.18 Utilities and Service Systems
4.18.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR)
Analysis and Conclusions
Water Supply Infrastructure (Impact 4.O.1-1): The Westgate Specific Plan Infrastructure Study
(Appendix L of the WSP Draft EIR) was prepared for the Approved Project to provide a general
estimate of the water distribution infrastructure necessary to serve land uses to be constructed
pursuant to the proposed Westgate Specific Plan. The intent of the domestic water analysis contained
in the Westgate Specific Plan Infrastructure Study was to determine the preliminary sizing and
alignments for the domestic water infrastructure required to support the future development of the
Approved Project (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.0.1-29]).
As noted in the infrastructure study, it is assumed that the delivery of domestic water can be provided
by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) and Fontana Water Company (FWC) infrastructure
currently in place near the project site. Domestic water pipeline sizes shown in Figure 4.O.1‐1, Water
Master Plan on page 4.O.1-27 of the approved WSP Draft EIR (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015])
were determined using engineering judgment and are roughly based on the extension of existing line
sizes to serve the Approved Project area. Existing water lines are abundant in the areas surrounding
the Approved Project, allowing new water lines for future development to have multiple points of
connection to the existing facilities. Pipeline sizes were compared against system demands placed on
each pipeline to validate the sizing recommendations. In general, as shown in the aforementioned
Figure 4.O.1‐1, Water Master Plan, new water lines will extend from those currently in existence,
matching existing line sizes, and completing the loops where necessary. As the city receives future
development proposals for the Approved Project site, each project will be reviewed to ensure that
adequate water conveyance infrastructure exists to serve each development. Therefore, the impacts
related to water distribution capacity would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services,
2015, p. 4.O.1-29]).
➢ Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Storm Drain Capacity - create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff (Impact 4.I-2): The Approved Project EIR did not address storm water
infrastructure capacity in Section 4.O, Utilities and Service Systems, but it was addressed in Section
4.I, Hydrology and Water Quality, under Impact Statement 4.I-2 (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015,
p. 4.I‐34]). The WSP includes one planned set of storm drains in Falcon Ridge that would discharge
into San Sevaine Basin 5 opposite the I-15 from the Approved Project site. A second set of planned
storm drains in the Westgate Central area discharges into the Highland Channel, which discharges
into the Etiwanda Creek Channel. Westgate East and the east half of Westgate West would be served
by storm drains that would extend south and discharge into an existing storm drain in Baseline
Avenue. Finally, the west half of Westgate West would include a set of storm drains that would
discharge into Etiwanda Creek Channel (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 3-59]).
Implementation of the Approved Project would not create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff. This impact is considered less than significant (WSP Draft EIR
[PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.I‐34]).
❖ SECTION 4.18 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.18-2
July 2024
Water Supply (Impact 4.O.1-2): Sufficient water supplies are available to service the project from
existing entitlements and resources, and no new or expanded entitlements are needed. This impact
is considered less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.O.1‐29]). The WSP is
located within the service areas of two water purveyors; the service area east of Cherry Avenue is
the Fontana Water Company, and the service area west of Cherry Avenue is the Cucamonga Valley
Water District (CVWD). The proposed project is located west of Cherry Avenue and is subsequently
located within the CVWD service area (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.O.1-1]).
The EIR summarizes that as demonstrated by the respective Water Study Assessments prepared by
CVWD and FWC (Appendix K of the WSP Draft EIR) and presented in Section 4.O of the WSP Draft
EIR, adequate water supply would be available to serve the Approved Project through buildout in
2035. As such, impacts related to water supply adequacy are considered less than significant and no
mitigation measures are required (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.O.1-37]).
However, even though the Approved Project would not result in significant impacts related to water
supply and no mitigation measures would be required, the mitigation measures included in the City
of Fontana 2003 General Plan EIR (GP EIR) are applicable to the Approved Project and would be
implemented, as appropriate, to ensure that impacts to water supply remain less than significant.
These mitigation measures are listed below as O-1 through O-5 below. (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services,
2015, p. 4.O.1-40])
➢ Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment Capacity (Impact 4.O.1-1): Approved Project
development would not (1) exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board; (2) require or result in the construction of new wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause
significant environmental effects; or (3) result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it does not have adequate capacity to meet the
projected demand of the project in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
Approved Project construction would generate a negligible amount of wastewater. Portable toilets
are expected to be provided by a private company and waste will be disposed off-site. The generation
of wastewater from construction activities is not expected to exceed the existing or planned IEUA
wastewater treatment capacity. Therefore, the impact of construction on the local wastewater
conveyance and treatment system would be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015,
p. 4.O.2-9]).
Approved Project operation would increase wastewater generation. Each developer of a project built
in accordance with the WSP would be required to pay standard IEUA sewer connection fees, which
are utilized to fund wastewater treatment and regional wastewa ter conveyance improvements
associated with the new development. Additionally, each project would be reviewed to ensure that
adequate wastewater conveyance facilities exist to serve each development site. These reviews
would address site-specific changes in wastewater generation associated with each development
project to identify the necessary improvements to the wastewater infrastructure for each planning
area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant upon implementation of Westgate Specific
Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures O-6 through O-9 (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.O.1-10]).
➢ Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated.
❖ SECTION 4.18 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.18-3
July 2024
Solid Waste - Landfill Disposal Capacity (Impact 4.O.3-1): Implementation of the Approved
Project would not exceed the capacity of the landfill serving the project area. This impact is
considered less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.O.3-7]). The City currently
contracts with Burrtec Waste Industries (Burrtec) to provide the city with refuse and recycling
disposal services that comply with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The Approved
Project is consistent with respective regulatory measures (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p.
4.O.3-2]).
Construction of future development projects as part of the Approved Project would generate
construction and demolition (C&D) waste including soil, wood, asphalt, concrete, paper, glass, plastic,
metals, and cardboard that would be disposed of at the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill, operated by the
County of San Bernardino, which currently accepts most solid waste from the City of Fontana, and is
located at 2390 North Alder Avenue, in Rialto. This facility is permitted to accept up to 7,500 tons per
day (TPD) of waste and is projected to have sufficient capacity to accept this amount of waste daily
until April 2033 (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.O.3-7]). Based on the incremental, long-
term buildout of the Approved Project, and the associated volume of C&D waste requiring disposal
for each new project within the Approved Project site, the volume of construction-related waste
requiring disposal is not expected to be substantial. Therefore, the Approved Project would be served
by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Approved Project’s solid waste
disposal needs during construction and impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Mitigation
Measures O-10 and O-11 are proposed to provide assurance that construction-related solid waste
impacts remain less than significant to the extent feasible (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p.
4.O.3-7]).
Approved Project operations would generate 43,467 pounds per day of solid waste, or a total of
approximately 7,932 tons per year. The project’s daily generation of solid waste represents
approximately 0.29‐percent of the maximum permitted daily capacity or 1.07‐percent of the average
daily tonnage for the Mid-Valley landfill (PCR, 2015b, p. 3-37). This amount of solid waste is well
within the permitted capacity of 7,500 tpd for the Mid‐Valley Landfill, which is projected to accept
this maximum daily volume of waste through 2033. The waste diversion for the Approved Project is
expected to be consistent with other similar developments within the City and divert a minimum of
50 percent of trash from landfills based on compliance with standard City practices and regulations.
The available capacity of existing and/or planned future landfills would not be exceeded, and
therefore the impacts on the generation of solid waste from project operations would be less than
significant. Mitigation measures O‐12 through O‐15, although not required, are proposed to ensure
that operational‐related solid waste impacts remain less than significant to the extent feasible (WSP
Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.O.3-8]).
The approved WSP would require future projects within the Approved Project site to be consistent
with existing refuse management programs within the City of Fontana and to divert a minimum of
50 percent of solid waste from landfills and to material recovery facilities, in accordance with AB 939,
and with standard City practices and regulations.
In addition, the Approved Project would also be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of
the Fontana General Plan (City of Fontana, 2003) regarding solid waste and recycling, as discussed
in the Approved Project Draft EIR (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.O.3-9]).
Chapter 3, Basis for Cumulative Analysis of the WSP Draft EIR identifies four related projects that are
anticipated to be developed within the vicinity of the project site. It is conservatively assumed that
each of these projects would contribute solid waste to the landfill serving the project site. The
❖ SECTION 4.18 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.18-4
July 2024
development of these related projects would generate solid waste during their respective
construction periods and on an ongoing basis during their operation. Construction of the proposed
project in conjunction with related projects would generate waste and cumulatively increase the
need for waste disposal at the Mid Valley landfill. As stated above, the Mid Valley Landfill will have
adequate capacity until 2033. As such, future shortages of disposal capacity in unclassified landfills
are not expected. Additionally, related projects would be subject to an environmental review on a
case‐by‐case basis and are therefore expected to recycle waste to the maximum extent feasible. Based
on the above, it is concluded that the cumulative impacts of solid waste on uncl assified landfills due
to project construction are less than significant and the project’s contribution to these impacts would
not be cumulatively considerable.
As the Approved Project would comply with all state, regional, and local plans, policies, and
regulations related to solid waste, its impact on consistency with relevant regulations would be less
than significant.
➢ Previous Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant Impact.
❖ SECTION 4.18 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.18-5
July 2024
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
No. Mitigation Measure
Water Supply
O-1 The City shall work closely with water supply agencies to ensure the continued supply of water.
[GP EIR MM W-1].
O-2 The City shall act to conserve water in whatever cost-effective ways are reasonably available.
[GP EIR MM W-2].
O-3 The City shall manage urban runoff to minimize water supply contamination. [GP EIR MM W-3].
O-4 The City shall collaborate with water management authorities to devise and implement creative
and cost-effective water management strategies. [GP EIR MM W- 4].
O-5 The City shall provide educational material to its residents and businesses regarding the critical
necessity for careful use of water and management of water systems. [GP EIR MM W-5].
Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment Capacity
O-6 The City shall maintain its current Master Plan of Sewers as the basis for development of a sewer
system to serve the community. [GP EIR MM WW-1].
O-7 The City shall design and operate its local and trunk sewer system in close collaboration with
the IEUA. [GP EIR MM WW-2].
O-8 The City shall establish and maintain an aggressive water recycling program. [GP EIR MM
WW-3].
O-9 The City shall devote sufficient financial support for wastewater system maintenance so that
current levels of service, health, and safety are sustained or improved. [GP EIR MM WW-4].
Solid Waste
O-10
Prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permit, the Applicant shall provide a
copy of the receipt or contract indicating that the construction contractor shall only contract for
waste disposal services with a company that recycles demolition and construction‐related
wastes. The contract specifying recycled waste service shall be presented to the Development
Services Department prior to approval of certificate of occupancy.
O-11
In order to facilitate on-site separation and recycling of construction related wastes, the
construction contractor shall provide temporary waste separation bins on‐site during
demolition and construction activities.
O-12 The City shall continue to maintain a contractual arrangement that achieves maximum recycling
rates at a reasonable price. [GP EIR MM SW-1].
O-13 Where joint programs offer improvement efficiency or reduced cost, the City shall collaborate
with other entities in recycling efforts. [GP EIR MM SW-2].
O-14
The City shall continue to provide services to residents and business citizens that facilitate
community cleanup, curbside collections, and diversion of oil and other hazardous waste
materials. [GPEIR MM SW-3].
O-15 The City should maintain an aggressive public information program to stimulate waste
reduction by its residents and business citizens. [GP EIR MM SW-4].
Source: WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. p 4.O.1-41, 4.O.2-14 – 4.O.2-15, 4.O.3‐10].
4.18.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
The potential impacts of the modified project and potential impacts on utilities and service systems
have been evaluated in light of the current environmental regulatory setting. The modified project is
within the ranges of land uses and land use intensity permitted on the modified project site by the
Approved Project on the modified project site. Thus, modified project development would not
increase utilities demands compared to the Approved Project. Impacts would be less than significant
and no new impact would occur.
❖ SECTION 4.18 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.18-6
July 2024
4.18.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist responses compare the Approved Project analyzed under the Certified FEIR
with the modified project as described in this document and analyze the potential impacts resulting
from its implementation.
Would the project:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing Ability
to Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation
or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the
waste water treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of
state or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related
to solid waste?
X
❖ SECTION 4.18 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.18-7
July 2024
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
Water Supply
The Approved Project site is located within the service area of the San Gabriel Valley Water Company
Fontana Division, referred to by its previous name of Fontana Water Company (FWC) in the Certified
EIR. The previous acronym FWC is used herein for convenience.
FWC’s water supply sources include groundwater pumped from the Chino, Rialto-Colton, and Lytle
groundwater basins; imported untreated surface water from the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California (MWD) purchased through the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA); local
surface water from Lytle Creek; and recycled water purchased from IEUA. Untreated imported MWD
water is treated at the FWC’s Summit Plant, which has capacity of 29 mgd or 32,480 acre-feet per
year (afy) (FWC, 2021, p. 6-4). The main sources of FWC water are groundwater and imported surface
water (FWC, 2021, p. 6-29).
The modified project consists of medical office uses in PA 27, implementing a portion of the WSP. The
building area proposed by the modified project is within the building area proposed for that site by
the WSP. Therefore, modified project development would not increase water demand compared to
that estimated for the WSP. Total water demand by WSP at buildout was estimated as 4,221 acre-feet
per year (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.0.1-31]). No impact would occur and there is no
change or new information requiring the preparation of an EIR.
Wastewater Treatment
The Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) supplies regional domestic wastewater treatment for the
City of Fontana; wastewater generated within the modified project would be treated at the IEUA
Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 4 (RP-4) about 3.6 miles south of the modified project site in the
city of Rancho Cucamonga. The City of Fontana operates sewers within its boundaries.
RPG-4 has 14 MGD capacity; the average daily flow in 2021 was about 10 MGD (IEUA, 2023).
The modified project consists of medical office uses in PA 27, implementing a portion of the WSP. The
land use type and intensity proposed by the modified project are within the relevant parameters of
the WSP. Therefore, modified project development would not increase wastewater generation
compared to that estimated for the WSP. The Approved Project at the buildout is estimated to
generate approximately 78,678 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater. No impact would occur and
there is no change or new information requiring the preparation of an EIR.
Stormwater Drainage
As discussed in Section 4.18-1 above, the Approved Project EIR did not address the capacity of
stormwater infrastructure in Section 4.O, Utilities and Service Systems, but was addressed in Section
❖ SECTION 4.18 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.18-8
July 2024
4.I, Hydrology and Water Quality, in Impact Statement 4.I-2. Approved Project impacts were found to
be less than significant (WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, p. 4.I‐34]).
Approved Project storm drainage plans relevant to the modified project include a 42 -inch storm
drain in Highland Avenue, and a storm drain in a segment of Cherry Avenue extending from Highland
Avenue south to Walnut Avenue that would be 42 inches along part of its length and 60 inches along
the remainder. The planned storm drain in Cherry Avenue would discharge into an existing 60-inch
storm drain in Cherry Avenue extending from Walnut Avenue south to Baseline Avenue where it
would discharge into an existing double 14-foot by 8-foot storm drain that extends west till it
discharges into San Sevaine Channel (Westgate Specific Plan [JHA Consulting, 2017, figure 4.I-3]).
The Approved Project and the modified project would both involve development of the entire
modified project site with buildings, hardscape, and landscaping. Thus, modified project
development is not expected to substantially increase runoff from the modified project site compared
to Approved Project development.
The modified project impacts would be less than significant, and no changes or new information
require the preparation of an EIR.
Electric Power
As noted in Section 4.6 of this document, the Westgate Specific Plan EIR did not include a separate
energy section due to the document preceding the official mandatory inclusion of the energy impact
determinations of Threshold 4.17 a) in the CEQA Appendix G checklist.
Moreover, as discussed in Section 4.6, the project would adhere to and exceed the applicable federal,
state, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including Title 24 of the CCR with respect to
building energy efficiency standards.
Electric power for the Approved Project will be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE). The
modified project site is vacant but within a developed urban area with well-established electricity
distribution infrastructure. A utility corridor including SCE and Southern California Gas (SCG)
traverses the Approved Project site paralleling the I-15 freeway near the west boundary of the
modified project site (SCE, 2023).
SCE typically uses existing utility corridors in its efforts to minimize environmental impact.
Furthermore, the company has implemented energy efficiency programs aimed at reducing energy
consumption while ensuring reliable service (SCE, 2023). Modified project development does not
require the construction of new or expanded electric power facilities beyond what has already been
approved.
The medical office uses proposed by the modified project are a portion of the Approved Project and
are within the land use types and intensity proposed by the Approved Project for the modified project
site. Therefore, modified project development would not increase electricity demand compared to
that of the Approved Project.
The project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded
electrical or natural gas facilities, or the construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects. Therefore, the impact of the project on electricity would be less than
significant, and no changes or new information require the preparation of an EIR.
❖ SECTION 4.18 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.18-9
July 2024
Natural Gas
The Southern California Gas Company (SCG) is the primary distributor of retail and wholesale natural
gas in Southern California, including the City of Fontana and the Approved Project area. The service
of SCG facilities to the modified project will be provided in accordance with the SCG's policies and the
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) rules governing gas distribution (CPUC, 2023).
Therefore, the impact of the project on natural gas would be less than significant, and no changes or
new information require the preparation of an EIR.
Telecommunications Facilities:
Telecommunication services, including Internet, phone, and television, for the City of Fontana are
provided by AT&T and Time Warner Cable Company (TWC) (City of Fontana, 2023). There are
existing TWC facilities on the west side of Cherry Avenue and along S ummit Avenue, and AT&T
operates two cell towers within the city limits. The modified project would not interfere with the
operation of the AT&T or TWC telecommunication facilities. Therefore, the impact of the project on
telecommunications facilities would be less than significant, and no changes or new information
require the preparation of an EIR.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
No Impact/No Changes or New Information
The FWC forecasts that it will have adequate water supply to meet the water demands of the modified
project, as demonstrated above. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no changes or new
information require the preparation of an EIR.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to meet the
projected demand of the project in addition to the existing commitments?
No Impact/No Changes or New Information
The wastewater generated by the modified project would not change total wastewater generation by
the WSP and would be well within the capacity of RP-4, as demonstrated above. Therefore, no impact
would occur, and no changes or new information require the preparation of an EIR.
d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
The Mid-Valley Landfill (MVL) currently accepts most of the City of Fontana solid waste with a
maximum of 7,500 tons per day (tpd) of waste with a remaining capacity of 61,219,377 tons and an
estimated closing date of 2045 (CalRecycle, 2023a). The remaining capacity of Mid-Valley Landfill
was not referenced in the 2015 Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR, so the 2023 remaining capacity
is used.
❖ SECTION 4.18 - UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.18-10
July 2024
The modified project implements the portion of the Approved Project within PA 27. The medical
office uses proposed by the modified project are within the land uses and land use intensity permitted
in PA 27 by the Approved Project. Therefore, modified project development would not increase
overall solid waste generation within the WSP. Thus, no impact would occur, and no changes or new
information require the preparation of an EIR.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939; California Integrated Waste Management Act); to address solid waste
problems and capacity comprehensively. The law required each city and county to divert 50 percent
of its waste from landfills by 2000. In response to this legislation, in 1990, the City of Fontana adopted
a comprehensive Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRR) and a Household Hazardous Waste
Element (HHW) to strategize and fund the diversion of solid waste from landfills. The project will
arrange for a recycling service as required for commercial uses, as required by AB 939.
Assembly Bill 341 (AB 341; Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) increases the statewide waste diversion
goal to 75 percent by 2020 and mandates recycling for commercial and multifamily residential land
uses. The project would include storage areas for recyclable materials in accordance with AB 341.
Assembly Bill 1826 (AB 1826; California Public Resources Code Section 42649.8 et seq.) requires the
recycling of organic matter by businesses and multifamily residences of five or more units, generating
such waste in amounts over certain thresholds. Organic waste means food waste, green waste,
landscape and pruning waste, non-hazardous wood waste, and paper waste soiled with food mixed
with food waste. The project would include the recycling of organic waste as required for businesses
under AB 1826.
Senate Bill 1383 (SB 1383; California Health and Safety Code Section 39730.5 et seq.) set goals to
achieve a 50 percent reduction in the level of statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level
by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. The law is intended to reduce methane emissions, a
short-lived climate pollutant, from the decomposition of organic waste in landfills, for the protection
of people in at-risk communities, and to reduce GHG emissions. The project would provide organics
collection services in accordance with SB 1383.
Section 4.408 (Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal, and Recycling) of the 2022 California Green
Building Standards Code (CALGreen; Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 11) requires that
at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from residential
construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. modified project construction would
include recycling and/or salvage of construction and demolition waste in conformance with
Section 4.408.
The development within the modified project area would be required to comply with federal, state,
and local laws and regulations related to solid waste. Compliance with applicable laws and
regulations would ensure that the impacts associated with solid waste are less than significant and
that no changes or new information require the preparation of an EIR.
❖ SECTION 4.19 - WILDFIRE ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.19-1
July 2024
4.19 Wildfire
When the EIR for the Approved Project was prepared in 2015, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G,
Environmental Checklist, did not contain a wildfire section. Wildfire risks arising from
implementation of the Approved Project were addressed in Section 4.H, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials. A wildfire section was added to Appendix G during the CEQA Guidelines Update completed
in December 2018. Wildfire risks due to Modified Project development are therefore analyzed in this
Section.
4.19.1 Summary of Previous Approved Project (Certified Westgate Specific Plan FEIR)
Analysis and Conclusions
A discussion of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan is included in the
DEIR in Section 4.H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials [WSP Draft EIR, 2015]. This information is also
included in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this document, and below as well.
The DEIR did not include a separate section for wildfire, nor did it include information about Fire
Hazard Severity Zones. However, the document does analyze the Specific Plan’s potential for impacts
regarding fire protection services and fire flow in the public services section of the DEIR (Section 4.0
Environmental Impact Analysis M. Public Services, Fire Protection [WSP Draft EIR, 2015]). This
information is also included in Section 4.14, Public Services, of this document.
The DEIR Section 6.0 Other Mandatory CEQA Considerations, Section F. Effects Found Not to be
Significant, 5. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, states that the project site is not located in an area
that has a significant amount of vegetation and is characterized by relatively flat topography.
Although sloped areas with extensive vegetation are located to the north of the project site in the San
Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains, these areas are located at a sufficient distance from the
project area that they do not pose a substantial risk to people or structures on‐site. Furthermore,
future development on‐site would be subject to all applicable standards and regulations related to
fire protection and prevention such that wildland fire hazards would be less than significant.
The Certified EIR stated that all major streets in the Approved Project site would serve as evacuation
routes. The EIR concluded that construction of projects in accordance with the Approved Project
could temporarily close roadways or lanes in or abutting the Approved Project site. The EIR stated
that all future projects would be required to provide sufficient emergency access; and would be
subject for review and approval by the San Bernardino County Fire Department for fire access roads
conforming with City of Fontana Fire Code requirements. Mitigation measures H-12 and H-13
(regarding emergency access) and M-1 through M-3 (regarding fire protection) would be
implemented, reducing fire hazards.
➢ Approved Project Determination: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
Westgate Specific Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
No. Mitigation Measure
M-1 The City shall maintain an average fire response time of 4 to 5 minutes. [GP EIR MM FS‐1]
M-2 The City shall continue to maintain an ISO fire rating of Class 3. [GP EIR MM FS‐2]
M-3 The City shall ensure that new fire stations are built in areas of new development so that
response times are not eroded. [GP EIR MM FS‐3]
❖ SECTION 4.19 - WILDFIRE ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.19-2
July 2024
No. Mitigation Measure
H-12
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, future developers shall prepare a Traffic Control
Plan (TCP) for implementation during the construction phase. The TCP may include, but is
not limited to, the following provisions:
• At least one unobstructed lane shall be maintained in both directions on surrounding
roadways.
• At any time only a single lane is available, the developer shall provide a temporary
traffic signal, signal carriers (i.e., flagpersons), or other appropriate traffic controls
to allow travel in both directions.
• If construction activities require the complete closure of a roadway segment, the
developer shall provide appropriate signate indicating detours/alternative routes.
H-13
Prior to construction, the City of Fontana Engineering Department shall consult with the
City of Fontana Police Department to disclose temporary closures and alternative travel
routes, in order to assure adequate access for emergency vehicles when construction of
future projects would result in temporary lane or roadway closures.
Source: WSP Draft EIR [PCR Services, 2015, pp. 4H-21, 4H-22, 4M-27, and 4M-28].
4.19.2 Summary of Approved Project versus Modified Project Impacts
The proposed project’s potential impacts regarding wildfire have been evaluated considering the
present environmental regulatory setting. The modified project would be similar to the previous
project in that it is located within the Specific Plan area and wildfire hazards have already been
evaluated for the Approved Project site. Therefore, modified project impacts would be similar to
those of the approved project and no additional significant impacts beyond those identified for the
approved project would occur.
4.19.3 Modified Project Analysis and Conclusions
The following checklist responses compare the previous approved project analyzed under the
adopted FEIR with the modified project as described in this document, and analyze the potential
impacts resulting from the development.
If located in or near state
responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high
fire hazard severity zones,
would the project:
Addendum to EIR
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring Major
EIR Revisions
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce
Significant
Effects in
Previous EIR
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an
adopted emergency
response plan or
emergency evacuation
plan?
X
❖ SECTION 4.19 - WILDFIRE ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.19-3
July 2024
If located in or near state
responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high
fire hazard severity zones,
would the project:
Addendum to EIR
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstances
Requiring Major
EIR Revisions
New
Information
Showing
Ability to
Reduce
Significant
Effects in
Previous EIR
Less Than
Significant
Impacts/No
Changes or
New
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an EIR
No
Impact
b) Due to slope, prevailing
winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose
project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation
or maintenance of
associated infrastructure
(such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in
temporary or ongoing
impacts to the
environment?
X
d) Expose people or
structures to significant
risks, including
downslope or
downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage
changes?
X
State Responsibility Areas or Lands Classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is legally mandated to
periodically map Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) (Public Resources
Code 4201-4204) as well as recommend Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility
Areas (LRAs) (Government Code 51175-51189).27 CAL FIRE established the Fire and Resource
Assessment Program (FRAP) to develop a statewide, consistent logic and science-based model for
Fire Hazard Zoning for adoption of new building standards. CAL FIRE’s mapped Fire Hazard Severity
27 In SRA the State is responsible for the cost of wildfire prevention and suppression; in LRA cities and counties are
responsible for such costs.
❖ SECTION 4.19 - WILDFIRE ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.19-4
July 2024
Zones for SRAs and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) in LRAs are shown on
Figures 4.19‐1, Fire Hazard Severity Zone - State Responsibility Area (SRA), and 4.19‐2, Fire Hazard
Severity Zone - Local Responsibility Area (LRA). As shown on these maps, the project site is not
located within an SRA or within a VHFHSZ in LRA. However, a VHFHSZ-SRA is located 2.8 miles north
of the project site and a VHFHSZ-LRA located approximately 0.5-mile northwest from the project site
(CAL FIRE, 2023).
❖ SECTION 4.19 - WILDFIRE ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.19-5
July 2024
Figure 4.19-1
FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE - STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREA (SRA)
❖ SECTION 4.19 - WILDFIRE ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.19-6
July 2024
Figure 4.19-2
FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE - LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA (LRA)
❖ SECTION 4.19 - WILDFIRE ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.19-7
July 2024
a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
As detailed above, the proposed project site is not located within an SRA Fire Hazard Severity Zone
or within a VHFHSZ in an LRA. However, as shown on Figure 4.19-1, the project site is located
approximately 2.8 miles south from an SRA Fire Hazard Severity Zone and approximately 0.5 mile
southeast from a VHFHSZ LRA (Figure 4.19-2). The City of Fontana has established evacuation plans
through the establishment of the City’s Emergency Management Program and Emergency Operations
Plan (EOP). Additionally, Fire Station #80 is planned to be constructed at Cherry Avenue and S.
Highland Avenue approximately the same time as this project (Lee, 2024a).
Furthermore, the city has accommodated for continued growth and development in VHFHSZs and
the proposed project would not affect efficacy of established fire safety plans. The City of Fontana
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) discusses establishing criteria for land development to
decrease risk of wildfire in Section 6.3, Mitigation Goals and Projects of the LHMP (City of Fontana,
2017). Since the project is near but not located in an SRA or LRA and development near LRAs and
VHFHSZs has been accounted for in the City’s safety plans, the project would not impair
implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan and no new impact would occur.
b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
As detailed above, the project site is not within areas classified as VHFHSZs, however the project site
is near a VHFHSZ in LRA. No slopes which could exacerbate wildfire risks are on the project site.
Therefore, the project would not expose project occupants (residents, workers, customers, or
visitors) to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Impacts
would be less than significant.
c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
As detailed above, the project site is not located in lands classified as VHFHSZs but the project site is
approximately 0.5 miles southeast from a VHFHSZ in an LRA (CAL-FIRE, 2023). However, the project
would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate
fire risk. All infrastructure other than roadways would be installed underground. The project site is
in an urban setting; no wildland vegetation is on or next to the project site. The project would be
❖ SECTION 4.19 - WILDFIRE ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.19-8
July 2024
constructed in compliance with applicable building and fire codes. Therefore, the modified project
would have a less than significant impact and no new impact would occur.
d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
The project site is not located in areas or lands classified as VHFHSZs but is approximately 0.5 mile
from a VHFHSZ in a LRA (CAL-FIRE, 2023). The project site is relatively flat and is not located in an
area with significant slopes. Thus, project development would not exacerbate existing hazards
consequent to wildfire such as downslope or downstream flooding or landslides. Impacts would be
less than significant.
❖ SECTION 4.20 – MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.20-1
July 2024
4.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Does the project have:
New
Information
Showing New
or Increased
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
New
Information
Showing Ability
to Reduce, but
Not Eliminate
Effects
Compared to
the Certified
Westgate
Specific Plan
FEIR
Less than
Significant
Impacts/
No Changes or
New
Information
Requiring the
Preparation of
an MND or EIR
No
Impact
a) The potential to degrade the
quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species, cause
a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major
periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
b) Impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects
of probable future projects)?
X
c) Environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
X
The Westgate Specific Plan EIR concluded the following:
Degradation of the Environment
Section 15065(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project may have a significant impact on the
environment if it has the potential to “substantially degrade the quality of the environment.” The
Certified EIR details all potential environmental effects associated with development at a program
level of analysis, including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the following environmental
issue areas: (PCR, 2015, p. i)
Aesthetics/Visual Resources
❖ SECTION 4.20 – MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.20-2
July 2024
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire
The Certified EIR discuses all potential environmental impacts, the level of significance prior to
mitigation, project requirements that are required by law, feasible mitigation measures, and the level
of significance after the incorporation of mitigation measures.
Long-Term Impacts
Section 15065(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project may have a significant effect on the
environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to achieve
short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. Section 6.0A,
Significant Unavoidable Impacts, of the Westgate Specific Plan EIR addresses the short -term and
irretrievable commitment of natural resources and concludes that the future consumption of
resources in relation to future development would not be considered wasteful or unjustifiable.
Section 6.0, Significant Unavoidable Impacts, of the Westgate Specific Plan EIR PEIR identifies the
following significant and unavoidable impacts that could occur and that could result in a long-term
impact on the environment: agriculture and forestry; air quality; cultural resources; noise; and
transportation/traffic (PCR, 2015, p. 6-1). Section 6.0D, Growth Inducing Impacts, of the Westgate
Specific Plan EIR identifies long-term environmental impacts caused by the approved project. The
Westgate Specific Plan project would not spur additional growth in Fontana other than that already
anticipated in the SCAG growth forecasts, and would not eliminate impediments to growth.
Therefore, the Westgate Specific Plan project would not foster growth inducing impacts that would
result in both direct and indirect growth inducement (PCR January 2015, p. 6-4).
Cumulative Impacts
Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project may have a significant effect on the
environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has potential environmental effects
that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that
the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects. Cumulative impacts are addressed for each of the environmental topics listed above and are
provided in Sections 4.0A-4.0O of the Westgate Specific Plan EIR.
❖ SECTION 4.20 – MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.20-3
July 2024
Impacts on Species
Section 15065(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project may have a significant effect on the
environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species; Section 4.0D, Biological
Resources, of the Westgate Specific Plan EIR addresses potential impacts on species.
Impacts on Historical Resources
Section 15065(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project may have a significant effect on the
environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to eliminate
important examples of a major periods of California history or prehistory. Section 4.0E, Cultural
Resources, of the Westgate Specific Plan EIR addresses impacts related to California history and
prehistory, historic resources, archaeological resources and paleontological resources.
Impacts on Human Beings
As required by § 15065(a)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may have a significant effect on the
environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. While changes to the
environment that could indirectly affect human beings are possible for all designated CEQA issue
areas, those areas that could directly affect human beings include: air quality; greenhouse gases,
hazards and hazardous materials; noise; public services, utilities and infrastructure; and traffic and
circulation, each of which are addressed in the appropriate sections of the Westgate Specific Plan EIR.
4.20.1 Project Impact Analysis
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
Vineyard is the primary land cover occurring within the modified project site, and contains
disturbed soils of low-quality habitat value for sensitive plant species. Implementation of the
modified project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations by the CDFW or USFWS. The modified project site does not
support wetland or riparian habitats. The modified project site is adjacent to the Highland Channel,
a water of the U.S. However, drainage onsite in both existing conditions and after modified project
development is southwest toward South Highland Avenue, and not north toward Highland Channel;
thus, project development is not expected to cause impacts to Highland Channel.
The modified project site provides potential nesting, hunting, and foraging habitat for special-status
bird species as well as for bird species protected by the MBTA. However, with the implementation
of WSP FEIR Mitigation Measure D-5, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, modified
project impacts to biological resources would involve no changes or new information compared to
❖ SECTION 4.20 – MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.20-4
July 2024
the WSP FEIR, and would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Refer to Section 4.4
for details regarding the modified project’s potential impacts on biological resources.
The Certified EIR determined that Approved Project impacts on historical resources would be
significant and unavoidable. The cultural resources inventory supporting this Addendum did not
identify significant historical or archaeological resources onsite.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
As described throughout this Addendum, the modified project would have no impacts beyond those
analyzed in the previous EIR, and therefore, there is no new information showing new or increased
effects, including cumulative impacts, compared to the Certified FEIR.
The modified project is one of many projects anticipated to be implemented within the Westgate
Specific Plan (“Approved Project”) site. The modified project would not significantly change the
Approved Project relative to CEQA in that the modified project does not change the assumptions,
analysis, conclusions, or mitigation for the Approved Project. The components of the modified project
do not modify the Approved Project’s significance conclusions nor would the conclusions provide
significant new information. The modified project does not result in major revisions to the Westgate
Specific Plan EIR and no new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity
of previously identified significant effects would occur with implementation of the modified project.
The modified project would not warrant preparation of a Subsequent EIR.
The modified project’s impacts have been fully examined and mitigated to the extent discussed in
this Addendum. The modified project does not require substantial changes to the certified Westgate
Specific Plan EIR, or previously adopted mitigation measures. Thus, the appropriate CEQA document
for the modified project, as outlined in CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15164, is the preparation of
this Addendum to the previously certified Westgate Specific Plan EIR.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information
As detailed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the modified project would implement
WSP FEIR Mitigation Measure E-1 to E-5 to ensure that construction would not cause significant
hazardous materials impacts. The modified project would store, transport, and use small amounts of
hazardous materials such as janitorial and landscaping supplies; in addition to medical waste. These
materials would be stored, handled, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. There
are no proposed future operations that would involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials or hazardous wastes that may create a significant hazard to the public or
environment. Therefore, no adverse effects to human health are anticipated either directly or
indirectly due to risk of accident or upset conditions. Additionally, as detailed throughout the
document, none of the environmental topics would have significant impacts. Therefore, with the
❖ SECTION 4.20 – MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 4.20-5
July 2024
implementation of certified EIR mitigation measures, impacts on human beings would be less than
significant.
Conclusions
Modified project construction and operation would not involve any new information or changes
compared to the WSP FEIR. Additionally, the modified project would not have any significant impacts
with the incorporation of mitigation measures set forth in the WSP FEIR. Therefore, modified project
development would not cause cumulatively considerable impacts and would not require preparation
of a subsequent EIR.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 5-1
July 2024
5.0 REFERENCES
Airnav.com. 2023. Airport Information. Accessed online at: http://airnav.com/airports/, on June 1,
2023.
CALFIRE, 2023. FRAP – FHSZ Viewer. Accessed online at: http://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed on
May 3, 2023.
Calflora, 2023. Information on California plants for education, research and conservation.
Observation Search. Available at https://www.calflora.org/entry/observ.html. Accessed on
May 24, 2023.
Cal-IPC (California Invasive Plant Council), 2006. California Invasive Plant Inventory. Cal -IPC
Publication 2006-02. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA. Accessed online at:
https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/inventory/ Accessed on July 16, 2022.
California Geological Survey (CGS). 2023. Data Viewer. Accessed online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/DataViewer/, on January 4, 2023.
CalRecycle, 2023a. Solid Waste Landfill Data, Accessed online at
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LandfillTipFees/ViewReport on June 5, 2023.
CalRecycle, 2023b. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details - Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055)
Accessed online at
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662 on
June 5, 2023.
Caltrans, 2023. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed online at
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46c
c8e8057116f1aacaa, accessed on May 31, 2023.
CAPCOA, 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association. Accessed online at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/ceqa/handbook/capcoa-quantifying-greenhouse-gas-mitigation-measures.pdf on
March 12, 2024.
CAPCOA, 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model®, Version 2022.1. California Air Pollution
Control Officers Association. Accessed online at https://www.caleemod.com/ on May 17,
2023.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Game). 2022. California Natural Community List. July 5,
2022. Retrieved from https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities.
Accessed on February 20, 2023
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife) 2023. BIOS Habitat Connectivity Viewer.
Accessed at ftp://ftp.dfg.ca.gov/BDB/GIS/BIOS/Habitat_Connectivity/. Accessed on
February 20, 2023.
CDM Smith, 2013. Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans. Dated June
17, 2013.Accessed online at
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 5-2
July 2024
https://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/DPW/docs/SantaAnaRiver-WQMP-Final-
June2013.pdf on March 29, 2023.
City of Fontana, 1989. City of Fontana and County of San Bernardino Upper Etiwanda Creek & San
Sevaine Creek Area Drainage Plan. Dated September 1989. Accessed online at
https://www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/DPW/docs/20090708_dpw_etiwanda_san_sevaine_f
ee_plan1.pdf on March 29, 2023.
City of Fontana. 2006. Master Storm Drain Plan and Master Storm Drainage Benefit Areas Map.
Prepared by the City of Fontana Department of Engineering/Mapping.
City of Fontana, 2017. City of Fontana Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2017. Accessed online at:
https://fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28274/2017-Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan.
Accessed on May 3, 2023.
City of Fontana, 2018a. Fontana Forward General Plan Update. Adopted February November 13,
2018. Accessed online at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28271/Complete-Document---
Approved-General-Plan-Documents-11-13-2018 on March 27, 2023.
City of Fontana. 2018b. Fontana Forward General Plan Update Draft EIR. Adopted June 8, 2018.
Accessed online at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29525/Final-
Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update on March 27, 2023.
City of Fontana. 2018c. Fontana Forward General Plan Update Final EIR. Adopted August 10, 2018.
Accessed online at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/29524/Draft-
Environmental-Impact-Report-for-the-General-Plan-Update on March 27, 2023.
City of Fontana, 2023a. General Plan Land Use Map. Adopted February 8, 2022. Accessed online at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/28163/General-Plan-Land-Use-Map-
04-20-2022?bidId= on March 27, 2023.
City of Fontana, 2023b. Zoning District Map. Adopted on April 20, 2022. Accessed online at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/30623/Zoning-District-Map-3-2-
21?bidId= accessed on March 27, 2023.
CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database), 2023a. Maps and Data (Internet). California
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Available at https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-
and-Data. Accessed on April 15, 2023.
CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database), 2023b. Natural Diversity Database. Special Animals
List. April 2023. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. Available at.
Last accessed on https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406&inline.
Accessed May 2, 2023.
CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database), 2023c. Natural Diversity Database. State and
Federally Listed Endangered and Rare Plants of California. April 2023. California
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. Available at
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109390. Accessed May 19, 2023.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 5-3
July 2024
CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database), 2023d. Natural Diversity Database. State and
Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. April 2023. California
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. Available at
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109405&inline. Accessed May 19,
2023.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society), 2022a. Rare Plant Program. Inventory of Rare and
Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Available at
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed on July 5, 2022.
CNPS, 2022b. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition. California Native Plant Society, CA.
1300 pp. Retrieved from: http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/. Accessed on July 7,
2022.
Contech, 2019. Contech® Engineered Solutions: Stormwater Management, Underground
Stormwater Detention and Infiltration. Accessed online at https://www.conteches.com/
stormwater-management/detention-and-infiltration/ on January 8, 2019.
Crawford, B., C. Ballard and W. Kunzman, 2013. Westgate Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis.
Kunzman Associates, Inc., Orange, CA. December 30, 2013.
DEA (David Evans and Associates, Inc.), 2024. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis, Westgate Medical Campus
(Planning Area 27 of the Westgate Specific Plan). July 17, 2024.
DOC, 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed online at
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/, on February 6, 2023.
DOF (Department of Finance), 2020. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and
the State, 2020-2022. Accessed online at
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-
estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/, on February 28, 2023.
Dutcher, L. C. and Garrett, Arthur A., 1963. Geologic and Hydrologic Features of the San Bernardino
Area, California. Available at L. C. Dutcher and Arthur A. Garrett. Accessed on May 24, 2023.
DWR (California Department of Water Resources), 2023. Water Data Library; Groundwater Levels
for Station 341217N1175119W001. Available at
http://wdl.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/. Accessed online at
https://www.fusd.net/cms/lib/CA50000190/Centricity/Domain/4/Fontana%20Unified
%20Developer%20Fee%20Justification%20Study%202022.pdf on March 23, 2023.
eBird. 2023. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. All About Birds. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.
Available at https://www.allaboutbirds.org. Accessed on March 11, 2023.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Panel
06071C7915H. Map revised August 28, 2008. Available at the FEMA Flood Map Service
Center https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Downloaded on January 10, 2019.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 5-4
July 2024
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2014. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Panel
06071C7895J. Map revised August 28, 2008. Available at the FEMA Flood Map Service
Center https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. Downloaded on January 10, 2019.
Fuscoe Engineering, 2012. WSP DEIR Appendix H, Water Quality & Hydrology Technical Report.
Prepared for PCH Services Corporation, Dated September 10, 2012.
FWC (Fontana Water Company). 2022. Water Treatment. Available at
http://www.fontanawater.com/water-quality-supply/water-treatment/. Accessed on June
10, 2022.
FWC (Fontana Water Company). 2021. San Gabriel Valley Water Company – Fontana Division 2020
Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Dated June 2021. Accessed online at
https://www.fontanawater.com/water-quality-supply/2020-urban-water-management-
plan/ on June 5, 2023.
Google Earth Pro, 2023. V 7.3.6.9345 (December 29, 2022). City of Fontana, San Bernardino County,
California, U.S.A. 34.°07’43.63”N-117°29’24.83”W. Imagery date: December 1985-
September 2021. Eye alt 1,355 feet. Accessed on March 5, 2023.
IEAU, 2023. Regional Water Recycling Plant No.4 (RP-4). Accessed online at
https://www.ieua.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Final02_RP4-Brochure-.pdf on June
2, 2023.
IPCC, 2007a. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007.
Hogan, J., 2023. Email. January 30, 2023.
JHA Consulting, 2017. City of Fontana Westgate Specific Plan. Adopted February 14, 2017. Accessed
online at https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/18283/West-Gate-Specific-
Plan---Approved-March-2017?bidId= on March 29, 2023.
LACSD (Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts), 2023. Wastewater Treatment Process. Accessed
online at: https://www.lacsd.org/services/wastewater-sewage/facilities/wastewater-
treatment-process, on May 31, 2023.
Lee, Millard, 2024a. Email from Millard Lee (Millard Lee Consulting) to Michael Milroy (UltraSystems
Environmental, Inc.) regarding EIR Addendum Comments. January 5, 2024.
Lee, Millard, 2024b. Telephone communication with Betsy Lyndsay regarding xxxxx, UltraSystems.
January 11, 2024.
McKernan, R.L., 1997. The status and known distribution of the San Bernardino Kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys merriami parvus): Field surveys conducted between 1987 and 1996. Prepared
for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Morton, D. M., and R. Streitz., 1969. Reconnaissance Map of Major Landslides, San Gabriel Mountains,
California. Accessed online at
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse on March 29, 2023.
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 5-5
July 2024
PCR (PCR Services Corporation), 2015a. WSP Draft EIR, Westgate Specific Plan. Accessed online at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/38282/Westgate-Specific-Plan-Draft-
EIR on February 6, 2023.
PCR (PCR Services Corporation), 2015b. WSP Final EIR, Westgate Specific Plan. Accessed online at
https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/3828 3/Westgate-Final-EIR on March
27, 2023.
SBCDPW (County of San Bernardino Department of Public Works). 2014. Road System Map Series:
Map 15V11. Available at http://web.sbcounty.gov/dpw/GIS/CMRS/PDF/15V11.pdf.
Accessed on April 6, 2023.
SBCFD, 2019 – San Bernardino County Fire Department, About CUPA. Accessed online at:
https://www.sbcfire.org/ofm/Hazmat/CUPA.aspx on January 21, 2019.
Shuford et al. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species,
subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in
California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camari llo, California,
and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Sibley, David Allen. 2000. National Audubon Society, The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New
York
Soil Survey Staff, 2023. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of
Agriculture, Web Soil Survey: Custom Soil Resource Report, San Bernardino County,
California. Available at https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Downloaded on April 20,
2023.
SCAQMD 2017a – Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. South Coast Air Quality Management
District. March 2017.
SCAQMD 2019 – SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. South Coast Air Quality Management
District. Revision: March 2015. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/
handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf . Accessed January 2019.
SCAQMD, 2009. Localized Significant Thresholds. Appendix C. South Coast Air Quality Management.
Accessed online at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-
significance-thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2. On May 16,
2023.
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2023. Construction Stormwater Program. Accessed
online at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/construction.html
on March 29, 2023.
Tucker, J., 2024. Email from RK Engineering Group, Inc. to Michael Milroy, UltraSystems
Environmental Incorporated. February 28.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2017. Public Notice/Application No. SPL -2016-00378-PKK
for the Chino Basin Recharge Facilities Operations and Maintenance Project. Available at
❖ SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 5-6
July 2024
https://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Portals/17/Users/117/09/1909/SPL-2016-
00378_PN_20170214_Chino_Basin.pdf?ver=2017-02-21-102754-630. Downloaded on
March 27, 2023.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2023a. WATERS GeoViewer. Available at
https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-geoviewer. Accessed on April 19, 2023.
USEPA, 2011. “Methane.” Climate Change Web Site. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www.epa.gov/methane/. Updated April 1, 2011.
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2022a. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. Official
Species List: Consultation Code: 2022-0063454. Carlsbad, California. Retrieved from
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed on July 13, 2022.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2022b. USFWS Critical Habitat Portal:
http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/. Accessed on July 13, 2022.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2022c. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) website, National
Wetlands Mapper. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
D.C. Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed on July 16, 2022.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) 2001. Devore Quadrangle, California, 7.5-Minute Series [map]. Scale
1:24,000. Prepared in cooperation with the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District,
U.S. Forest Service, (San Bernardino National Forest) and the California Division of Mines
and Geology. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/0173/pdf/of01-173_map.pdf. Accessed on
May 9, 2023.
US Geological Survey (USGS). 2022. The National Map. Accessed online at:
https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/advanced-viewer/, on May 17, 2022.
US Geological Survey (USGS). 2023. Areas of Land Subsidence in California. Accessed online at:
https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html, on January
4, 2023.
❖ SECTION 6.0 – LIST OF PREPARERS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 6-1
July 2024
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
6.1 Lead Agency (CEQA)
Cecily Session-Goins, Planning Contractor
DiTanyon Johnson, Principal Planner
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335-3528
6.2 Project Applicant
Douglas Ford, Vice President
Jeff Pierson, Vice President/COO
Intex Properties Corporation
4001 Via Oro Avenue
Long Beach, CA 90810
6.3 UltraSystems Environmental, Inc.
6.3.1 Environmental Planning Team
Betsy Lindsay, MURP, ENV SP, Project Director
Michael Milroy, MS, Senior Project Manager
Victor Paitimusa, BA, ENV SP. Assistant Project Manager
6.3.2 Technical Team
Allison Carver, BS, BS, Senior Biologist II
Amir Ayati, BS, Staff Scientist
Andrew Soto, BA, Word Processing
Audrey McNamara, BA, Staff Biologist
Billye Breckenridge, BA, Assistant Project Manager, Senior GIS Analyst
Gulben Kaplan, MS, GIS Analyst
Matthew Sutton, MS, ISA, Staff Biologist
Megan Black, BA, Archaeological Technician
Michael Rogozen, D. Env, Senior Principal Engineer
Steve O’Neil, MS, RPA, Cultural Resources Manager
❖ SECTION 6.0 – LIST OF PREPARERS ❖
7170G/Westgate PA27 Medical Office Addendum #6 Page 6-2
July 2024
6.3.3 Consultants Working under the Project Applicant
FORMA
H. Gene Hsieh, Principal/Executive Vice President
Scott Armsworth, Senior Project Manager
Millard Lee Consulting
Millard Lee, Studio Principal - AIA, NCARB, DBIA
John Hogan Consulting
John C. Hogan, PE, Principal
RK Engineering
Justin Tucker, Associate Principal
Stetson Engineers Inc.
Stan Chen, PE
Converse Consultants
Hashmi Quazi, PhD, PE, GE
c|a Architects
Miguel Cuevas, AIA, Caren Cupp, AIA
ima Design
William Schulz, ASLA